> ... if you don't make
> compromises to ally with the majority, then you are unreasonable. the
> refrain: how are you ever going to change things, they ask, if you don't
> work with the majority to get small, piecemeal changes now.
Wasn't that one of the big differences between Trotsky's line and other communists of the period? Some insisted on a "vanguard" communist party, keep everything ideologically pure. Trotsky said leftists should join other working clas parties, like British Labour and try to influence from there.
As a result, the Canadian NDP periodically feels obliged to purge the Trots. Their notion is that if you don't actually support a social democratic agenda, and are actively working toward a different goal, then you do not belong in the party. I'm not sure if the British or Aussie Labour Parties do the same.
> ... how many times have you read ppl on the list say that this or
> that leftist, groupuscle, whatever is "out of touch" - unreasonable - when
> they say something or advocate something that they think the majority of
> USers would reject?
Yes, but how often are they right?
It is not at all unusual for the left to be the only people saying anything sensible on some issues, but there are quite often claims on this list or in other leftist discussions that would not make sense outside the ideological context.
Of course that sort of thing "won't play in Peoria", but that is not the main point -- it won't even convince intelligent and politically aware people who do not already share the underlying ideology.