> 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.
That's exactly what people say when they think about taking part in activism. "I'm just one person, the system is bigger than me, there's no point in trying." The whole idea of being a radical with a sense of history is understanding the reality that in the right circumstances people *have* changed things through activism *despite* the seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Read a history of, say, the Democratic Party in Detroit in the 30's. You know what it was like in 1930? It was barely liberal, much less radical. By 1948 it was controlled by socialists.
> 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.
The last sentence here is *identical* to the argument of the post you're criticizing.
> 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.'
These projects operate outside the Democratic Party? As opposed to what? The DP is an elections vehicle. If it's not related to an election, it takes place "outside the DP," by definition.
SA