>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why he and others get confused and see the DP as the 'place
that social movements go to die', because they don't understand that
these movements only sought to change single issues through reform.
Once the accomplish their goal through the DP of course they die.
Thinking that these are revolutionary movements and not properly
understanding there goals is the problem, not the DP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Marv again:
There have been anticapitalist left wings WITHIN all of these reform
movements which have sought to replace their reformist leaders and to
lead an assault on the system, and while the Marxist and (to a lesser
extent, anarchist) left has historically gained varying degrees of
influence within such movements, it has never been able to exercise
hegemony and steer them in an anticapitalist direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And according to Carrol's rules for revolution the goal should never be to try and convince others in these reform movements of the inability of reforms to remedy social problems entirely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Marv:
Now, it follows that the Democratic party and the social democratic
parties are "betraying" the aspirations of these "left" movements if
one proceeds from the assumption, as Carrol and others do, that their
methods and goals are inherently antithetical to those of the
"reformist" parties they support. In fact, these movements inevitably
and however reluctantly engage in "lesser evil" politics because what
the left is prone to regard as trivial ideological differences between
the liberal and conservative parties can nevertheless have large
consequences for their cause, particularly in the less visible
regulatory and judicial arenas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Marv:
You'll find few activists in any of the movements mentioned above who,
in relation to the Supreme Court, for example, will concede that it
makes little or no difference whether the composition of the court is
determined by a Republican or Democratic administration. The same
holds true for the NLRB, the EPA and a host of other regulatory
agencies. Of course, the strength of such appointments ultimately
depends on the scale and effectiveness of mass protest, but this has
more to do with the nature of the period, the balance of forces, and
the combativity of the masses within capitalist society than with the
character of the leadership of the movements and the parties.
Idealists invariably focus on the latter to the exclusion of the
former.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is what has been the recent bee in my bonnet regarding the dems and reps = something argument put forward by some leftists. The changes that have and are occurring in the Supreme Court should quickly prove this a fallacy that needs to be stomped out. On the nature of the period vs. the leadership of the movement: I would just say that our only ability to change history rests on the latter. Therefore it is only logical that we focus on and tinker with it since we have no recourse on the former (or we only have recourse on the former through the latter).
Brad