This seems remarkably naive, ignoring the powerful institutional gatekeeping devices that exist between the decision making structures of the parties and the average individual who registers to be a part of a particular party. Any effort to change the democratic party strikes me as largely futile. If there is anything to learn from the Popular Front, it's the CPs collaboration in a variety of civic and political groups that had far more to do with the creation of a historical block than the formal engagement with the democratic party.
Perhaps more accurately, the extent that the latter occurred was dependent on the former. (There's a larger argument here that would read the New Deal as a neutralization of the Popular Front.)
On the other hand, the previous argument doesn't take away the possibility of working with the various activists who remain committed to the democratic party. This was certainly true of our recently formed caucus, focused on reforming our local, UAW 2865, and I could see it working with any number of concrete projects, such as opposing the various occupations or other practical reform issues. However, these projects all operate outside of the democratic party, aka 'the roach motel of the left.'
robert wood
> This is utter bullshit. There seems to be some obfuscation about what the
> Democratic Party is and a tendency to portray them as being more powerful
> and more coherent than they really are. It's only even a party in the
> broadest sense. What old Trots would call "independent class
> representation" for workers is as necessary today, as ever. But let's not
> lose sight of the fact that to the degree that the working class is
> politically active, it's often as DP activists. And you could call this
> "false consciousness," or label it as collusion with the "main enemy"...
> but
> it makes sense given the conditions on the ground in America and the
> posture
> leftists adopt towards the DP needs to take this into account and also
> recognize the diversity within the party.
>
> I'll echo Jason Schulman writing in the letters section of a recent Weekly
> Worker (cpgb.org.uk):
>
> [...] note the organisational looseness of the Democrats (and
> Republicans).
> In fact, today they are both quasi-state institutions - no longer
> political
> parties in the European parliamentary sense; they are legally regulated
> structures with fixed times and places, where anyone can register. Open to
> all, they have no ideological requirements for membership. To become a
> Republican or Democrat, you just register as such. In fact, these are not
> really parties at all, but coalitions of more or less compatible social
> forces, in which various groups contest for influence under a common
> banner.
> Of course, it is still difficult for any individual or group to succeed in
> this process without lots of money. But organised groups with clear
> programmatic ideas and a long-term commitment can become forces within
> either party. The mainstream of the DSA thinks that labour and the left
> should do precisely that within the Democrats - to become ‘a party within
> a
> party’. The DSA supports left Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and John
> Conyers to that end.
>
> Is this popular frontist? It’s not intended as such. It has nothing to do
> with old CPUSA arguments for supporting ‘representatives of the
> progressive
> wing of the bourgeoisie’ or what have you. *The argument is that Democrats
> such as Kucinich and Conyers are not representatives of the capitalist
> class; that they are traditional social democratic-type workers’ reps,
> because the Democratic Party is in fact basically a structureless line on
> the ballot which is open for (class) contestation.*
> ***
>
> I eagerly await the opportunity to break with the Dems electorally. I
> think
> the work can start immediately towards uniting the anti-capitalist left
> into
> a democratically organized party that allows for free and open debate and
> from that basis and through the strength of social movements down the road
> a
> real party of the working class can emerge. I've made it clear many times
> that I think that this could be a catalyst for renewal on the left. But
> the
> whole reflexive "blame the Democratic boogey-man" doesn't strike me as
> thoughtful analysis.
>
> *Men make their own history, but ...*
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > [The DP] has no ideological dog in the fight.
>>
>> What an extraordinary thing to say. The DP is a highly
>> ideological organization. It's intensely Zionist,
>> interventionist, anti-communist, militarist, and police-mad,
>> among many other things.
>>
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>