While I agree with the general sentiment of this statement (even though it
leaves out all the environmental issues, and "what is making us sick to
begin with"), I find the following sentence to be problematic:

 > Revolutionaries need to keep pounding on the need for a class party that
will fight in the interests of the workers. <

While I am not opposed to such a class party (even though from this
statement the need for that particular kind of formation, as opposed to
other radical forms, is far from obvious or proven here), what is
problematic to me is the concept that we have to keep vocalizing the "need"
for such a party instead of (to coin a phrase) just DOING it, taking part
in building collectives involved in direct action, etc.

I always have found those "therefores" to be troubling -- you know, These
are the problems, this is what we would like, THEREFORE we need a party to
achieve it, and THEREFORE we need to squawk endlessly about how we "need"
to form one .... or two .... or three .....

Too much whining for me.

Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens/Green Party of NY


At 06:52 PM 10/9/2004, you wrote:
>
>----------
>The role of revolutionaries in the 2004 elections
>
> From the Editorial Board
>
>The presidential election campaign is mobilizing a section of the American
>people in a way that creates opportunities for revolutionaries to advance
>the motion toward political independence.
>
>The people are becoming restless. Alongside of, and within a growing
>anti-Bush movement, there are impulses to break away from both parties.
>The question keeps coming up -- how do we change the direction of the
>country? The underlying factor is the economy. Things aren't getting any
>better. As a result, people are becoming socially aware. The next stage is
>for the people to develop social consciousness. Social consciousness, the
>recognition that "we're workers and they're capitalists," opens the door
>to understanding the need for a party of the class. Without this, the
>movement cannot proceed. The rulers must prevent this consciousness from
>developing, at all cost. This is the reason for Ted Kennedy's "militant"
>statement some weeks ago on the direction the country is taking. The
>Democrats are fighting for their life. The banner -- once again -- is "the
>lesser or two evils."
>
>No matter who gets elected, that person is not going to be able to break
>the control of the corporations or fundamentally change the direction the
>economy and society is taking. We should be asking, what is each
>candidate's program to end poverty, homelessness, and hunger, to provide
>health care, jobs or income for the unemployed? At the same time, many
>good people are getting involved in politics because they are horrified by
>Bush and the gang around him, and those people will start from the
>standpoint of attacking Bush. Revolutionaries have to start where people are.
>
>We have to begin to describe the movement and its goals. What is the
>movement? It's for peace. It's for an end to homelessness, poverty and
>hunger. It's for health care, regardless of one's ability to pay. It's for
>quality education for all children. It's for a decent quality of life for
>our elderly. If there is a phrase that can summarize the goals of this
>not-quite-coalesced movement, it is distribution of what society has to
>offer based on need, not money.
>
>Revolutionaries need to keep pounding on the need for a class party that
>will fight in the interests of the workers. We need to keep pressing the
>issue of politics beyond the elections, keeping the spotlight on the
>growing fascist danger. We need to stand stubbornly with the growing class
>of poor.
>
>We have entered a critical time in our country's history. Now and in the
>years just ahead, the direction our country takes will depend on what
>people think. Election time opens up possibilities for educating and
>politicizing people. As revolutionaries, we are obligated to make the
>fullest possible use of this opportunity.
>
>The future is in our hands.
>
>
>----------
>This article originated in the People's Tribune (Online Edition), Vol. 31
>No. 9 / September, 2004; P.O. Box 3524, Chicago, IL 60654,
><http://www.lrna.org/>http://www.lrna.org. Feel free to reproduce unless
>marked as copyrighted; please include this message with reproductions of
>the article.
>