At 01:08 PM 6/10/2010 -0500, you wrote:
>Third Parties cannot be built within electoral politics. If/when one
>emerges it will not be because "progressive" forces build one; it will
>be because a radical movement _outside_ of electoral politics has shaken
>the nation to its foundations. Then one might (if it seemed useful)
>create an electoral party virtually overnight. But one can not build one
>in a "progressive" (step by step) process. That is just another version
>of Bernstein's "The final goal is notthing, the movement is everythng."
>
>In parliamentary systems it is possible to build political activity
>_and_ participate in electoral politics. But not in a system such as the
>U.S. has. Electoral politics are the death of politics in any real
>sense.
>
>Carrol
>
>Joanne Landy wrote:
> >
> > Brad et al,
> > I totally agree. The problem with these primary challenges is that
> > they are suicidally self-limiting. Once the primary is over, the
> > progressive candidate disappears. A successful third party won't be built
> > overnite, but the only way to begin is for labor and other progressive
> > movements to begin. What's the point of being perpetual doormats for the
> > Democrats?
> > Joanne
> >
> > At 12:48 PM 6/10/2010 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >And basically it's all because of the Halter drive. It totally
> vindicates
> > >the approach.
> > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
> > >It would have been more successful if Halter was part of a strong
> > >third party to the left of the Dems. Then this move to the left would
> > >extend beyond the primary run up. Spread across the entire country,
> > >just think of the potential.
> > >
> > >Brad
> > >___________________________________
> > >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk