Neoliberalism, to be sure, is a global phenomenon, not a Democratic Party's specialty. Within the same global framework, there are a great deal of differences, though. For instance, different origins and subsequent developments created different political party structures today. Unlike the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Democratic Party of the United States has neither individual nor affiliated members -- instead, it has donors who give money to it and individuals, the majority of whom have no direct way to participate in policy-making in the Democratic Party, who get mobilized by it and unions and non-profits whose leaders support the Democratic Party elite.
> > The New Democratic Party is a political party, with individual
>> members who pay dues and affiliated members (predominantly trade
>> unions but also farm groups, co-operatives, women's organizations,
>> etc.) that pay per capita fees (twenty cents per member per month as
>> of January 1, 1985, payable to the Federal Party). Its leader is
>> selected by ballots cast by party members, with 25% of the votes
>> allocated among affiliated members by the party constitution ...
>> The Democratic Party leader is selected, however, neither by votes of
>> rank-and-file activists nor block votes of trade unions. The
>> proliferation of primaries has made Democratic Party Conventions
>> irrelevant, except as shows for the general public.
>
>It's more progressive to have a dues-paying membership with formal
>constitutional rights, as in the NDP.
Here, it's not a difference in degree but in kind. The Democratic Party, unlike the New Democratic Party, has _no_ democratic structure in which rank-and-file activists can struggle -- unless they choose to engage in civil disobedience, demonstrations, etc. at state and national conventions.
>But I'm not sure how that plays out in practice. The methods of
>selecting the party leader (I assume you're referring to the
>presidential candidate rather than the DNC chair) don't appear to be
>that different.
The Democratic Party equivalent of the New Democratic Party leader is neither the Democratic National Committee chair nor the presidential candidate alone. The Democratic Party has a loosely collective leadership. Neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Democratic Leadership Council are elected. They are only accountable to donors, not at all to activists or voters.
> > In short, the Democratic Party isn't exactly a political party --
>> it's like a collection of candidate-centered fund-raising machines,
>> connected with 527s and other non-profits which are also fund-raising
>> machines that occasionally double as top-down mobilization machines.
>> Therefore, working-class Americans -- directly or indirectly through
>> unions and non-profits -- can choose to volunteer for goals set by
>> the owners and managers of fund-raising machines, but they cannot
>> change them or set new ones, nor do they control the strategies and
>> tactics determined by the owners and managers of fund-raising
>> machines. Working for the Democratic Party is not a little like
>> working for a corporation, except that, when you work for a
>> corporation, you probably get paid better and, if you don't, at least
>> you can try to get unionized and bargain collectively.
>
>You'd unfortunately get the same answer from generations of left
>NDP'ers who have expended much effort trying to change or set new
>"goals, strategies, and tactics", and who also consider that the
>party mostly functions like "a collection of candidate-centred
>top-down fund-raising and mobilization machines". You'd hear the
>same complaint from activists in the British and Australian Labour
>parties, and the European social democratic parties.
The New Democratic Party still has a party apparatus that dissident activists can theoretically take over, though in practice it may be nearly impossible to do so. The Democratic Party doesn't even offer such a theoretical possibility. There is no party apparatus for grassroots activists to take over in it.
>Julio Huato and others from this list who participated in the US
>election have indicated that there was more political life at the
>base of the DP than those who abstained like to make out.
I asked Julio (A) whether rank-and-file Kerry supporters on the left have kept their own databases of names and contact information (especially those of "a bunch of superb people [mostly women], union officers, plain workers, young and old volunteers") that they have collected "while doing clerical and other menial work, phone banking, knocking on doors, turning the vote out, etc.," rather than turning over all products of their labor to the John Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party or union or liberal non-profit bureaucrats; and (B) whether they have already planned for post-election activities to keep the networks that they built alive.
I don't remember him replying to my questions.
In politics, the most important products are databases and networks. Build them and maintain control of them for your own purposes, and you have a foundation for independent organizing on which you can build. If you have built them and given them away to the Democratic Party or union or liberal non-profit bureaucrats, however, you have let them alienate the products of your own labor from you. In that case, you worked (probably for free or cheap), and they profited.
-- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>