> the
> Democrats (it seems to me) represent a weak but present barrier
> against a full blown assault on labour, women, gay, black people,
> etc.
Personally, I don't grant this premise as a factual matter. The Democrats have a marketing -- or maybe I should say a branding -- strategy aimed in part at these constituencies, but that's as far as their commitment goes. Lip service is precisely the extent of their service to labor etc.
> While the initial setback of the demolition of the Democrats
> might be a positive, even necessary, step in the direction of a long-
> lasting solution for these groups and the underlying ideologies, what
> of the suffering caused in the transition period? Are those directly
> affected ready and able to bear that cost?
Let's grant your premise, arguendo, and say that obliterating the Dems does lead to some near-term suffering. When was there ever a significant social transformation that didn't?