[WS:] Keep in mind that there are significant differences in the political systems of continental Europe and Anglophone countries. In the parliamentary systems of continental Europe any political party must form and maintain coalitions with other parties to stay in government. If the coalition breaks, so does the government. In the majoritarian system that prevails in Anglophobe countries, by contrast, a slim majority at the polls give a single party significant power, which practically cannot be abated during that party's term in office.
Those differences create very different political cultures and expectations. In Europe it is the culture of consensus democracy (Arendt Lijphart's term) which creates the expectation to build broad coalitions of like-minded factions to have something accomplished - even among relatively minor factions.
In the US, by contrast, it the political culture of "winner takes all," and the expectation is that a political faction can get more mileage by going alone than by forming coalitions. "Mileage" means here political patronage i.e. rewarding well connected supporters, rather than benefits to broadly defined constituencies. "Going alone" eliminates the necessity of sharing this patronage with coalition partners, thus leaving more for the winner.
That political culture creates an illusion that even the most marginal faction (e.g. Nader and other left third parties) can "take it all" if it manages to mobilize 50% plus one vote - even though this has about the same probability of happening as hell freezing over. But then many people lose thousands of dollars on gambling in a vain hope to "win big."
That delusion may explain why insignficant factions are reluctant to form coalitions with major political parties. They are gambling of winning it big and not sharing the spoils, even if their chance of winning is no greater than winning a state lottery.
Wojtek
a
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:12 PM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
> Here's what Sylvestre had to say.
>>
>
> Thanks for forwarding this. I think it fleshes out what I what was trying
> to say a bit more....
>
>
> Sylvestre wrote:
>
> this is voiced also by the leaders of reformist parties. This leads to the
>> necessity of uniting with them on any possible basis compatible with
>> advancing the interests of workers, at the same time as keeping
>> organisationally and politically independent of reformist leaderships
>>
>
> I wonder how many American communists would be willing to speak of "the
> necessity of uniting with [the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, let's
> say] on any possible basis compatible with advancing the interests of
> workers."
>
> SA
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>