Re: (minor corrections) Re: P&F: electoral death of pink socialism

On Aug 26, 6:04 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:38 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > My opposition to Nader's candidacy does NOT have anything to do with a
> > commitment to socialism. I don't even sup****t the old SWP campaigns
> > from Dobbs/Carslon's 1948 campaigns upward, it's a whole different
> > discussion. I think "socialist" campaigns are about as good as "All
> > Vietnam Should Go Communist" and other ultra-leftist zero-impact
> > nonsense. I'm for working class campaigns but against the narrow,
self-
> > defeating, totally substititionist campaigns used "to Build the
> > Party". I think they are fundementally non-Marxist (not
> > "anti-"Marxist) but abstracted from any real working class struggle.
> > It's a different debate...but I bet you didn't see that one coming?!
>
> 1. Then what do you think of Cannon's socialist defense at trial? (If
> socialist propaganda is empty in elections, it seems as empty at
> trial.)

What was "socialist" about it? The defense (campaign) was run by a
most assuredly non-socialist united front. Second, they didn't WANT
the defense, it was foisted on them. The testimony was the entire
programmatic explanation of what the SWP stood for as a way of
showing they were not guilty of what they were charged with.

> 2. What was different about the SWP's campaigns before 1948?

They didn't have any except of a few minor local ones and then
Shachtman's 1940 campaign for Mayor of NY (I think it may of been
1938). My objection was that they gave up, essentially, the fight for
a labor party, that is, actually moving the class to break with 2
party politics.

David