I actually would disagree with the part of Schulman's letter that I excerpted that argues for creating a "party within a party," as it infers some type of permanence in the relationship between the left and the DP.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:12 PM, <wrobert at uci.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
>