[lbo-talk] LA Times 8/7/07: Behind enemy lines

[John Thornton]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Chuck wrote:
>
>   
>> What annoys me, and what has me considering leaving this list
>> permanently, is that smart people on this list argue that there is a
>> difference between these two parties. Superficial differences, I'll
>> grant that. But fundamental differences? The Democrats are the part of
>> anti-capitalism? I don't think so.
>>     
>
> Who ever said the Dems were anti-capitalist? Not me for sure. They're  
> a bourgeois party. They are under pressure from their constituency to  
> act otherwise sometimes, and talk otherwise somewhat more often. It  
> pays to acknowledge the difference if you want to talk to people  
> outside the far left. That's all I'm saying.
>
> And I'll bet that if Hillary's elected many of the people who think  
> there's a big difference between the parties will be massively  
> disappointed, though it might take them a year to admit it. That's  
> why it's better for radical politics to have Dems in office. They're  
> a wonderful catalyst for radicalizing disillusionment.
>
> Doug

This is just Chuck setting straw men alight again.
No one on this list ever said they believed the Dems were anti-Capital. 
If anyone has a citation to prove otherwise please post it.
No one said the differences were fundamental. Again, if anyone has a 
citation to prove otherwise please post it.
What has been said was that the differences were real enough to make 
incremental differences in real peoples lives. Not huge structural 
differences but real differences nonetheless.
Chuck has stated there is no difference between the parties and then at 
times admits there is some small difference, like he does above.
Chuck is a decent writer and seems to have much energy but consistency 
is not his strong point in a discussion.

Chuck seems to forget (or not care) that what you write is true, Dems in 
office help drive people who are left of center to disappointment.
Voting to put Dems in office gives radicals more room to move and 
increases the width of a receptive audience. Disappointed people are a 
receptive audience.
Chuck loves to bring up Seattle again and again but the reality is 
having Clinton in office made Seattle possible just as the Vietnam 
anti-war movement grew most rapidly under Johnson. Protests dropped 
shortly after Nixon took office. Yes, Kent State had much to do with 
that but Kent State didn't happen under Nixon rather than Johnson by 
arbitrary happenstance.

John Thornton