What should we do in the U.S. 2012 election?

[JPSartre12]

Hey comrades!

I've had a few thoughts about the coming presidential and Congressional elections this autumn here, and I'd love some input from you guys.

I think I'm preaching to the choir when I say that I think that Mitt Romney is the embodiment of American greed and capitalism, and I'd rather not see the guy be President of the United States. I'd rather see Obama than Romney, but then again, I'm recognizing that Obama and the Democrats are still part of the capitalist system ... and the difference between the two candidates isn't as anywhere near as profound as the media would make it seem.

There are a couple other candidates bouncing around out there that the news isn't talking about much - Jill Stein and the Green Party, Stewart Alexander and the Socialist Party, Peta Lindsay and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party, etc etc etc, and I like some of what they're saying.

I'm not trying to say that we should perpetuate the capitalist system by voting for Obama, but wouldn't a vote for him be preferable to one for Romney? At least Obama supports keeping Medicare solvent, same-sex marriage, a modicum of immigration reform, and so on.

Voting for a real Left candidate would be great on principal, but I feel as if that would split the left-of-centre vote and would give Romney an easy win - and seeing as I really don't want Romney to win, I think it would make more sense for us to vote for Obama?

I just don't want Romney to win, but I don't see us as having any other feasible non-Romney options other than Obama. What should us anti-capitalists do this coming election?

[Book O'Dead]

[...]
I'm not trying to say that we should perpetuate the capitalist system by voting for Obama, but ...

And what makes you think that voting for Obama will perpetuate capitalism?

[Teacher]

It doesn't matter which one wins, they are the same. That being said, by all means participate in electoral activities to meet people and hopefully win them over to the idea that what they're doing is pointless and what we really need is to fight capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

And what makes you think that voting for Obama will perpetuate capitalism?

Ummm...that doesn't even need explaining.

[Krano]

2012 elections will be like elections in 2000/2004 pretty much all you can do is point and laugh. And stop thinking that voting makes any difference it wouldn't matter what party was in power nothing would change.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps burn down some polling stations?

[JPSartre12]

2012 elections will be like elections in 2000/2004 pretty much all you can do is point and laugh. And stop thinking that voting makes any difference it wouldn't matter what party was in power nothing would change.

Well, I disagree ... Can't say that I'm a fan of Obama's Affordable Care Act (I'd much rather see a Canadian-style single-payer insurance, or the UK's state-run NHS hospitals), but it's a (very, very small) step in the right direction towards universal coverage. We could build a nice public system from the foundation that Obamacare sets. I think saying that whichever party is in power is going to have no net effect is wrong - the Democrats and Republicans have polar opposite party platforms, but they're still both capitalist.

If we can't abolish the capitalist mode of production in the short term, wouldn't the Democrats' tepid actions (Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Tricare, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, GI Bill, Rural Electrification Act, etc ...) be better than being at the mercy of the Republicans / Tea Partyers austerity fetish?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have an all-out socialist system ... but for the election this year, I think electing Obama and getting a Congress full of progressives is probably the best that we can do in the immediate future.

[Bostana]

I can't vote so............

[Ostrinski]

What should you do on election day? Whatever the hell you want, friend. I'll probably be busy with school myself.

[Sasha]

its the choice between the devil and beelzebub, letting the devil win would bring the revolution faster but at tremendous suffering of the american workingclass (and lets be honest, when the american workingclass suffers, it usually means they start some wars to kick the shit down the line) while the alternative is a capitalist with some minimal reformist policies who will only pasify the midleclasses and in the end fuck the workers and the rest of the world just as hard, he'll just wisper in our ear "ill do it sweet and slowely".
what we should do? no idea, but truth be told if i was an US citizen living in a swing state i would probably still vote obama, if i see what the repubs have in store for the workingclass (prime example; http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/02/12522738-mcconnell-sees-30-million-uninsured-as-irrelevant) i would vote, no matter my anarcho-autonomist principles, its like hearing your neaighbour beating the crap out of his wife and not calling the police because you oppose the juridical system and the cops.
i would never pretend though that obama is a progresive, a leftist, should not be opposed and called out for the capitalist reactionary bastard that he is, its just that he is slightly less reactionary than the alternative..
but its a choice everyone should make for themself

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spoilage is the way to go.

[Krano]

Well, I disagree ... Can't say that I'm a fan of Obama's Affordable Care Act (I'd much rather see a Canadian-style single-payer insurance, or the UK's state-run NHS hospitals), but it's a (very, very small) step in the right direction towards universal coverage. We could build a nice public system from the foundation that Obamacare sets. I think saying that whichever party is in power is going to have no net effect is wrong - the Democrats and Republicans have polar opposite party platforms, but they're still both capitalist.

If we can't abolish the capitalist mode of production in the short term, wouldn't the Democrats' tepid actions (Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Tricare, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, GI Bill, Rural Electrification Act, etc ...) be better than being at the mercy of the Republicans / Tea Partyers austerity fetish?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have an all-out socialist system ... but for the election this year, I think electing Obama and getting a Congress full of progressives is probably the best that we can do in the immediate future.
The problem with this is that it can be destroyed when any republican gets into office, i always have to bring up this example but here in Finland we had Soc-Dems in power for 30 years with a good welfare state. Conservative president was elected this year and that 30 years of progress (well atleast in capitalist standards) is going down the drain, this is the continues paradox with representative democracy.

[Peoples' War]

DNZ probably has the best idea, because voting for 3rd parties legitimizes the elections as much as voting for Democrat or Republican. Spoiling your ballot, en masse, will be a large protest of system. However, the unlikelihood of a mass spoilage happening is disconcerting, but I still don't want to suggest that you vote Obama.

The American system is completely buggered.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

We could build a nice public system from the foundation that Obamacare sets.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have an all-out socialist system ... but for the election this year, I think electing Obama and getting a Congress full of progressives is probably the best that we can do in the immediate future.
I believe that building a "nice public system" based on the Affordable Care Act is incredibly doubtful, considering that the "reform" gives an enormous boon to private insurance companies with the individual mandate. The reform itself was the product of the Obama administration's pandering to medical big business. There is nothing salvageable from such a piece of legislation. If Romney is indeed the embodiment of capitalist greed, Obama is his younger twin. "Left" is now nothing but another way to say "right".

As for your concerns for the "immediate future," your remarks strike me as slightly naive. Have you forgotten that Obama had Democratic party majorities in both the House and the Senate at the beginning of his term and that they did nothing to oppose his predecessor's policies? A "progressive" majority in Congress will do nothing besides give the semblance of progression. On the whole Obama has only continued and deepened Bush's policies and has done everything possible to aid the growth of US imperialism. This "lesser of two evils" stance of yours strikes me as rather pragmatic and cynical. We shouldn't be thinking about who will be elected or what scant benefits we can glean from either big business party, but trying to mobilize working people against this farce of an election. That should be our concern for the immediate future. Attempting to lie to ourselves will not help at all.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Spoilage is the way to go.
Someone should start an internet campaign to cast write-in votes for "Fidel Castro"

[Raúl Duke]

smoke a joint, don't vote.

or spoilage (write some random shit on the ballot); and/or maybe vote on the local initiatives.

[JPSartre12]

The problem with this is that it can be destroyed when any republican gets into office, i always have to bring up this example but here in Finland we had Soc-Dems in power for 30 years with a good welfare state. Conservative president was elected this year and that 30 years of progress (well atleast in capitalist standards) is going down the drain, this is the continues paradox with representative democracy.

Absolutely agree!

If the Republicans could (and probably would) dismantle the welfare state the moment that they get into power, isn't that all the more reason that we need to vote for Democrats? Yeah, I know they're capitalist, but it's a temporary way of protecting the gains that we've made up until this point? :confused:

I'd love to get a few legitimate socialists in government to shake things up a bit ...

[JPSartre12]

I believe that building a "nice public system" based on the Affordable Care Act is incredibly doubtful, considering that the "reform" gives an enormous boon to private insurance companies with the individual mandate. The reform itself was the product of the Obama administration's pandering to medical big business. There is nothing salvageable from such a piece of legislation.

Not necessarily - the bill constructs healthcare exchanges in each state.
In Canada, they went from free market insurance to exchanges, then exchanges to single-payer (after one province decided to be adventurous and try single-payer and it worked, so the whole country adopted it).

Sounds similar .... private insurance, then Obamacare-made exchanges, and now Vermont's going single-payer.

[Book O'Dead]

Ummm...that doesn't even need explaining.

I think it does because if the general opinion that voting for one or the other is like choosing between the Devil and Satan is true, then, no matter who I vote for--or even if I abstain--capitalism is perpetuated.

My question is aimed at doubting that capitalism can be perpetuated in spite of itself and to point out that nothing can save capitalism.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think it does because if the general opinion that voting for one or the other is like choosing between the Devil and Satan is true, then, no matter who I vote for--or even if I abstain--capitalism is perpetuated.
That is exactly right. A vote for Obama is a vote for capitalism, just like one for Romney is. If you can't understand that just look at the last four years...

[Krano]

Absolutely agree!

If the Republicans could (and probably would) dismantle the welfare state the moment that they get into power, isn't that all the more reason that we need to vote for Democrats? Yeah, I know they're capitalist, but it's a temporary way of protecting the gains that we've made up until this point? :confused:

I'd love to get a few legitimate socialists in government to shake things up a bit ...
Not much to protect honestly the United States is not a welfare state 50m people on food stamps living in poverty and homelessness. You need to visit a real welfare state where people are actually taken care of, universal health care free education and so on like here.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This is the first campaign I've totally ignored. It's a pleasure not to stress out about shit that becomes completely meaningless the night of the election, I can't understand why anyone who knows better would continue to participate other than for the sheer entertainment value I guess. The bits that have filtered through to me seem like something out of an 80's movie lampooning the possible lengths advertising might go to in the future.

[Book O'Dead]

That is exactly right. A vote for Obama is a vote for capitalism, just like one for Romney is. If you can't understand that just look at the last four years...

By that logic anyone who votes in a US election for anybody is aiding capitalism.

I don't believe that.

In any case, voting for the lesser of two evils is better than not voting at all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

By that logic anyone who votes in a US election for anybody is aiding capitalism.

I don't believe that.

In any case, voting for the lesser of two evils is better than not voting at all.

If you could list the ways in which Obama has struggled against capitalism in the last 4 years and the ways he intends to continue that struggle I would really appreciate it.

[ed miliband]

voting for the "lesser of two evils" is idealism. it amazes me that it is so rampant amongst the american left when the "evils" you have to choose between are far more similar than the "evils" in any other country.

[thriller]

I just don't want Romney to win, but I don't see us as having any other feasible non-Romney options other than Obama. What should us anti-capitalists do this coming election?

No, you're wrong. They are both unfeasible options. What should we do this coming election? Destroy capitalism by waging a proletarian class war against the upper class. I know this may sound stuck up, short-sighted, and vague. But it's a way better solution than voting for Republicans or Democrats. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, just know that who you vote for doesn't matter. We don't have control over their system.

[Book O'Dead]

If you could list the ways in which Obama has struggled against capitalism in the last 4 years and the ways he intends to continue that struggle I would really appreciate it.

Why should I when what's at issue in the upcoming elections is not whether Obama is a friend of the working class but which of the electable candidates will do less harm to the American proletariat?

[Book O'Dead]

voting for the "lesser of two evils" is idealism. it amazes me that it is so rampant amongst the american left when the "evils" you have to choose between are far more similar than the "evils" in any other country.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not idealism, it is realpolitik.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why should I when what's at issue in the upcoming elections is not whether Obama is a friend of the working class but which of the electable candidates will do less harm to the American proletariat?

No your argument was that voting for Obama would not perpetuate capitalism, for this to be true Obama himself must be acting in such a way as to not perpetuate capitalism. So please, enlighten us.

[ed miliband]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not idealism, it is realpolitik.

nah, it would be realpolitik if you advocated voting for the democrats in the same way lenin said british socialists should support a vote for the labour party.

[Book O'Dead]

No your argument was that voting for Obama would not perpetuate capitalism, for this to be true Obama himself must be acting in such a way as to not perpetuate capitalism. So please, enlighten us.

You've got it all wrong, friend. I oppose the notion that voting for one candidate or the other will somehow serve to perpetuate capitalism since capitalism is doomed anyway.

No matter who we elect in November, capitalism will not be saved.

[Book O'Dead]

nah, it would be realpolitik if you advocated voting for the democrats in the same way lenin said british socialists should support a vote for the labour party.

And my viewpoint is different from Lenin's in what way?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You've got it all wrong, friend. I oppose the notion that voting for one candidate or the other will somehow serve to perpetuate capitalism since capitalism is doomed anyway.

No matter who we elect in November, capitalism will not be saved.

I wonder what other things I can justify using this logic.

[ed miliband]

And my viewpoint is different from Lenin's in what way?

do you think that voting for the democrats will lead to them being descredited, convincing the working class of the futility of "reformist" (questionable in this case) bourgeois parties?

[Book O'Dead]

I wonder what other things I can justify using this logic.

i don't know.

What I do know is that workers in the U.S. need to weigh their electoral choices in a way that benefits them in the long run.

To assume a completely cynical attitude does not help them make the choice.

[Book O'Dead]

do you think that voting for the democrats will lead to them being descredited, convincing the working class of the futility of "reformist" (questionable in this case) bourgeois parties?

I hadn't thought of it that way but since you ask...

My main concern with the upcoming elections is that if we choose the more reactionary of the two candidates (or by abstaining allow him to get re-elected) we will likely wind up having to live through the repeal of progressive laws that protect women's rights (reproductive rights, voting laws, etc.).

But as you point out, one possible outcome of electing Obama during this present crisis of capitalism may serve to push the working class more to the left as the inadequacy of Obama's reform measures become more and more apparent.

This is pure speculation, Ed, but as a consequence of Obama's victory at the polls in 2008, a significant portion of the American working class were emboldened to create and join the Occupy movement. maybe such a thing would not have happened under a McCaine administration?

[Veovis]

Someone should start an internet campaign to cast write-in votes for "Fidel Castro"

There's already one for Bradley Manning

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Not necessarily - the bill constructs healthcare exchanges in each state.
In Canada, they went from free market insurance to exchanges, then exchanges to single-payer (after one province decided to be adventurous and try single-payer and it worked, so the whole country adopted it).

Sounds similar .... private insurance, then Obamacare-made exchanges, and now Vermont's going single-payer.
I think you're being too hasty in your analogy. Just because Canada underwent a certain political change does not at all imply that America will as well. Why would America necessarily go the route of single-payer when their ruling class has vehemently inveighed against it both right and left, with no brook toward anything resembling what you desire? One state doing so doesn't cut it, and the American safety net is eroding nationwide due to austerity measures and will continue to do so regardless of this so-called "reform". I don't think it's a stretch to say that the American ruling class is incapable of implementing a system like the one you describe.

And if you're going to reply to my post, please don't try to only reply to one half of it. Your pragmatic stance regarding the "lesser of two evils" deserves to be questioned and I believe that you should address it if criticized.

[Mnemosyne]

Romney and Obama are both just puppets for the Fascist regime the way I see it.

In many ways I feel that the most responsible thing to do is NOT vote... but I will more than likely give my vote to the Libertarian party, which will be represented by Gary Johnson this year.

I have NO faith that the US as a nation will ever turn socialist- our only option is to take the liberty card and run with it... regaining the ability to create unique societies protected by state's rights- which is absolutely supported by the US constitution.

Political and economic systems can only survive if they are first envisioned, created and sustained by those who WANT THEM... then all that is necessary is to lead by example and mimicry will follow.

[ed miliband]

I hadn't thought of it that way but since you ask...

My main concern with the upcoming elections is that if we choose the more reactionary of the two candidates (or by abstaining allow him to get re-elected) we will likely wind up having to live through the repeal of progressive laws that protect women's rights (reproductive rights, voting laws, etc.).

But as you point out, one possible outcome of electing Obama during this present crisis of capitalism may serve to push the working class more to the left as the inadequacy of Obama's reform measures become more and more apparent.

This is pure speculation, Ed, but as a consequence of Obama's victory at the polls in 2008, a significant portion of the American working class were emboldened to create and join the Occupy movement. maybe such a thing would not have happened under a McCaine administration?

nah man, you asked how your position differed from lenin's and i explained how, i don't think what lenin said has any relevance in 2012, or in reference to the democrats.

regardless, millions of working class americans will continue to vote for the democrats, and millions will vote for the republicans...

[Red Rabbit]

I'll be voting for Obama, but that's simply because I would like to keep my health insurance for at least another 4 years, but that's just me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Absolutely agree!

If the Republicans could (and probably would) dismantle the welfare state the moment that they get into power, isn't that all the more reason that we need to vote for Democrats? Yeah, I know they're capitalist, but it's a temporary way of protecting the gains that we've made up until this point? :confused:

I'd love to get a few legitimate socialists in government to shake things up a bit ...

1. What is so good about the welfare state? Putting your faith in the welfare state only deepens the problems of Capitalism by entrenching dependency on welfare (i.e. the working class depends further on handouts from the state, becomes reliant on the state, and so the task of Socialist revolution and the dismantling of the state actually becomes practically harder) and limits our ambitions to Social Democratic statism. There is no dignity - nor [Socialist] economic sense - in a culture of welfare dependency.

2. What is this about getting 'a few legitimate socialists in government'? No legitimate Socialist would participate in a bourgeois government (aside from the utopian/bourgeois Socialists who would happily shit on the working class to protect the status quo), and even if Marxists pervaded the Senate, the House and the White House itself, they'd still bend to the will of capital (discounting for the possibility of civil war and domestic insurrection/mass protests if the Marxists were democratically elected by a majority/large proportion of the population). It's an impossibility. I think you're being incredibly utopian and naive. You should read the section on Utopian/Bourgeois Socialists in the Communist Manifesto to clarify your position. This position of yours that 'well Socialism would be nice but as the election is tomorrow...' reeks of short-termism, pragmatism and naivety. As far as we are concerned, bourgeois elections provide no chance for real change, they provide only the opportunity for mass propaganda, organisation and agitation. How many Obamas, Clintons, LBJs and Kennedys do you want to go through before you realise that, Democrat or Republican, the working class American will not see an ounce of true difference in their working lives and their social reality? C'mon.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In any case, voting for the lesser of two evils is better than not voting at all.

Why? That's a very, very dangerous generalisation.

[RedHal]

obamacare, support for same sex marriage and his little immigration reform are just to get the progressives back on his side for re election. If he wins, it will be his final term, he'll have nothing more to prove to progressives. The only thing he'll be doing is answering his corporate bosses so he'll have a high paying job after his presidency.

We've already seen that his foreign policy is just as murderous as Bush. Unlike the Bush era, there is little opposition to Obama because, heck, he supports same sex marriage:rolleyes:

If Romney wins, combined with the economic downturn, there will be no illusions, there will be anger in the streets and maybe the occupy movement can pick up and get more radical.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If Romney wins, combined with the economic downturn, there will be no illusions, there will be anger in the streets and maybe the occupy movement can pick up and get more radical.

And if Neo-Nazis win then i'm sure a street protest movement will come to rise up and kill them off, but that doesn't mean we should hope for that, does it?

It's very silly to hope for an engineered attack on the working class so that they rise up. Firstly, that's really traitorous to the class and secondly, it rarely is as simple as that.

[Book O'Dead]

nah man, you asked how your position differed from lenin's and i explained how, i don't think what lenin said has any relevance in 2012, or in reference to the democrats.
[...]

In which case I wonder why you brought it.

[Book O'Dead]

Why? That's a very, very dangerous generalisation.

I really don't see how that is.

[ed miliband]

In which case I wonder why you brought it.

'cos it was an example of how communists voting for a bourgeois political party can be realpolitik. i don't think "lesser-evilism" is.

[X5N]

I'm trying to troll my district's Congressperson because he's one of those politicians who does whatever Hollywood and AIPAC tell him to do.

And I'm thinking about campaigning for Gary Johnson just to get right-libertarians to vote for him, thus trolling Romney.

[Book O'Dead]

1. What is so good about the welfare state? Putting your faith in the welfare state only deepens the problems of Capitalism by entrenching dependency on welfare (i.e. the working class depends further on handouts from the state, becomes reliant on the state, and so the task of Socialist revolution and the dismantling of the state actually becomes practically harder) and limits our ambitions to Social Democratic statism. There is no dignity - nor [Socialist] economic sense - in a culture of welfare dependency.

From my perspective I fail to see how voting for Obama to prevent an even more reactionary pol from gaining office is an "act of faith" on the so-called welfare state.


2. What is this about getting 'a few legitimate socialists in government'? No legitimate Socialist would participate in a bourgeois government (aside from the utopian/bourgeois Socialists who would happily shit on the working class to protect the status quo), and even if Marxists pervaded the Senate, the House and the White House itself, they'd still bend to the will of capital (discounting for the possibility of civil war and domestic insurrection/mass protests if the Marxists were democratically elected by a majority/large proportion of the population). It's an impossibility. I think you're being incredibly utopian and naive. You should read the section on Utopian/Bourgeois Socialists in the Communist Manifesto to clarify your position. This position of yours that 'well Socialism would be nice but as the election is tomorrow...' reeks of short-termism, pragmatism and naivety. As far as we are concerned, bourgeois elections provide no chance for real change, they provide only the opportunity for mass propaganda, organisation and agitation. How many Obamas, Clintons, LBJs and Kennedys do you want to go through before you realise that, Democrat or Republican, the working class American will not see an ounce of true difference in their working lives and their social reality? C'mon.

It seems to me that you're taking your "impossibilism" to absurd lengths.
Moreover, I haven't seen anyone here claim that socialism is possible under the present regime or that by voting Obama back into office the cause of socialism will be advanced one iota. Such illusions should be laid to rest.

To me the problem is much simpler, its urgency more immediate. The objective of any class conscious worker in taking sides in the present electoral contest should be to prevent a more reactionary candidate from taking office and to preserve what few gains capitalist rule has allowed us in civil rights and the protection of the weakest members of society.

Maybe from your vantage point the Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable from each other, whereas from mine there are substancial differences that could and indeed do affect the life of workers in the US.

In the UK the working class counts with millions more class conscious fighters--given your history of entrenched class divisions--whereas North American workers lack that experience and must discover it via electoral politics.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

My response (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11288)

[Book O'Dead]

'cos it was an example of how communists voting for a bourgeois political party can be realpolitik. i don't think "lesser-evilism" is.

Then the comparison is invalid because we here in the US do not enjoy the same parliamentary system as you have in GB.

[X5N]

I should mention that while I don't like Obama, I'd rather have him than Romney. And while I don't believe in voting, really (I voted in this year's primary, but mostly as a joke ballot), voting for Obama would just make me feel like I need to take a shower afterwards. At least with minor parties I can walk away with something of a clean conscience, even if it's not a serious vote.

[Book O'Dead]

I should mention that while I don't like Obama, I'd rather have him than Romney. And while I don't believe in voting, really (I voted in this year's primary, but mostly as a joke ballot), voting for Obama would just make me feel like I need to take a shower afterwards. At least with minor parties I can walk away with something of a clean conscience, even if it's not a serious vote.

I don't recommend wasting your vote for a lark; it's one of the few political tools we have to affect the political course of our country and, used properly, has the potential to become a powerful weapon for social change.

[X5N]

I don't recommend wasting your vote for a lark; it's one of the few political tools we have to affect the political course of our country and, used properly, has the potential to become a powerful weapon for social change.

While I tend to not believe in bourgeois democracy, if I did, I still wouldn't be able to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in all good conscience.

Though, I will be voting for my Congressperson's opponent (I live in CA, where there's the top-two primary) just as a vote against him, but I don't make serious votes anyways. I'm not even sure if I'll still be in CA, in November.

[Welshy]

Since they are going to be sending me a ballot anyways I'm going to right in Captain Jean Luc Picard for everything and then vote for the millages and that's it.

[campesino]

support the PSL (our only choice in the presidential election. We have many other choices in organization) and hand out pamphlets that create class consciousness, and class struggle. Also organize ourselves. That is all we can do.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Karl Marx.

[Book O'Dead]

support the PSL (our only choice in the presidential election. We have many other choices in organization) and hand out pamphlets that create class consciousness, and class struggle. Also organize ourselves. That is all we can do.

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying if your purpose is to agitate and educate workers for socialism, which is, in my mind a medium or long-term goal.

However, I'm focused on the immediate, short-term problem of affecting the November elections in a way that protects our class from further assaults on their political rights.

Here's one reason: At present, the Republican party is engaged in a nationwide assault on our voting rights. Several key states have enacted or are in the process of enacting restrictive ballot regulations that will, in the long term, diminish our rights to even field third party candidates and limit minorities from accessing the ballot box. The only entity standing bteween them and their objectives is the U.S. DoJ. As you surely know, AG Holder is using the department to challenge those restrictions--no doubt, to protect Obama's chances of reelection. But I think that even if that is so, he and Obama are doing something that will have a long-term positive effect on our chances to field viable socialist candidates.

In short, while we engage in the struggle to arouse and elevate the level of classconsciousness in our fellow workers and to activate them politically, we can't afford the luxury of allowing capitalist politicians to fight it out among themselves while we sit it out on the sidelines and indulge in self-righteous ideological posturings.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You've got it all wrong, friend. I oppose the notion that voting for one candidate or the other will somehow serve to perpetuate capitalism since capitalism is doomed anyway.

No matter who we elect in November, capitalism will not be saved.
At first I wanted to simply state that you are guilty of using this farcical "inevitable" demise as a buttress for your own opportunism regarding the two big business parties in general and the socialist revolution in particular. But I'd rather give in to curiosity rather than hostility for now. Why do you promote this perspective--that is, the inevitability of capitalism's demise? I don't think it is wise to hold such a view. The fact that crises arise out of the capitalist mode of production is indisputable, but that doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie cannot "resolve" them to stave off revolution; one of capitalism's greatest strengths is to continually revolutionize its own means of production to promote the illusion of the system's superiority to all others. In my view, there is no reason that this process could not continue into the indefinite future. Crises alone cannot bring capitalism down without a proletarian revolution to accompany it.

If this sounds rather piecemeal and ABC to you, it is only because I fear your view promotes passivity. If the end of capitalism is inevitable, then what use are the proletarian revolutionists? Your view, regardless of your intentions here, relegates us and the working class to the yoke of the bourgeois state, where we can hope to bring about socialism by "peaceful" legislation. But such tactics provide even less of a guarantee than waiting for a crisis to topple the system. Let's think about the Second International, for example. The Trotskyists Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner can summarize my thoughts better than myself here: http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch10.pdf

Yes, it is true that the SDP had “innumerable educational associations and projects” and it did lots of cultural work in the working class – but in the end what did this all amount to? This huge apparatus ended up being a bulwark for capitalism. And with the honorable exceptions of Luxemburg, Mehring and others in the SPD left-wing, the educational work among workers only served to promote a reformist political consciousness. The animating principle behind that “mighty cultural movement” turned out to be “the movement is everything, the goal is nothing”.Of course, I could be fundamentally mistaken about your views in this regard. But betrayals such as those made by the Second International's leadership are in part a product of the view that capitalism will inevitably end; and implicit in this view is that the prospect of revolution must be watered down or abandoned. And given this history, I think that while I would disagree with the The Boss' use of the "utopian" epithet, his point regarding the "impossibility" of reform via the bourgeois state is a salient point that you should take into consideration. Such examples are, as you probably know, are countless and are not confined to Germany alone.

If you wish to hold the views regarding who is worse than who, that is your right. The problem with your politics is that they are not revolutionary, but reformist almost in the sense that Eduard Bernstein was. You haven't spoken once about the effort to promote socialist consciousness in the American working class besides looking to the next election. Do you consider such a promotion to be "impossible"? If so, why? In my opinion your perspective presupposes the inevitability of capitalism, rather than its end.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

A vote for any of them is a vote for capitalism Particularly in the US. If we want to do something about capitalism in the US, we need to start rioting in the streets.

[campesino]

There is nothing wrong with what you're saying if your purpose is to agitate and educate workers for socialism, which is, in my mind a medium or long-term goal.

However, I'm focused on the immediate, short-term problem of affecting the November elections in a way that protects our class from further assaults on their political rights.

Here's one reason: At present, the Republican party is engaged in a nationwide assault on our voting rights. Several key states have enacted or are in the process of enacting restrictive ballot regulations that will, in the long term, diminish our rights to even field third party candidates and limit minorities from accessing the ballot box. The only entity standing bteween them and their objectives is the U.S. DoJ. As you surely know, AG Holder is using the department to challenge those restrictions--no doubt, to protect Obama's chances of reelection. But I think that even if that is so, he and Obama are doing something that will have a long-term positive effect on our chances to field viable socialist candidates.

In short, while we engage in the struggle to arouse and elevate the level of classconsciousness in our fellow workers and to activate them politically, we can't afford the luxury of allowing capitalist politicians to fight it out among themselves while we sit it out on the sidelines and indulge in self-righteous ideological posturings.

I am a believer, but not a strong believer in, the idea that things have to get worse to get better.

[Ostrinski]

Lenin's strategy is only legitimate when there is a radicalized or radicalizing working class in the first place. This, unfortunately, is not the case in the US. A huge percentage, the actual demographics I don't know, of the American working class is very conservative.

The strategy is logical when and only when the liberal party puts forward radical promises that it could not possibly follow through with, but more importantly: when a substantial percentage of the working class is receptive to the radical promises in the first place. So if you have a largely conservative working class that opposes the democrats because of completely opposite reasons, it's all but completely nonsensical.

[Book O'Dead]

At first I wanted to simply state that you are guilty of using this farcical "inevitable" demise as a buttress for your own opportunism regarding the two big business parties in general and the socialist revolution in particular. But I'd rather give in to curiosity rather than hostility for now. Why do you promote this perspective--that is, the inevitability of capitalism's demise? I don't think it is wise to hold such a view. The fact that crises arise out of the capitalist mode of production is indisputable, but that doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie cannot "resolve" them to stave off revolution; one of capitalism's greatest strengths is to continually revolutionize its own means of production to promote the illusion of the system's superiority to all others. In my view, there is no reason that this process could not continue into the indefinite future. Crises alone cannot bring capitalism down without a proletarian revolution to accompany it.

It's not 'revolution' that will bring down capitalism, it's capitalism itself that will bring down capitalism. A revolution will be consequential to the collapse of capitalism, not the other way around.

You assume--incorrectly--that capitalists and their politicians have an inexhaustible bag of tricks to keep capitalism from going under or to fool us indefinitely. This assumption betrays a lack of understanding about how class-divided economies function.

[Devrim]

what we should do? no idea, but truth be told if i was an US citizen living in a swing state i would probably still vote obama, if i see what the repubs have in store for the workingclass (prime example; http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/02/12522738-mcconnell-sees-30-million-uninsured-as-irrelevant) i would vote, no matter my anarcho-autonomist principles, its like hearing your neaighbour beating the crap out of his wife and not calling the police because you oppose the juridical system and the cops.

Don't worry about it. I don't think it goes at all against your 'anarcho-autonomist principles' as you quite obviously have none whatsoever.

Devrim

[Martin Blank]

Stand at polling places, passing out a leaflet that looks like a poll card, with the headline: "Was This Trip Really Necessary?"

[Sasha]

Don't worry about it. I don't think it goes at all against your 'anarcho-autonomist principles' as you quite obviously have none whatsoever.

Devrim


thanx... you always know how to cheer me up...

[Jimmie Higgins]

What should we do? Find the struggles happening right now despite the election. The election tends to throw a wet towel over struggle, but there are still struggles - in fact there are struggles against Democratic politician-initiated austerity like here in California.

These struggles can help organize those who "can't wait" for the election and any victories can show that the power is in protests, not polls.

It would have been nice if Occupy was a sort of organized expression of discontent from below at the two parties. That would be the best relative position for us: a real movement to contrast the electoral process and actually call out the parties connection to the needs and interests of the "1%".

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's not 'revolution' that will bring down capitalism, it's capitalism itself that will bring down capitalism. A revolution will be consequential to the collapse of capitalism, not the other way around.

You assume--incorrectly--that capitalists and their politicians have an inexhaustible bag of tricks to keep capitalism from going under or to fool us indefinitely. This assumption betrays a lack of understanding about how class-divided economies function.
Unfortunately, I believe the lack of understanding is yours. To a certain extent, I believe it is true that under the weight of its own contradictions certain aspects of capitalism will collapse. But your conception of capitalism appears to me rather monolithic, as you do not make any distinctions between these aspects. Your error is that you are conflating the capitalist system with capitalist democracy, assuming that they work hand in hand, that they will perhaps collapse together. While of course you cannot have one without the other in such a society, they do not and cannot operate in such a uniform fashion; the only way to understand their relationship to one another is to conceive of them as a unity of opposites. As democratic principles eventually undermine the capitalist's ability to profit, those principles become a loathsome bother and must be curtailed or even repealed altogether. One could point to a plethora of such examples in the US alone, both today and all throughout its history.

Thus your notion that a revolution is "consequential" to capitalism's collapse would perhaps hold more weight to me if you were speaking specifically of the latter as opposed to the former. But even here a revolutionary and class-conscious proletariat is required to hasten and make that collapse certain; the lack of capitalist democracy does not at all ensure the collapse of the system itself, as the example of European fascism clearly shows. As such it is not at all an "inexhaustible bag of tricks", but very real methods that can be used to revive and strengthen the institution of private property for future generations to come in spite of its internal contradictions. Leaving it to a question of "capitalism itself bringing down capitalism" is completely wrong-headed because it removes man as the primary agent that shapes his own future at best and relegates historical development as an abstract perpetual motion device at worst. This was certainly not Marx's view on the matter: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_2.htm

History does nothing, it “possesses no immense wealth”, it “wages no battles”. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; “history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims. Marx's quote notwithstanding, however, we must also refer to his Eighteenth Brumaire, which is that despite the primacy of human agency in history, man does not always make his history under the conditions of his choice.

This is, in my opinion, the essence of the Marxist view of history. You apparently do not hold any stock in this view. You seem to believe that socialism is some sort of automatic reflex to objective conditions, the inevitable end of capitalism being its ideological precursor. This is not Marxism, but objectivism, i.e. vulgar economic determinism. I do not think I am wrong in making this assertion. Why else would you, a professed socialist, simply throw up your hands and submit yourself to the mercy of bourgeois democracy and claim that revolution cannot bring down capitalism? It is also rather telling that you ignored the other half of my post regarding the behavior of the Second International with the obvious similarities of their politics to your own. Of course you are not the first to hold this view (David North of the SEP does, for example), nor will you be the last. But please be aware that the implications of your outlook are not only ahistorical but anti-human. It will not attract workers but repel them, and may even serve to betray them, as the German SPD did in their time and beyond.

[Ocean Seal]

Perhaps burn down some polling stations?
Laudable emotion, but not really of any use either, with some potential backlash, even among our small numbers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Perhaps burn down some polling stations?Please, liberals fetishize voting enough, let's not do the same from the opposite direction. I think Howard Zinn put it well when he said it doesn't matter who's sitting in the white house it matters who's sitting-in.


Laudable emotion, but not really of any use either, with some potential backlash, even among our small numbers.Not to mention how'd look if "leftists" were taking actions which essentially could prevent black people from voting.

[ed miliband]

Then the comparison is invalid because we here in the US do not enjoy the same parliamentary system as you have in GB.

i wasn't really making a comparison though, i was refuting your claim that "lesser-evilism" is realpolitik and suggesting a single example where i believe communists voting for a bourgeois party can be realpolitik. an example i don't agree with, or believe has any relevance today, but an example nevertheless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stand at polling places, passing out a leaflet that looks like a poll card, with the headline: "Was This Trip Really Necessary?"

That's catchy, comrade, but make sure the voter concludes that spoilage is the way to go. Abstention isn't political at all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I know some countries count spoiled votes, but I don't think the US is one of them unfortunately. I could be wrong though.

[Martin Blank]

That's catchy, comrade, but make sure the voter concludes that spoilage is the way to go. Abstention isn't political at all.

We're recommending that people write in "workers" for all offices.


I know some countries count spoiled votes, but I don't think the US is one of them unfortunately. I could be wrong though.

No states count spoiled ballots; they just throw them out. On the other hand, they will count write-ins in most states.

[Rafiq]

I, as a Marxist will ask no one to do anything. I'm not a moralist. What I can tell you is that whom ever you vote for, ultimitely it won't make a difference as to who that vote really goes to: Your class enemy. Indeed, the policies Obama will make, and the policies Romney will make will be identical in that they are made in the interest of the Bourgeois class. Obama, for one, hasn't made decisions that the president before him wouldn't make, and so on. It is not as if these candidates have some sort of "idea" that they adjust reality to when they get into office. No, consecutively, their actions, policies and decisions are made in direct reflection of the interests of the class who allowed them to be in the positions that they are. People in this thread who talk of "Oh, well I personally/my relative/my friend need healthcare" really need to ask themselves if they think that they as proletarians will have the ability to influence the actions of the Bourgeois state through voting, as if a catastrophic difference will exist if Romney gets elected.

[The Idler]

Why don't we organise to stand candidates, and campaign for socialism with a view to capturing political power?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why don't we organise to stand candidates, and campaign for socialism with a view to capturing political power?

You're right. Once we capture the $500mln or so necessary to win the election, we can get about the task of nationalising the banks, introducing a higher minimum wage, establishing a welfare state, well on the way towards a legislated Socialism...:rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

We're recommending that people write in "workers" for all offices.

No states count spoiled ballots; they just throw them out. On the other hand, they will count write-ins in most states.

I guess it depends on the country, comrade, but the gist remains the same regarding spoilage "in the broad sense" (ahem) and abstention.

[Martin Blank]

Why don't we organise to stand candidates, and campaign for socialism with a view to capturing political power?

We'd have better luck trying to levitate the Pentagon.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why don't we organise to stand candidates, and campaign for socialism with a view to capturing political power?

why not just wish ourselves into communism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We'd have better luck trying to levitate the Pentagon.

That would be a high-five..!

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Really, it depends on what your aims are. If your aims are to possibly make some things better under the current system, than your argument of voting for Obama makes some sense. But if you want to bring down capitalism, it is, irrelevant at best, pernicious at worst. The Democratic Party, the party of Hiroshima, the Bay of Pigs, the Viet Nam War -- this is the bourgeois party in the US that can best shove austerity down the throats of the proletariat, and especially in Obama's case, minority workers and poor people. Supporting Obama, no matter how critically, is giving support to US capitalism. Something socialists should not do under any circumstance.

[The Idler]

You're right. Once we capture the $500mln or so necessary to win the election, we can get about the task of nationalising the banks, introducing a higher minimum wage, establishing a welfare state, well on the way towards a legislated Socialism...:rolleyes:
Nice strawman.

We'd have better luck trying to levitate the Pentagon.
Beats spoiling ballots, voting lesser evil etc. If votes can be taken in trade unions why not electoral college? It is better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and get it.

why not just wish ourselves into communism?
Because, the levers of political power are handed over to capitalist candidates with the support of the population voting in capitalist candidates or ignoring it on a regular basis.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

When I look at the last century in Europe nothing about it makes me want to take a stab at social democracy, we may as well give Stalinism another shot. What an incredible waste of time and energy.

[Book O'Dead]

Marx & the International must have gone soft in the head!


Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.
While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm#b)
Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:
Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;
George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer,


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

[Martin Blank]

Wow! Just ... wow!


Beats spoiling ballots, voting lesser evil etc.

I know you're a supporter of the SPGB and all, but you apparently have no idea how elections are arranged in the U.S. DeLeon nailed it over a century ago when he wrote about defeat at the hands of the "election inspectors". What he saw as a possibility in 1907 is the reality today, and has been the reality for decades. Elections in the U.S. are a closed system; the rules are written by the two parties of capitalism for the two parties of capitalism, and there is no room for anyone else. Period. You cannot even begin to think about changing the way elections are run in the U.S. without overthrowing the political supremacy of the exploiting and oppressing classes.


If votes can be taken in trade unions why not electoral college?

Sigh! Do you even know how the Electoral College works? First, people don't vote directly for the President or Vice-President; they vote for a slate of Electors chosen by the Party or candidate. Second, the only people who vote in the EC are those Electors. Third, while states have laws that allow the Electors to be determined by the popular vote in a "first-past-the-post" contest, they also have laws that provide ... alternatives ... if everything doesn't go as planned.

It's this third point that is the most important. Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". (Emphasis mine)

As I said, states normally allow the Electors to be chosen by popular vote, but they also have alternatives in case things get "out of hand". The most common alternative is a law that allows the state legislature to override the popular vote and appoint the Electors themselves. Virtually every state has this kind of alternative available to them. If that isn't enough to stop unapproved candidates, then it goes to Congress, where the Electoral Votes can be challenged by one Representative and one Senator signing a written declaration of challenge. At that point, Congress breaks into state delegations, each of which receive one vote. (D.C. does not receive a vote, since they are not a state.)

So, unless you have majorities in both houses of every state won, plus a majority of both houses of Congress, plus a majority of states and a majority of Electoral Votes -- in other words, a total sweep of the entire political government all at once (which, in and of itself, is impossible, given the way the Constitution is written) -- you can forget ever seeing the inside of the White House except as a tourist.


It is better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and get it.

It is better to do systematic political organizing within the working class and begin building a new world in the rotting shell of the old, than to waste precious time and resources on a public display of masturbation.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Marx & the International must have gone soft in the head!




http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

If I've learned anything from Marx it's that conditions never change and we must do the same things for ever and ever.

[Martin Blank]

Marx & the International must have gone soft in the head!

I don't think it was Marx and the International that suffered from such a malady.

[Book O'Dead]

If I've learned anything from Marx it's that conditions never change and we must do the same things for ever and ever.

Judging by the ultra-leftism expressed by some here I'm tempted to think you actually believe that!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Judging by the ultra-leftism expressed by some here I'm tempted to think you actually believe that!

Haha not voting for the Democrats is 'ultra-leftism' now?

[Book O'Dead]

I don't think it was Marx and the International that suffered from such a malady.

You're right: about half the users of this group and about 90% of the participants in this thread.

I get a kick out reading post by people who, unable to show their socialist bona fides assume these absurd ultra-radical postures (especially the morons who call for riots on the streets and burning ballot boxes as an alternative to voting in elections).

And when I propose that workers take sides in the upcoming elections someone says: "Your opinions are dangerous"!

[Book O'Dead]

Haha not voting for the Democrats is 'ultra-leftism' now?

No. The claim that voting for a capitalist candidate is ipso facto voting for capitalism is.

[Comrade Samuel]

Quit your job, become a lobbyist we will buy socialism in the USA!

There's hardly much to do, we can either waste our votes on 3rd parties or contribute to the major political party's continuing effort to make things worse for everybody that isn't a millionaire so perhaps it's best to do nothing and enjoy the show.

[rylasasin]

My answer: Jack and shit, and I plan on leaving town with jack because I don't want to stick around to smell the shit.

[Philosopher Jay]

Only about 2-4% of the American people at the moment consider themselves socialists. In 41 out of the 50 states, one candidate will have a lead more than 5% over the other candidate. In these states it will not matter who the socialists vote or do not vote for. However, in 9 of the 50 states the candidates will probably be separated by 4 or less percentage points. In these states, the votes or non-votes of socialists will make a significant difference. It could make the difference between a sane capitalist and an insane capitalist class ruling. In the 41 states where the winner will be obvious before voting starts, socialists should vote for a socialist candidate, the one closest to their particular views. In the nine swing states, socialists should vote for Obama.
Socialism is a reasonable and rational system and socialists should act in reasonable and rational ways to bring it about. Allowing a Bishop of the Mormon Church to be in charge of 3,000 armed nuclear warheads is not acting in a reasonable and rational way.

[Book O'Dead]

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't!


Only about 2-4% of the American people at the moment consider themselves socialists. In 41 out of the 50 states, one candidate will have a lead more than 5% over the other candidate. In these states it will not matter who the socialists vote or do not vote for. However, in 9 of the 50 states the candidates will probably be separated by 4 or less percentage points. In these states, the votes or non-votes of socialists will make a significant difference. It could make the difference between a sane capitalist and an insane capitalist class ruling. In the 41 states where the winner will be obvious before voting starts, socialists should vote for a socialist candidate, the one closest to their particular views. In the nine swing states, socialists should vote for Obama.
Socialism is a reasonable and rational system and socialists should act in reasonable and rational ways to bring it about. Allowing a Bishop of the Mormon Church to be in charge of 3,000 armed nuclear warheads is not acting in a reasonable and rational way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Allowing a Bishop of the Mormon Church to be in charge of 3,000 armed nuclear warheads is not acting in a reasonable and rational way.Yet fearing a political figure from an unpopular minority religion and advocating voting for a political figure from another christian religion is rational? Every politician in the US claims to be a part of religion, so this point isn't a very strong one. Moreover, it was Democratic administrations who created and deployed nuclear weapons, brought the US into two World Wars, destroyed South East Asia.

In fact the last time the Democrats significantly opposed US military deployment was during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So, unless you have majorities in both houses of every state won, plus a majority of both houses of Congress, plus a majority of states and a majority of Electoral Votes -- in other words, a total sweep of the entire political government all at once

Doesn't part of this statement sound redundant? The first and the third sorta go together with respect to constitutional change, "majorities in both houses of a majority of states" (three-quarters, IIRC).

The real problem with Idler's post is that he ignores the bigger imperative posed by DeLeon for constitutional overhaul. That doesn't require any EC votes at all.

[Book O'Dead]

Yet fearing a political figure from an unpopular minority religion and advocating voting for a political figure from another christian religion is rational? Every politician in the US claims to be a part of religion, so this point isn't a very strong one. Moreover, it was Democratic administrations who created and deployed nuclear weapons, brought the US into two World Wars, destroyed South East Asia.

In fact the last time the Democrats significantly opposed US military deployment was during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Lame reasons to abstain or to vote for non-viable candidates.

As I see it, the upcoming elections aren't about dropping nukes, destroying Nam or starting WW3 but about choosing who will do the least harm to our class.
Besides, the previous president, a republican, started two unjustified wars, broke the law and undermined basic constitutional liberties. To allow his party to get back into executive power is foolish, to say the least.

[Os Cangaceiros]

When Obama gets re-elected, as RedHal said earlier, there really won't be any point in continuing the charade regarding "worker's rights", which was always very thin to begin with. 2nd term Obama will be a good pet for General Electric, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or whoever is cushioning his campaign war chest at the moment, as well as the institutional labor unions (ALF-CIO, SEIU etc), who will desperately cling to the Democratic Party even though they've been hung out to dry time and time again, the most recent spectacular failure being in Wisconsin, where all they got from the Obama administration was a tweet on election day. LOL!

The idea that the Democrats will provide some kind of bulwark against austerity is ridiculous. European parties are for the most part pretty far to the left of the Democrats, but even they often accept the "pragmatic" and "realistic" view that sometimes austerity needs to be enforced within their nations. The shit hasn't seriously hit the fan yet here in the USA because we're still top dog and the dollar still runs everything, but it's not going to stay that way forever, and when it's over the Democrats are going to be just as vicious as the GOP is. If you don't believe me look at what's happening in California, where a dress rehearsal of exactly what I'm talking about has been happening for years, with renewed vigour under the lead of the Democratic governor Jerry Brown.

The only reason that some leftists seem to even be entertaining the idea of voting for Barry, despite the bloodsoaked previous four years, is the fact that his term has driven a slice of the GOP (namely the Tea Party activists) further and further into loony toon land, with rants about how very popular programs like social security is "socialism", etc. The fanatics don't have a very good chance of getting into power, though, and if they did make good on their promises they'd be ejected from office extremely fast by Americans who love their "entitlements". So the difference between the pragmatic GOP and the pragmatic Democrats is not a big one.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No. The claim that voting for a capitalist candidate is ipso facto voting for capitalism is.
The idea that conditions in the US and the worldtoday, are similar to 1860 does suggest that you might be suffering from some cranial tenderness. The civil war in the US represented the completion of the bourgeois revolution. Marxists took a side in the civil war, for the North.
To celebrate your reformism, I've composed a little ditty, sung to the tune of Camp Town Races.

Oh, we supported the Union in the Civil War
doo dah, doo dah
to justify votes to the dems now is flawed
oh the doo dah day
draw a sharp class line
Don't vote for the bourgeoisie
not in twenty first century United States
It's obvious can't you see?

Marx wasn't sure where the US was going. It's lack of any aristocracy, it's tradition of (very qualified) democracy, was quite different from the leading capitalist countries in Europe. By the beginning of the twentieth century it was clear -- the US was merely a variation of bourgeois dictatorship. You want to cast a vote for Obama? Mazel tov. Is that Marxism? No way.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Lame reasons to abstain or to vote for non-viable candidates.

As I see it, the upcoming elections aren't about dropping nukes, destroying Nam or starting WW3 but about choosing who will do the least harm to our class.
Besides, the previous president, a republican, started two unjustified wars, broke the law and undermined basic constitutional liberties. To allow his party to get back into executive power is foolish, to say the least.

Uhh what about all the additional countries Obama has been bombing. Did he announce his intention to launch a coup in Libya during his 2008 campaign? Get a grip.

[human strike]

smoke a joint, don't vote.

That is EXACTLY what I was going to say...

[MuscularTophFan]

On economics or foreign policy I really don't see much of a difference between Obama and Romney. For me things like gay rights and abortion rights are highly important not just for me but for society in general. Let's compare Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama on some of these issues:

Gay rights - Mitt Romney wants a US constitutional amendment banning on only gay marriage but civil unions as well. And a US constitutional amendment takes a long while to repeal. Obama has expressed his support for gay marriage, did repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell, and signed into the law the Mathew Shepperd federal hate crimes laws that makes it a hate crime protecting sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a part of me that is hoping that Obama will 'evolve' further and support gay marriage at the federal level. I always knew he supported gay marriage when I first heard of him in 2008.

Abortion - Mitt Romney supports the failed Amendment 1, which would have made all abortions and some contraception illegal, arrested doctors who performed them, that was defeated badly in Mississippi. Obama supports Roe v Wade.

Religion - Also let's not forget that Mitt Romney is a bishop in the Mormon cult. Now I know that you shouldn't vote for someone because of religious beliefs but the Mormon cult used to be a racist organization till 1979. So that means Mitt Romney was a former member of a racist organization. Yet the media seems to never talk about Mitt Romney's faith as if it's a taboo topic. As for Obama he "claims" to be a Protestant Christian and maybe he is and maybe he isn't and just saying that but either way he's a secularist and the more secular American politics get the better.


You voting third party is basically you not voting at all. Since I do live in a swing state and my vote does count I will vote for Obama, because he basically doesn't think women and gays should be discriminated against. The threat of abortion being made illegal and a constitutional ban on same sex unions is just to great for me to vote third party or not vote at all. Remeber in 2010 when all of the right wing tea baggers got voted in when young voters didn't vote? First thing they did when they got in was attack abortion rights and impose voter suppression laws.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A constitutional amendment banning civil unions is never gonna happen.

And despite a deluge of attacks in regards to reproductive health issues, an outright ban on abortion is never gonna happen either.

Gay rights...on the one hand, I recognize that gay marriage is an issue that many gay people feel strongly about, even though I think that marriage is a sham of an institution. At least he repealed DADT though, now gay people can openly kill brown people in faraway lands just like their straight brethren.

[MuscularTophFan]

A constitutional amendment banning civil unions is never gonna happen.
They tired in 2004 and 2006 to pass it.


And despite a deluge of attacks in regards to reproductive health issues, an outright ban on abortion is never gonna happen either.
They are still tying to make abortion illegal in Mississippi despite the vote to keep abortion illegal. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi might be closed down soon.


Gay rights...on the one hand, I recognize that gay marriage is an issue that many gay people feel strongly about, even though I think that marriage is a sham of an institution.
It's not gay marriage it's the rights and privileges granted by marriage that's the issue like gay adoption or meeting partners in hospitals or immigration. Maryland allows for joint same sex couple adoption since it allows gay marriage. Since I'm currently in a gay relationship this does effect me personally.


At least he repealed DADT though, now gay people can openly kill brown people in faraway lands just like their straight brethren.
DADT was discriminatory policy going all the way back the American Revolution. It was just as bad as segeration. I by no means support the war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean our military should discriminate against the people who serve in it.

[Martin Blank]

I get a kick out reading posts by people who, unable to show their socialist bona fides, assume these absurd ultra-radical postures (especially the morons who call for riots on the streets and burning ballot boxes as an alternative to voting in elections).

If you would like a list of my bona fides before we go on, I can see about writing them up for you. It might take a little time, though, since there's a lot to compile. Besides, I think you're a smart enough young man to use the search functions on this website and find them for yourself.

As for someone like me taking an "absurd ultra-radical posture", I find such an accusation amusing. Indeed, I would go so far as to consider it a badge of honor, seeing that it comes from someone who is calling for a second term for Obama.


And when I propose that workers take sides in the upcoming elections someone says: "Your opinions are dangerous"!

All things considered, I think they're right to warn people about your position. You are advocating support for Obama, who has not only surpassed his predecessor in demonstrating his loyalty and subservience to the exploiting and oppressing classes, but has taken it to new levels. The only palpable difference between Obama and Romney is that one wears a "D" and the other wears an "R".

[Martin Blank]

Only about 2-4% of the American people at the moment consider themselves socialists. In 41 out of the 50 states, one candidate will have a lead more than 5% over the other candidate. In these states it will not matter who the socialists vote or do not vote for. However, in 9 of the 50 states the candidates will probably be separated by 4 or less percentage points. In these states, the votes or non-votes of socialists will make a significant difference. It could make the difference between a sane capitalist and an insane capitalist class ruling. In the 41 states where the winner will be obvious before voting starts, socialists should vote for a socialist candidate, the one closest to their particular views. In the nine swing states, socialists should vote for Obama.
Socialism is a reasonable and rational system and socialists should act in reasonable and rational ways to bring it about. Allowing a Bishop of the Mormon Church to be in charge of 3,000 armed nuclear warheads is not acting in a reasonable and rational way.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Suffice to say, this whole thing about "a sane capitalist and an insane capitalist" is nothing more than petty moralism. It's not about sanity or insanity; it is about the demands of the ruling classes. And in that regard, both Obama and Romney will do their level best to fulfill those demands. More to the point, the ultimate winner of the presidential sweepstakes this November will be whomever the exploiting and oppressing classes believe will best and most efficiently carry out their demands and agenda.

[Martin Blank]

Besides, the previous president, a republican, started two unjustified wars, broke the law and undermined basic constitutional liberties. To allow his party to get back into executive power is foolish, to say the least.

And the current president, a Democrat, has:


Continued the two unjustified wars and occupations
Not only broke the law, but shattered it into a million slivers
Done more than undermined constitutional liberties, he has annihilated nearly every basic democratic advance since the Magna Carta (habeas corpus, due process, free speech, free press, free assembly and protest, etc.)
Spearheaded the attack on public sector workers by imposing a two-year pay freeze on federal employees, thus initiating the current austerity assault in the U.S.
Let liberal state campaigns meant to reverse many of the recent GOP attacks hanging out to dry
Supported efforts to turn major American cities into armed camps, where the forces of the state were given a free hand to brutally suppress dissent

And so on, and so on,...

To support either of the two corporatist parties is, well, "foolish".

[Os Cangaceiros]

They tired in 2004 and 2006 to pass it.

And didn't.


They are still tying to make abortion illegal in Mississippi despite the vote to keep abortion illegal. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi might be closed down soon.

They may try to force the issue into federal court, but ultimately it's going to fail as an initiative, despite local state level troglodytes.


It's not gay marriage it's the rights and privileges granted by marriage that's the issue like gay adoption or meeting partners in hospitals or immigration. Maryland allows for joint same sex couple adoption since it allows gay marriage. Since I'm currently in a gay relationship this does effect me personally.

But if all of these things were provided for under civil unions or whatever, there would still be an issue regarding gay marriage. Some Democrats support all the rights of marriage but waffle on whether to call it "marriage", I believe our friend Barack Obama was one of these until recently.


DADT was discriminatory policy going all the way back the American Revolution. It was just as bad as segeration. I by no means support the war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean our military should discriminate against the people who serve in it.

DADT was obviously discriminatory. But the whole trend of gay people demanding marriage, demanding to be recognized as patriotic 'murikans who bleed in foreign wars just like heterosexuals, to me it seems to represent a conservative trend, of gay people wanting to fit into straight culture. There have been some good radical queer criticisms of this trend, see also (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2012/02/mattilda.php)

[Rocky Rococo]

There are no gains to be protected. The Democrats as we speak are celebrating, trumpeting as a great partisan Victory For Obama, their gutting of the dedicated funding of the Social Security Trust Fund. The "health care" reform? You mean, the compulsory fork over your dough to private insuraqnce companies, and we'll look the other way while states can actually throw the poor off Medicaid and make them then pay the penalty for not buying corporate health insurance? That's a gain? And there's a totally inaccurate recitation of how health care came to Canada being introduced here as a means of covering for Democratic corporate sellout. Tommy Douglas never had any frickin' "exchange". Ever. And every Canadian knows that, which is one BIG reason why Tommy Douglas was voted "the Greatest Canadian Ever".

[Rocky Rococo]

As far as the elections themselves are concerned, we should be able to use the grotesque amounts of money both sides will be spewing, and the sources of that money, to shape arguments indicting the whole sham of capitalist "democracy" for the fraud, the kabuki in the service of great wealth that it is. The fact that increasingly poor and working class people will be disenfranchised should also be emphasized to show how the whole thing is a farcical stacked deck serving only to fortify the control of big money over the rest of us.

[MuscularTophFan]

And didn't.
Yeah but constitutional bans against gay marriage did pass in 30 states. A US constitional ban require 75% of US states.




They may try to force the issue into federal court, but ultimately it's going to fail as an initiative, despite local state level troglodytes.
the US supreme court is so fucking batshit insane right wing lately I won't be surprised if they make freedom of speech illegal.




But if all of these things were provided for under civil unions or whatever, there would still be an issue regarding gay marriage. Some Democrats support all the rights of marriage but waffle on whether to call it "marriage", I believe our friend Barack Obama was one of these until recently.
Civil unions make me feel like a second class citizen to a certain extent. As for Obama he always support gay marriage. He supported in 1996 for gay marriage when he was running for senator of Illinois. He just took into account public opinion polls on gay marriage. When Obama ran for president in 2008 polls showed about 40% of Americans said they supported gay marriage and there was two US states with gay marriage. If Obama had same he supported gay marriage in 2008 he might have very well lost the 2008 election. Four years later polls show that anywhere between 53-50% of Americans say they support gay marriage. So Obama suddenly "evolved" to where the American majority was on the issue.



DADT was obviously discriminatory. But the whole trend of gay people demanding marriage, demanding to be recognized as patriotic 'murikans who bleed in foreign wars just like heterosexuals, to me it seems to represent a conservative trend, of gay people wanting to fit into straight culture. There have been some good radical queer criticisms of this trend, see also (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2012/02/mattilda.php)
The problem is that homosexuality has been for centuries stigmatized as a mental disorder and it isn't "normal." For many years I was a closeted bisexual. I didn't come to terms with my sexuality for many years. I didn't come of the closet until very recently. And my parents actually asked me when I came out of them "Do you choice to go with women or with men?" I told my parents that it's not how bisexuality works. My boyfriend told me how he grew up in a Christian school and thought he could "cure" himself of his homosexuality. One poll put the lgbt population in America as high as 25%. So that means that a good percentage of Americans are closeted repressed gays. Still compared to other countries like Iran or Russia, the USA is still one of the best country for a gay person to live on earth.

All of the laws that discriminate against gays/bisexuals/transgendered need to be equal to that of heterosexuals so that the social sigma against homosexuality finally dies out. So you have to understand that's why so many of us want to "fit in" and be accepted by society.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Lame reasons to abstain or to vote for non-viable candidates.

As I see it, the upcoming elections aren't about dropping nukes, destroying Nam or starting WW3 but about choosing who will do the least harm to our class.
Besides, the previous president, a republican, started two unjustified wars, broke the law and undermined basic constitutional liberties. To allow his party to get back into executive power is foolish, to say the least.

Yet the current, Democratic, President continues war, continues to threaten other countries with war, fights wars in the Middle East by proxy, continues Guantanamo and extends the war on terror, undermining civil liberties as he goes.

Moreover, if you want to talk about who harms the class, consider that even in his first term, backed by a huge swathe of liberals to the left of him, Obama still managed to extend the Bush tax cuts and entrench the medical insurance companies so that, even though he passed this watered down health bill, it really stifles the power of the ordinary worker to extend this to universal healthcare at any point in the future.

And also, let's consider that the latter half of his second term, Obama will be a lame duck, with no reason nor support to do anything but support the prevailing Capitalist orthodoxy in the USA.

Really, you call us ultra-left, but your near-blind support for a vote for the Democrats shows that it is you who is ultra-scared to embrace Socialism.

When the time comes, you really have to make brave choices. You know, like standing at polling booths making the case for Socialism, rather than peddling this bullshit lesser-of-two-evils shit. It's absolutely traiterous.

Let me ask you, where does this lesser of two evils stuff end? Presumably, if Obama wins you'll be defending his actions next term against the 'potentially worse' actions of Romney, and use that to advocate a vote for the Democrats in 2016, right? On the basis that they'll do less harm than the next Republican candidate.

You know, it's understandable, and indeed desirable, to be concerned about the immediate plight of the working class, but if you put so much energy into fighting for a vote for the Democrats, when will you ever get round to actually openly advocating Socialism? You can't really do both!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lame reasons to abstain or to vote for non-viable candidates.I think not supporting candidates who will use their mandate from people who want universal healthcare, international peace, relief from austerity, an end to racism, union rights, LGBT rights, to do pretty much the exact opposite is a perfectly sane reason.

As Malcolm X said, you put the Democrats first and they always put you last. Just look at the Unions and Obama - the union leadership campaigned for him on the basis that he was going to pass pro-union reforms - his people then said that these reforms were "unworkable" and "impossible" after the election and even before the inauguration!

So what do you call someone who gives funds and money and time to elect a President who then turns around and says that their demands are impossible while giving 700 billion to bankers? A sucker. What do you call someone who then 4 years later, knowing that this President is promising you NOTHING, funds and works for them again? A stupid sucker.


As I see it, the upcoming elections aren't about dropping nukes, destroying Nam or starting WW3 but about choosing who will do the least harm to our class.He's not even offering "less-harm" he's only offering slower harm. How are Charter schools and attacks on teachers good for our class? How is ignoring the disproportionate suffering of Blacks during the economic crisis good for our class? How is being the organizer of counter-revolution in North Africa and the Middle East good for our class? How is Hilary's statement that the US will be involved in Afghanistan for the indefinite future good for our class?


Besides, the previous president, a republican, started two unjustified wars, broke the law and undermined basic constitutional liberties. To allow his party to get back into executive power is foolish, to say the least.Yeah, they suck. Clinton sucked too and Obama invited all the archeticts of the Bush/Clinton neoliberal economy as well as the military leaders of the second half of the Bush Jr. admin back into the administration. But the thing is that BOTH parties, in fact, the entire ruling class of all powerful countries have a consensus that the way to "fix" this crisis is by lowering working class living standards.

In California we have "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown - notorious for his supposed hippy-liberalsim. What is he offering the workers of California? A sales tax measure which he wants the unions to campaign for which will hurt workers more than the rich (and thus probably be voted down) - if it doesn't pass he says he'll have "no choice" but to cut funding for college education. He offers us blackmail and a fight within the working class over crumbs (actually not even crumbs, a fight over who has to pay more for the crisis).

If, say, an Occupy Party that was explicitly opposed to both parties and the whole austerity agenda had been formed, then something like that, even without having a chance to win, could have had much more of a positive impact on politics. Even getting 5% of the vote would send a clear message that there's millions of people who won't eat the Democrat's shit and then ask for more. Even if that movement had maintained without trying to directly challenge and embarrass the candidates and been an expression of discontent with the parties, then that would do more for politics than the election of either candidate. Just think about the political impact of Obama vs. Occupy: Obama was talking about "greedy teachers" needing accountability and killing Bin Lauden but the movement brought the 99% and the idea of inequality into the open in a matter of weeks.

The conditions for our class won't depend on who's in the White House, it will depend on how well we are able to organize and make our own demands rather than caving into someone who only promises to be "less evil".

[Book O'Dead]

Uhh what about all the additional countries Obama has been bombing. Did he announce his intention to launch a coup in Libya during his 2008 campaign? Get a grip.

Is this a trick question? Oh, I get it: Obama engineered Ghadafi's ouster!

That would be credible if only the Libyan people had not intervened first.

[Book O'Dead]

If you would like a list of my bona fides before we go on, I can see about writing them up for you. It might take a little time, though, since there's a lot to compile. Besides, I think you're a smart enough young man to use the search functions on this website and find them for yourself.

As for someone like me taking an "absurd ultra-radical posture", I find such an accusation amusing. Indeed, I would go so far as to consider it a badge of honor, seeing that it comes from someone who is calling for a second term for Obama.



All things considered, I think they're right to warn people about your position. You are advocating support for Obama, who has not only surpassed his predecessor in demonstrating his loyalty and subservience to the exploiting and oppressing classes, but has taken it to new levels. The only palpable difference between Obama and Romney is that one wears a "D" and the other wears an "R".

Yours is not an ultra-left attitude. I would describe it more like doctrinaire.

Your supposed socialist bona fides are of little interest to me, given that you, like so many in this forum, are unable to detach yourself from your political affections long enough to perceive the immediate danger posed to the working class by a possible change in administration.

BTW, the post you're responding to, although addressed to you, was not aimed specifically at you. So don't take it personal.

[Book O'Dead]

And the current president, a Democrat, has:


Continued the two unjustified wars and occupations
Not only broke the law, but shattered it into a million slivers
Done more than undermined constitutional liberties, he has annihilated nearly every basic democratic advance since the Magna Carta (habeas corpus, due process, free speech, free press, free assembly and protest, etc.)
Spearheaded the attack on public sector workers by imposing a two-year pay freeze on federal employees, thus initiating the current austerity assault in the U.S.
Let liberal state campaigns meant to reverse many of the recent GOP attacks hanging out to dry
Supported efforts to turn major American cities into armed camps, where the forces of the state were given a free hand to brutally suppress dissent

And so on, and so on,...

To support either of the two corporatist parties is, well, "foolish".

Your list is wrong.

In fact, it's false inasmuch as Obama has attempted to disengage the United States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should read the news more often.

The other points are exaggerations and distortions, so general in nature as to be unworthy of response.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Under Nixon, more reforms that are beneficial to the working class were passed than under Clinton. Why? Because during Nixon's administration there had been large movements including anti-war and black power that shifted the political initiative even into the mainstream.

Under Clinton? The unions and liberal feminist and civil rights organizations all went silent. NOW hardly exists on the streets anymore. The effect of relying on Democrats to fight for abortion rights? Well now we have an annual march of about 40,000 anti-abortionists in San Francisco on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Middle Class civil rights organizations talked about Clinton as "the first black president" - but the effect was the end of welfare and millions of black people being added to the Prison system thanks to Clinton's "tough on crime" policies. Affirmative Action was ended, DOMA was done through executive order, people starved because of sanctions on Iraq, welfare "as we know it" was ended, anyone arrested for ANY drug offense lost acess to public housing and welfare for life, anti-terrorism laws were passes and so on. Not to mention Alan Greenspan and all the neo-liberal jackasses that controlled the economic policies of that era to today.

As one Republican Congressman said after Bill Clinton's re-election: "The good news is that a Republican won, the bad news is that it's Bill Clinton". It would be the same for Obama's second term - if he does anything "left" it will because he was forced to by grassroots movements and protest, if Romney capitulates to any reforms or demands, it will be because he was forced to by grassroots movements and protest.

The two parties merely play the roles of good-cop/bad-cop for US capitalist interests. One may say "I feel your pain" while the other says, "no more free-rides" but they both want the same thing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your list is wrong.

In fact, it's false inasmuch as Obama has attempted to disengage the United States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should read the news more often.

The other points are exaggerations and distortions, so general in nature as to be unworthy of response.Is that why he kept the same military people in charge - Petreus is the great peace-maker?

No, Obama may have said he's attempting or wants to "end the wars", but Bush already started the "Vietnameseation" (making the ground troops in the war locals while basically the US military provides the hardware, missions, and air support) of the wars. Hillary Clinton just announced that the US would have a permanent role in Afghanistan.

So even if this process hadn't already begun under Bush, what is this "peace" - it isn't peace in the way humans want, it's imperial "peace" - they want to control the region and have stable client states - peace through no opposition. That means if Iraq had an Tarhir-like moment, then the US militarily permanently surrounding (and the US officials inside) Iraq would jump in to "re-establish peace".

EDIT: also WTF, a President who's done more than Bush to justify and set precedents for bombing targets in any country and assassinating people at any time, is a "peace candidate"?

[Book O'Dead]

Yet the current, Democratic, President continues war, continues to threaten other countries with war, fights wars in the Middle East by proxy, continues Guantanamo and extends the war on terror, undermining civil liberties as he goes.

Apparently you forget that Barack Obama inherited the two wars you are referring to as well as the situation in Gitmo. Anyone who understand even a little bit about foreign policy should know that a war, once started, is more difficult to end without causing greater harm. As we speak, the U.S. has been negotiating with Pakistan to keep roads open in order to remove war materiel and equipment from Afghanistan.

The Gitmo situation was not of his creation. George W. Bush and his co-conspirators started that, and created a serious legal and juridical problem as to confound a constitutional scholar. To blame Obama for being unable to resolve it in less than four years is unfair.

Moreover, we can't assume an attitude of indifference toward the presidential elections precisely for those reasons. To allow Obama to be replaced would probably mean an escalation of the war in Afganistan because Romney is in the hands of the Bush family, who will stop at nothing to achieve their corporate objectives in the region.

If that's not an incentive to deny the Republicans the presidency, I don't know what is.


Moreover, if you want to talk about who harms the class, consider that even in his first term, backed by a huge swathe of liberals to the left of him, Obama still managed to extend the Bush tax cuts and entrench the medical insurance companies so that, even though he passed this watered down health bill, it really stifles the power of the ordinary worker to extend this to universal healthcare at any point in the future.

As I've heard it said in Spanish: "O te peinas, o te haces rolos!" Either comb your hair or wear rollers; IOW's you can't have it both ways.
On the one hand you reproach me for asserting that workers must take sides in the upcoming elections and, as some have done, call me reformist, on the other, you complain about insufficient reform measures. Make up your mind.


And also, let's consider that the latter half of his second term, Obama will be a lame duck, with no reason nor support to do anything but support the prevailing Capitalist orthodoxy in the USA.

From Wiki: "A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected."


Really, you call us ultra-left, but your near-blind support for a vote for the Democrats shows that it is you who is ultra-scared to embrace Socialism.

When the time comes, you really have to make brave choices. You know, like standing at polling booths making the case for Socialism, rather than peddling this bullshit lesser-of-two-evils shit. It's absolutely traiterous.





Let me ask you, where does this lesser of two evils stuff end? Presumably, if Obama wins you'll be defending his actions next term against the 'potentially worse' actions of Romney, and use that to advocate a vote for the Democrats in 2016, right? On the basis that they'll do less harm than the next Republican candidate.

Wrong.


You know, it's understandable, and indeed desirable, to be concerned about the immediate plight of the working class, but if you put so much energy into fighting for a vote for the Democrats, when will you ever get round to actually openly advocating Socialism? You can't really do both!

Please don't patronize me.

[Book O'Dead]

Is that why he kept the same military people in charge - Petreus is the great peace-maker?

No, Obama may have said he's attempting or wants to "end the wars", but Bush already started the "Vietnameseation" (making the ground troops in the war locals while basically the US military provides the hardware, missions, and air support) of the wars. Hillary Clinton just announced that the US would have a permanent role in Afghanistan.

So even if this process hadn't already begun under Bush, what is this "peace" - it isn't peace in the way humans want, it's imperial "peace" - they want to control the region and have stable client states - peace through no opposition. That means if Iraq had an Tarhir-like moment, then the US militarily permanently surrounding (and the US officials inside) Iraq would jump in to "re-establish peace".

EDIT: also WTF, a President who's done more than Bush to justify and set precedents for bombing targets in any country and assassinating people at any time, is a "peace candidate"?

You're arguing against something I have not said or implied.

Anyway, I wouldn't blame the U.S. for wanting a "permanent" presence in Afghanistan or for wanting to whack those Medieval assholes; the Taliban and the Islamists who shoot and decapitate people (especially women) for the slightest pretext. Fuck 'em; a pox upon their house!

I've come to realize that the Soviet Union was correct in invading that country. It's ruled by a bunch of Bronze Age Neanderthals who should not be allowed to govern any country.

But getting back to the question at hand. One important reason to deny Romney the presidency is because he would be acting as a surrogate of the Bush-Cheney cabal. They will not hesitate to escalate the war to achieve their goals.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So you are okay with Obama deceptively keeping open Gitmo and funding Libyan rebels who, as we saw with the killing of Qaddafi, are perfectly happy to engage in mob-style extra-judicial killing, but support imperialism waging war against those from Afghanistan who engage in mob-led, extra-judicial execution.

So what are you: a racist, a supporter of imperialism, or dare I say it a very successful, yet ultimately sad, troll?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But getting back to the question at hand. One important reason to deny Romney the presidency is because he would be acting as a surrogate of the Bush-Cheney cabal. They will not hesitate to escalate the war to achieve their goals.

Their goals are exactly the same as Obama's. The only way to curtail these goals is for grassroots movements to exist, to be on the streets and outside congress fighting tooth and nail, not in the hallways inside congress managing Capitalism. So really, it matters not a jot whether it's Obama or Romney in the White House, pro-worker reforms will be effected only by effective worker organisation.

[Book O'Dead]

So you are okay with Obama deceptively keeping open Gitmo and funding Libyan rebels who, as we saw with the killing of Qaddafi, are perfectly happy to engage in mob-style extra-judicial killing, but support imperialism waging war against those from Afghanistan who engage in mob-led, extra-judicial execution.

So what are you: a racist, a supporter of imperialism, or dare I say it a very successful, yet ultimately sad, troll?


I am none of the things you accuse me of by innuendo.

Although I haven't been here in Revleft as long as you have, my posts should indicate to any fair-minded person that I am of good faith.

But this is unnecessary and unfair; I shouldn't have to defend myself from personal attacks when what is under discussion is whether or not workers ought to participate in the upcoming elections and, if so, how.

If you yourself are who you claim to be, then you should be ashamed of using such tactics and of attempting to degenerate this argument into a childish flame war.

I stand by what I've said and I do it with an open hand and a clear conscience.

[Book O'Dead]

Their goals are exactly the same as Obama's. The only way to curtail these goals is for grassroots movements to exist, to be on the streets and outside congress fighting tooth and nail, not in the hallways inside congress managing Capitalism. So really, it matters not a jot whether it's Obama or Romney in the White House, pro-worker reforms will be effected only by effective worker organisation.

Unless you come to the U.S. in person and experience life here as a worker, you are unqualified to pass judgement on what U.S. workers ought to do in November.

I can understand that to you, sitting waaaaay over there, across the Atlantic, both candidates are indistinguishable. But to me, standing here, they look quite different.

Maybe your optics would change if you detached yourself a little from your dogma.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're arguing against something I have not said or implied.I thought you argued that Obama should be supported because he was withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan:


Obama has attempted to disengage the United States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Anyway, I wouldn't blame the U.S. for wanting a "permanent" presence in Afghanistan or for wanting to whack those Medieval assholes; the Taliban and the Islamists who shoot and decapitate people (especially women) for the slightest pretext. Fuck 'em; a pox upon their house!Like invading two countries on the pretext of stopping terrorism? Like bombing Afghanistan for the pretext of "women's rights"?


I've come to realize that the Soviet Union was correct in invading that country. It's ruled by a bunch of Bronze Age Neanderthals who should not be allowed to govern any country.Woah that's fucked up. Calm down, there's no reason to say something for exaggerated effect that might lead to restrictions or whatnot. At any rate, imperialism is not the answer to Afghanistan's problems, it's the main historical cause. The country was essentially created by the UK as a sort of buffer country and so is just a grab-bag of land and different cultures.

The best thing to do would be for imperialist powers to stay away. It might still be a crappy place to live, but dealing with one oppressor is much easier to fight against than also having to fight the USSR or US military backing that oppressor.


But getting back to the question at hand. One important reason to deny Romney the presidency is because he would be acting as a surrogate of the Bush-Cheney cabal. They will not hesitate to escalate the war to achieve their goals."Cabal"? As Marx said, the seats of power in capitalist governments are just for hammering out the common interests of the capitalist class. If it was Bush alone, why didn't the Democratic congress in 2006 end the war? Why did they continue to give war funding? Why did both parties almost unanimously support these wars? Why did they continue when the Dems controlled both houses and the executive branch after 2008? Why did Obama keep the same military leaders in charge of the war?

Both parties have the same overall interests - there are differences between them in rhetoric and strategy but they want the same things: continued economic and imperial dominance of the US (capitalist class). It's the difference between being thrown in a lake with a 20 pound chain around you or a 30 pound chain: you'll eventually end up in the same place.

Voting in of itself has never changed things for workers unless it's tied to some kind of organized social force of workers - even then it can merely support reformist efforts, not change the capitalist nature of the system.


Unless you come to the U.S. in person and experience life here as a worker, you are unqualified to pass judgement on what U.S. workers ought to do in November.I work a service job and have worked fairly steadily in various jobs throughout California since the mid-1990s. In my experience: the lesser evil is still fucking evil and giving our support to that just shows our rulers how little we, as workers, expect or will put up a fight against their agendas. We'd be much stronger if the union leadership was forced from below to abandon support for Obama (even if it caused him to loose) and used the millions of dollars and thousands of campaign hours they give him for the campaign to strike funds and organizing drives.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Is this a trick question? Oh, I get it: Obama engineered Ghadafi's ouster!

That would be credible if only the Libyan people had not intervened first.

The street demonstrations were legitimate but if you think the ntc could have taken power without NATO intervention you're crazy.

But the point is that a president is not going to announce foreign policy like that in advance, so the idea that you could gauge a politician's willingness to start ww3 or use nuclear weapons based on what they say during a campaign is idiotic. You sound like a liberal I don't know why you haven't been restricted.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I will try to put it succinctly. Obama is on the other side. He is for strengthening capitalism at the expense of most of us. Forget the particulars -- they ultimately are not the point. If you cut the pie certain ways, you can always come up with some reasons to support a given candidate. But the bigger question is: What interests do the candidates represent? Obama is a black front man for the US bourgeoisie. You want to support that?

[Book O'Dead]

The street demonstrations were legitimate but if you think the ntc could have taken power without NATO intervention you're crazy.

But the point is that a president is not going to announce foreign policy like that in advance, so the idea that you could gauge a politician's willingness to start ww3 or use nuclear weapons based on what they say during a campaign is idiotic. You sound like a liberal I don't know why you haven't been restricted.

Why is it so hard for some of you to argue politics without having to make insulting accusations and veiled threats?

I'm trying to argue from a working class perspective, addressing the issue as it actually is, not as I wished things to be.

Obama is indeed a pro-capitalist politician. I am under no illusions about his desire to save capitalism. However, when given the choice between him and the other guy I choose him because the other guy will be infinitely worse.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You're arguing against something I have not said or implied.

Anyway, I wouldn't blame the U.S. for wanting a "permanent" presence in Afghanistan or for wanting to whack those Medieval assholes; the Taliban and the Islamists who shoot and decapitate people (especially women) for the slightest pretext. Fuck 'em; a pox upon their house!

Do you realize that with this comment alone you have placed yourself in solidarity not only with the reactionary New Atheist crowd a la Sam Harris, but with the phony pretext for the "War on Terror"? You could be overreacting to the criticisms or personal insults you have received, but if that is the case it has been quite revealing. Also, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my last post in the conversation we were having. Though from what I've seen it might not be worth it, since you have engaged in intellectual dishonesty quite a bit up to this point; I don't think my initial assessment of your theoretical stance was fundamentally incorrect. Your attempt to argue from a "working class" perspective sounds suspiciously pragmatic and petty-bourgeois so far.

[Rafiq]

Marx & the International must have gone soft in the head!




http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm


Yeah, because the actions and descisions of communists are abstract and have no correlation whatsoever to according material conditions! :rolleyes:

Lenin, Luxemburg, etc. declared during the start of World War one agreed that the progressive potential of bourgeois states has ceased to exist. It's around this time when she declared Socialism or Barbarism.

[KurtFF8]

DNZ probably has the best idea, because voting for 3rd parties legitimizes the elections as much as voting for Democrat or Republican. Spoiling your ballot, en masse, will be a large protest of system. However, the unlikelihood of a mass spoilage happening is disconcerting, but I still don't want to suggest that you vote Obama.

The American system is completely buggered.

The problem with this, however, is that the amount of organization that would be required for a "mass spoilage" to even get an article written about it is much higher than what exists even for the current socialist/communist third party campaign apparatuses that exist presently.

And the logic that leads one to the conclusion of "voting for third parties legitimizes elections as much as voting for Democrat or Republican" can be applied to spoilage as well: you're still taking the time to politically express yourself through the venue of an election, albeit in a different manner.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why is it so hard for some of you to argue politics without having to make insulting accusations and veiled threats?

I'm trying to argue from a working class perspective, addressing the issue as it actually is, not as I wished things to be.

Obama is indeed a pro-capitalist politician. I am under no illusions about his desire to save capitalism. However, when given the choice between him and the other guy I choose him because the other guy will be infinitely worse.

Your support for the democrats has swung from 'critical' at the beginning of this thread to what sounds like enthusiastic support for the last few pages.

I think this provides pretty good insight to the motivations driving all these leftists giving 'critical' support to the Democrats that come out every election cycle and drone on and on about this bullshit.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Use the elections as a soap-box or way to amplify your message. dont worry about the actual vote.

talk about how Goldman Sachs is the primary contributor to the dems and repubs or how the two parties are just two faces of the same coin. or how the entire ruling class relies on two parties to put the focus on politics and stress relief through switching up the parties rather than the social order :lol:

[Book O'Dead]

Your support for the democrats has swung from 'critical' at the beginning of this thread to what sounds like enthusiastic support for the last few pages.

I think this provides pretty good insight to the motivations driving all these leftists giving 'critical' support to the Democrats that come out every election cycle and drone on and on about this bullshit.

What this post, and many others, indicates to me is that you are unable to deal with rational dissent without getting your underwear in a knot.

You and others insist that there is no significant difference between the principal candidates. I disagree for the reasons I've already stated above.

However, few who have argued against my opinion have deemed it important enough to offer a workable alternative or a viable candidate.

I don't believe in abstention from voting because I still consider the vote to be a valuable, a precious right that must be preserved at all costs and exercised judiciously.

Someone is bound to get elected president in November. If we can have just a little bit of influence in that election the outcome may affect us differently than if we simply abstain or cast our ballot to the wind.

Indifference and recklessness are not viable options.

[Prometeo liberado]

There are a couple other candidates bouncing around out there that the news isn't talking about much - Jill Stein and the Green Party, Stewart Alexander and the Socialist Party, Peta Lindsay and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party, etc etc etc, and I like some of what they're saying.

I posted a video of these people debating each other and if you watch it you'd be embarrased want anything to do with them. Peta says nothing more than "look, I'm black and young so you have to listen to me". Rocky loves to tell the left "I was a Marxist in college". What a relief. Jill refuses to answer tough questions on just about any subject. And poor old Stewart, whom I have known for a few years now, is in way over his head and surrounded by people that care for little more than preserving whats left(small "L") of the SP. Only Peta and Stewart call themselves socialist. One has only a vague idea of what that means while the other thinks it means parroting what Becker/LaRiva tell her.

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pslweb.org/votepsl/2012/pages/live-video-lindsay-barr-debate.html

[Ostrinski]

Isn't support for democrats a restrict able offense?

[Book O'Dead]

Isn't support for democrats a restrict able offense?

Don't you wish.

[Ostrinski]

Don't you wish.nah actually I think it is

[Martin Blank]

Yours is not an ultra-left attitude. I would describe it more like doctrinaire.

It's not doctrinaire. It is principled. There is a fundamental difference between the two. To be doctrinaire is to base your positions on articles of faith; to be principled, on the other hand, is to base your positions on concrete, material conditions -- all of them, not just those that fit the aforementioned articles.


Your supposed socialist bona fides are of little interest to me, given that you, like so many in this forum, are unable to detach yourself from your political affections long enough to perceive the immediate danger posed to the working class by a possible change in administration.

What "immediate danger"? Or, more to the point, what kind of "immediate danger" that isn't already being posed by Obama?


BTW, the post you're responding to, although addressed to you, was not aimed specifically at you. So don't take it personal.

I know. I don't take political criticisms personally.


Your list is wrong.

Actually, it's factually accurate and correct. Any cursory review of the facts will confirm this.


In fact, it's false inasmuch as Obama has attempted to disengage the United States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should read the news more often.

For the record, I read six newspapers a day, plus receive Internet digests for four others. I don't think my grasp of current news and events is lacking by any means.

I know what Obama has said, and I find it rather irrelevant. His actions, on the other hand, speak much louder than words. In every instance, he has either continued or expanded on the corporatist agenda first implemented by George W. Bush, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama's so-called "withdrawal" from Iraq was actually the plan signed by Bush and al-Maliki in late 2008. The "surge" in Afghanistan was a cornerstone of McCain's campaign.


The other points are exaggerations and distortions, so general in nature as to be unworthy of response.

OK, so let's get specific, then. Let's talk about the Kill List. Let's talk about austerity. Let's talk about the "super committee". Let's talk about the payroll tax holiday. Let's talk about Obamacare. Let's talk about "Rise To The Top". Let's talk about the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. Let's talk about the Wall Street bailouts.

[Martin Blank]

Isn't support for democrats a restrict able offense?

Why, I believe it is. We don't allow reformists or supporters of bourgeois parties on here.

[Book O'Dead]

It's not doctrinaire. It is principled. There is a fundamental difference between the two. To be doctrinaire is to base your positions on articles of faith; to be principled, on the other hand, is to base your positions on concrete, material conditions -- all of them, not just those that fit the aforementioned articles.
What "immediate danger"? Or, more to the point, what kind of "immediate danger" that isn't already being posed by Obama?
I know. I don't take political criticisms personally.
Actually, it's factually accurate and correct. Any cursory review of the facts will confirm this.
For the record, I read six newspapers a day, plus receive Internet digests for four others. I don't think my grasp of current news and events is lacking by any means.
I know what Obama has said, and I find it rather irrelevant. His actions, on the other hand, speak much louder than words. In every instance, he has either continued or expanded on the corporatist agenda first implemented by George W. Bush, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's so-called "withdrawal" from Iraq was actually the plan signed by Bush and al-Maliki in late 2008. The "surge" in Afghanistan was a cornerstone of McCain's campaign.
OK, so let's get specific, then. Let's talk about the Kill List. Let's talk about austerity. Let's talk about the "super committee". Let's talk about the payroll tax holiday. Let's talk about Obamacare. Let's talk about "Rise To The Top". Let's talk about the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. Let's talk about the Wall Street bailouts.

You've thrown a lot of things here, more than I have time to take up item-by-item.

Suffice it to say that I acknowledge that Barack Obama is a pro-capitalist politician and that his primary objective is to save capitalism. I have no doubt about that.

When Obama acceded to the presidency many of the problems you enumerate above already existed so he's had to deal with them in the only way a pro-capitalist politician can: pragmatically. And I think he's done so in the least ideologically perverted way possible.

Whereas if Romney gets into office, I think that he will deal with them in the way that the Bush family intended as far back as the 1990's.

Nevertheless, I think that Obama still truly believes in the myth of the impartial state; of a political state whose role is to be an impartial arbiter of class disputes. That myth sustains the Democratic party and motivates them to seek working class support.

We can use that myth and the Democrats' belief in it to our advantage or, at the very least, to protect what few political gains we have achieved.

On the other hand, Romney and his party have no illusions about the role their state is to play vis. the class struggle.

I think that's a very significant difference that must be taken into account when deciding whom to support in November.

[Le Socialiste]

Y'all need to quit appealing to this concept of 'lesser-evilism.' Your idealism masks the real nature of the Obama administration (and the Democrats in general), which has built upon the efforts of previous governments to erect the beginnings of a formal police-state. Obama initiated the first waves of austerity, pushed for similar measures abroad, gutted social benefits, rolled back what remaining 'rights' Americans 'had' (NDAA, H.R. 347, H.R. 658), remained silent during last year's assaults on union's collective bargaining 'rights' and the stripping in some states of their ability to strike, initiated a wave of reaction and counter-revolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen, and dismissed protests against him and his party as the work of impatient, unthankful activists. Some of the worst crackdowns on Occupiers occurred in cities and towns where Democrats held power (Oakland, anyone?).

The reality is, if you stripped away the (D) and (R) from politician's names you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Their actions in office are bound by the material interests of private capital. The idealism that has been displayed here (a vote for Obama is worth more than a vote for Romney) is so utterly ridiculous I could laugh; but it's similarly distressing that those who might identify with the revolutionary left could even tempt the idea that Obama is 'better' than whoever the Republicans present this year. I'm not surprised by the OP's stance on the issue - that goes without saying - but I can't believe some of you honestly think a (D) is preferable to a (R). Abstain, or spoil your ballot, but don't buy into the argument that things will get worse if Romney wins the presidency.

Our role in the 2012 election shouldn't be spent rallying for candidates who would like nothing more than for us to disappear. Rather, our efforts should go into dispelling any illusions people might have over the electoral process (and elections in general). We need to resist these appeals to 'lesser-evilism,' pointing out that no matter the outcome workers won't have an ally in the white house (or any major branch of government). Either way, we lose. Occupy, for all its faults (and they were many), was made up of those who had lost faith in the system and the parties that represent it. People were thoroughly disgusted by what they had seen over the years, and many defied attempts at co-option by liberals or progressives friendly or sympathetic to the party. The economic crisis has ripped aside the curtain for many directly impacted by the austerity policies emanating from the white house and the legislative. The state of the global economy has forced the Democrats (and others like them) to reveal their true colors, as parties dominated by the monied interests of capital. A vote for Obama is of no real significance, and we must impress that upon those who insist on his 'lesser-evilism.'

[Martin Blank]

You've thrown a lot of things here, more than I have time to take up item-by-item.

I'm a patient man. I'll wait until you have the time.

[eyeheartlenin]

Rocky Rococo wrote
The fact that increasingly poor and working class people will be disenfranchised should also be emphasized to show how the whole thing is a farcical stacked deck serving only to fortify the control of big money over the rest of us.

I just wanted to say, "Amen" to what Rocky wrote. In the small north-eastern state where I live, they have just introduced an ID requirement, for anyone to be able to vote. And not just any ID: the ID you show them has to have an expiration date on it, which means that ID's issued by this state itself will, in many cases, not be sufficient to allow the people who present them to vote.

Sure fire ID, to enable us to vote, would be a US passport, and, of course, that introduces a class bias as big as a hippopotamus. How many impoverished people have US passports? The situation is as Rocky R describes it above, proving that US "democracy" is a cruel joke, and that joke is on us, not the rich. It is no longer enough that the "choice," as always, is between two corporate stooges; US voters are now witnessing galloping disenfranchisement.

[DasFapital]

I wanna say I'll do some spoilage or just not vote but in the end I'll probably wuss out and vote obama

[Book O'Dead]

I wanna say I'll do some spoilage or just not vote but in the end I'll probably wuss out and vote obama

In this election there is no one in the running that will get my vote except Obama.

And, after putting up with all the unpleasantness expressed against me in this thread, I really don't give a rat's asshole what any of the ultra-lefties in this forum think of that.

I vote my conscience, not a party line.

[Le Socialiste]

In this election there is no one in the running that will get my vote except Obama.

And, after putting up with all the unpleasantness expressed against me in this thread,I really don't give a rat's asshole what any of the ultra-lefties in this forum think of that.

Are you really accusing those of us who don't buy into your 'lesser-evilism' ultra-leftist? :laugh:


I vote my conscience, not a party line.

You have a shitty conscience.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In this election there is no one in the running that will get my vote except Obama.

And, after putting up with all the unpleasantness expressed against me in this thread, I really don't give a rat's asshole what any of the ultra-lefties in this forum think of that.

I vote my conscience, not a party line.I'm sorry if you felt attacked or ganged-up on, but your viewpoint here is strongly opposed by most of the radical left. Radicals had to learn this lesson in history about what happens when support is given to parties like the Democrats. The CP supported the Democrats and for it they got McCarthyism, the populist movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, all were dismantled in part by supporting a capitalist party. The Democrats are the graveyard of social movements.

It doesn't matter if one person votes for this or that, but I think as a strategy for trying to "stop the right-wing" is also flawed. Clinton, in many ways was able to get a free-pass on things that might have been opposed if Regan tried. His method was "triangulation" that he could outflank the Republicans by taking their positions and making them appealing to the "center". Obama calls it "bi-partisanship" but it's the same thing. Obama is trying to charterize the school system and destroy teachers unions in the process; Obama has passed anti-terror laws; his solution for Healthcare is a subsidy for the insurance companies.

Lastly, the Bush administration is not some super-evil thing compared to other US Presidents. They were not a cabal or fascist or any of that hyperbole that liberals used. Al Gore has connections to major corporations and oil companies just like Bush: during the Presidential debates, Al Gore said more action was needed against Saddam while Bush said that the sanctions worked fine. The only difference with Bush is 9/11 which was, as Condi Rice said, "an opportunity". After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US needed reasons to continue it's military interventions around the world. Clinton sent troops to more places than Bush, he used the term "Humanitarian intervention" to "help" the country and obviously this rationale is self-constraining. Bush had a new excuse to convince the domestic population and competitor/allies that the US should go anywhere it wants and do anything it wants (which Obama has expanded with drone-strikes and special Ops missions).

There is no secret plot, not evil oil company people orchestrating things directly. It's much more boring and bureaucratic. The people who run this country, through the Democrats and Republicans, want the economy to prosper and the way they see this happening is through maintaining the US-dominated balance of power. All the government strategic defense documents essentially say this, too: maintaining "stability" in the world, means maintaining the trade arrangements, preventing uprisings, and ultimately keeping competitors in check either through making sure they have to kiss your ring to make any deals with other countries or directly through military confrontation.

[MuscularTophFan]

"I agree. One has to pick the lesser of two evils, and there are substantial differences. If I were in a swing state, I'd vote against any Republican (hence necessarily for Obama)." - Noam Chomsky

[Caj]

"I agree. One has to pick the lesser of two evils, and there are substantial differences. If I were in a swing state, I'd vote against any Republican (hence necessarily for Obama)." - Noam Chomsky

Is Chomsky infallible to you or something?

[MuscularTophFan]

Is Chomsky infallible to you or something?
I agree with him on just about everything.

I'm trying to convince some of my friends and boyfriend to become libertarian socialists like me. Haven't convinced them yet but they all agree Chomsky is brilliant.

[Book O'Dead]

Are you really accusing those of us who don't buy into your 'lesser-evilism' ultra-leftist? :laugh:



You have a shitty conscience.

And you have no imaginations.

[Book O'Dead]

This is the type of perverse characterization typical in this thread.

At no time have I appealed for support of the Democratic party. Not once.

And yet you insist in describing my critical support of Obama as "support for the Democrats". Why is that?



I'm sorry if you felt attacked or ganged-up on, but your viewpoint here is strongly opposed by most of the radical left. Radicals had to learn this lesson in history about what happens when support is given to parties like the Democrats. The CP supported the Democrats and for it they got McCarthyism, the populist movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, all were dismantled in part by supporting a capitalist party. The Democrats are the graveyard of social movements.

It doesn't matter if one person votes for this or that, but I think as a strategy for trying to "stop the right-wing" is also flawed. Clinton, in many ways was able to get a free-pass on things that might have been opposed if Regan tried. His method was "triangulation" that he could outflank the Republicans by taking their positions and making them appealing to the "center". Obama calls it "bi-partisanship" but it's the same thing. Obama is trying to charterize the school system and destroy teachers unions in the process; Obama has passed anti-terror laws; his solution for Healthcare is a subsidy for the insurance companies.

Lastly, the Bush administration is not some super-evil thing compared to other US Presidents. They were not a cabal or fascist or any of that hyperbole that liberals used. Al Gore has connections to major corporations and oil companies just like Bush: during the Presidential debates, Al Gore said more action was needed against Saddam while Bush said that the sanctions worked fine. The only difference with Bush is 9/11 which was, as Condi Rice said, "an opportunity". After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US needed reasons to continue it's military interventions around the world. Clinton sent troops to more places than Bush, he used the term "Humanitarian intervention" to "help" the country and obviously this rationale is self-constraining. Bush had a new excuse to convince the domestic population and competitor/allies that the US should go anywhere it wants and do anything it wants (which Obama has expanded with drone-strikes and special Ops missions).

There is no secret plot, not evil oil company people orchestrating things directly. It's much more boring and bureaucratic. The people who run this country, through the Democrats and Republicans, want the economy to prosper and the way they see this happening is through maintaining the US-dominated balance of power. All the government strategic defense documents essentially say this, too: maintaining "stability" in the world, means maintaining the trade arrangements, preventing uprisings, and ultimately keeping competitors in check either through making sure they have to kiss your ring to make any deals with other countries or directly through military confrontation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And yet you insist in describing my critical support of Obama as "support for the Democrats". Why is that?You are advocating support of Obama, a Democrat to my knowledge, as the lesser-evil. That's how most working class supporters of the Democrats support Democratic politicians... hold their nose and vote because they're scared of the Republican. The only time people have been voted into office and actually made reforms or resisted negative changes for/to the working class is when there has been a large working class movement outside the party which makes it difficult for people to get into office and fuck us over - as much. Then again, a right-wing Republican can be elected and if there are social and economic movements in the working class, they will also have a hard time enacting crappy legislation.

So you may not be supporting the Democratic party as a whole and support for Obama might be critical, but it's still support as far as I can see.

My argument is that that, trying to maintain the status quo (i.e. keeping things from getting worse) by voting for the lesser-evil has never worked on it's own. Vote for the lesser evil just on the condition that they "aren't as bad" and they will end up doing the same things that the "bigger-evil" wanted.

The rest of my post was about Bush and how he was really not some aberration in mainstream US parties Republican or Democrat and so worrying that Bush cronies will be in the white house if Romney wins isn't a good motivation because Obama already has some of those people in their same positions just as Clinton kept Greenspan.

[Sasha]

Oh god.... sometimes i wonder what I still do here...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Isn't support for democrats a restrict able offense?

No, only support for Capitalism.

Oh, wait...!

[Rafiq]

"I agree. One has to pick the lesser of two evils, and there are substantial differences. If I were in a swing state, I'd vote against any Republican (hence necessarily for Obama)." - Noam Chomsky

Here's a little something for you, something any Radical, Anarchist or Marxist, would have to agree to: Noam Chomsky is a piece of shit

[Art Vandelay]

Here's a little something for you, something any Radical, Anarchist or Marxist, would have to agree to: Noam Chomsky is a piece of shit

As much as a few months ago I would be hesitant to characterize how you just did, its pretty clear that he is an impediment to any radical movement in the U.S. Cough cough...left wing of capital...cough cough.

[Martin Blank]

And you have no imaginations.

Yes, because you need a vivid imagination to be able to justify voting Democratic as a socially-progressive act.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I agree with him on just about everything.

I'm trying to convince some of my friends and boyfriend to become libertarian socialists like me. Haven't convinced them yet but they all agree Chomsky is brilliant.

He may be of strong and impressive intellect as a person, but politically I don´t think much of him. I hope you don´t just form your opinions based on reading Chomsky.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Shame on those of you voting democrat. I'm tired of the "voting for the lesser evil" and "third-party votes are a waste" myths. I believed this carries on due to the huge sea of apolitical moderates not really taking a stake in all of this. Now i see even those on the "radical left" perpetuate this self-fulfilling prophecy.

Good luck voting for obama and his drone-striking, protest-squashing, wallstreet-pandering form of fascism

[JPSartre12]

There are a lot of good points here ... but even for though I'd agree that a vote for Obama is a vote for capitalism, and that a vote for Romney is a vote for capitalism, I think they present who (mildly) different visions of capitalism.

I'd rather take Obama's "let's keep Medicare around, extend middle class tax credits, work on immigration reform, and allow same-sex marriage and tax fairness" form of capitalism than Romeny's "give the rich more tax cuts, deregulate banks, i love all-out austerity" capitalism. Yeah, they're both capitalist, but (in the immediate short term, for the next couple years) I'd rather have Obama in office than Romney.

I'm just thinking about what's best for the proletariat as a whole - at least if we have Obama for another couple of years, the damage won't be as bad. I know I know, I'm doing the whole lesser-of-two-evils thing, but hey, I've met plenty of Dems who are adopting more "progressive" stances because of the (misplaced?) "hope" that Obama's given them.

He may not be what we want, but an Obama presidency with a progressive Dem Congress opens up a better window of opportunity for us to step out of the shadows and make ourselves known. If Romney wins, I wouldn't be surprised if he and Rep Allen West go full-throttle McCarthy style with the romanticized notion that anyone who's not conservative doesn't love "liberty" and "freedom", etc. I'd like a few more Kucinich congressmen and a few less Bachmann, but that's just me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are a lot of good points here ... but even for though I'd agree that a vote for Obama is a vote for capitalism, and that a vote for Romney is a vote for capitalism, I think they present who (mildly) different visions of capitalism.

I'd rather take Obama's "let's keep Medicare around, extend middle class tax credits, work on immigration reform, and allow same-sex marriage and tax fairness" form of capitalism than Romeny's "give the rich more tax cuts, deregulate banks, i love all-out austerity" capitalism. Yeah, they're both capitalist, but (in the immediate short term, for the next couple years) I'd rather have Obama in office than Romney.

I'm just thinking about what's best for the proletariat as a whole - at least if we have Obama for another couple of years, the damage won't be as bad. I know I know, I'm doing the whole lesser-of-two-evils thing, but hey, I've met plenty of Dems who are adopting more "progressive" stances because of the (misplaced?) "hope" that Obama's given them.

He may not be what we want, but an Obama presidency with a progressive Dem Congress opens up a better window of opportunity for us to step out of the shadows and make ourselves known. If Romney wins, I wouldn't be surprised if he and Rep Allen West go full-throttle McCarthy style with the romanticized notion that anyone who's not conservative doesn't love "liberty" and "freedom", etc. I'd like a few more Kucinich congressmen and a few less Bachmann, but that's just me.

You're fear-mongering. You have no proof that Romney wouldn't simply continue to crush street protests, give extra profits to insurance companies and increase the expansionism of drone strikes, war on terror etc., all stuff that Obama started/escalated.

End of the day, there is almost no difference between these guys' policies. If you took the (D) and (R)s away, you'd have no idea who was who, not really.

And let's not forget, this is NOT a battle between centre-left and centre-right. It's a right between liberals and conservatives. Right-wing third-wayers who follow the doctrine of Thatcher, Blair, Clinton et al., vs right-wing conservatives who follow the same doctrine but oppose same sex marriage and abortion, essentially.

Obama is further to the right than the Tories are here, so really if you're going to advocate a vote for Obama, then you won't mind advocating a vote for the Tories, Lib Dems or Labour in this country.

There is NO gain, WHAT-SO-FUCKING-EVER, for the proletariat, in this 'lesser evil' shit. It's not EVEN social democracy. It's right-wing liberalism vs right-wing conservatism. The economics is the same, ergo the plight of the working class is THE SAME whether it's Obama or Romney administering the pain. Don't you get this? They're both free-market capitalists. No, not 'state capitalist' vs 'free market capitalist'. BOTH are as right-wing as it gets on the economy.

Instead of spending so much effort defending a Democratic incumbent, why don't you see that all this energy is a waste of time as NOTHING will change. Never in history has revolutionary change come around by forcing the left-wing of Capital (of which Obama is not a member!) to somehow bring around Socialism by administering Capitalism. Nevermind that Obama is FIRMLY on the right-wing of Capital and will not be moved to do anything other than attack the proletariat.

If you want to vote for someone on the basis that their attacks will be extreme on the proletariat, but slightly less extreme than the other guy, then go ahead, but shame on you and your shitty politics. It's treacherous in the extreme and against every Socialist principle out there.

[MuscularTophFan]

They're both free-market capitalists. No, not 'state capitalist' vs 'free market capitalist'. BOTH are as right-wing as it gets on the economy.

Ok this is some serious bullshit. They are not "free-market capitalists" as you say it. Both Romney and Obama believe in a strong nanny state to guide the economy. So does Bush, Clinton, Regan, etc. and every other US politician. Anyone who claims to be a supporter of the "free market" is lying hypocrite. One example is Ron Paul who always complains about federal spending and cutting spending but yet he always wants MORE spending for the district he's congressmen of.

Free market capitalism doesn't exist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ok this is some serious bullshit. They are not "free-market capitalists" as you say it. Both Romney and Obama believe in a strong nanny state to guide the economy. So does Bush, Clinton, Regan, etc. and every other US politician. Anyone who claims to be a supporter of the "free market" is lying hypocrite. One example is Ron Paul who always complains about federal spending and cutting spending but yet he always wants MORE spending for the district he's congressmen of.

Free market capitalism doesn't exist.

Privatised healthcare, charter schools, private prisons, the rise of the privately-contracted army, tax cuts. Yeah, they're all just classic State Capitalists. :rolleyes:

The market may not be free, but it's very clear what is meant by a 'supporter of free market Capitalism'.

[MuscularTophFan]

Privatised healthcare, charter schools, private prisons, the rise of the privately-contracted army, tax cuts. Yeah, they're all just classic State Capitalists. :rolleyes:

The market may not be free, but it's very clear what is meant by a 'supporter of free market Capitalism'.
You don't know what you are talking about. Both are very big statists. Such as supporting the war on drugs, government subsidizing meat and sugar industries, bailing out the banks, etc.

There really isn't that much difference at all between Obama and Romney when it comes the economy but you want to know why I want Obama to win? Because Romney is a racist Mormon cultist freak. Mormonism is a evil racist homophobic cult and needs to be stopped.

[lenin1988]

Hey comrades!

I've had a few thoughts about the coming presidential and Congressional elections this autumn here, and I'd love some input from you guys.

I think I'm preaching to the choir when I say that I think that Mitt Romney is the embodiment of American greed and capitalism, and I'd rather not see the guy be President of the United States. I'd rather see Obama than Romney, but then again, I'm recognizing that Obama and the Democrats are still part of the capitalist system ... and the difference between the two candidates isn't as anywhere near as profound as the media would make it seem.

There are a couple other candidates bouncing around out there that the news isn't talking about much - Jill Stein and the Green Party, Stewart Alexander and the Socialist Party, Peta Lindsay and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party, etc etc etc, and I like some of what they're saying.

I'm not trying to say that we should perpetuate the capitalist system by voting for Obama, but wouldn't a vote for him be preferable to one for Romney? At least Obama supports keeping Medicare solvent, same-sex marriage, a modicum of immigration reform, and so on.

Voting for a real Left candidate would be great on principal, but I feel as if that would split the left-of-centre vote and would give Romney an easy win - and seeing as I really don't want Romney to win, I think it would make more sense for us to vote for Obama?

I just don't want Romney to win, but I don't see us as having any other feasible non-Romney options other than Obama. What should us anti-capitalists do this coming election?

voting for obama is the same as voting for romney they are both Capitalists who dont have our best interest in mind

[Jimmie Higgins]

There really isn't that much difference at all between Obama and Romney when it comes the economy but you want to know why I want Obama to win? Because Romney is a racist Mormon cultist freak. Mormonism is a evil racist homophobic cult and needs to be stopped.Comrade, that's a terrible reason! This is one of the reasons that Republicans opposed JFK - he was Catholic. And the Catholic Church (as someone who was raised catholic) is historically much more evil, basically invented modern anti-semitism during the Inquisition, aided and sanctified genocide in the Americas, and literally is run as a giant undemocratic cult.

But JFK, like a hypothetical Romney administration, was not run on the basis of religion, it was run on the basis of supporting US capitalism which means supporting US Imperialism as well as domestic racism and oppression.

Romney's religion is literally the only interesting and unique thing about him. Mormanism does have racist teachings (or at least did openly until the recent past) and along with the Catholic Church was one of the big organizers of the anti-gay marriage prop 8 campaign in California. I also got phone messages and mailers during this time in favor of Prop 8 that basically argued (I think they thought I was black because of my zip code) that all black churches and Obama are against gay marriage and all black people should be too. So even thought most people who voted in that election in 2008 were Democratic party supporters and voted for Obama, prop 8 STILL passed. The way to fight against homophobia and racism is to organize an opposition that can make strong arguments: people in favor of gay rights who support the Democrats who give equivocations at best, undermines that.

[Le Socialiste]

You don't know what you are talking about. Both are very big statists. Such as supporting the war on drugs, government subsidizing meat and sugar industries, bailing out the banks, etc.

There really isn't that much difference at all between Obama and Romney when it comes the economy but you want to know why I want Obama to win? Because Romney is a racist Mormon cultist freak. Mormonism is a evil racist homophobic cult and needs to be stopped.

You're basing your entire opposition on the fact that Romney, the assured Republican candidate for president, is Mormon? I know, I know, he's a state-embracing racist who must be stopped by Obama's subtler personality (the one who until recently opposed same-sex marriage, deported an unprecedented number of "illegal" immigrants, and continually reserves the right for the president to assassinate American citizens). Your argument is chock full of idealist, moralistic crap. Of course we oppose racism! If we didn't what place would there be for us on the left? We stand firmly against homophobia, sexism, and the reactionary state of (un)organized religion. We may do so on moral grounds, but these are superseded by the material properties abetting them. You say Romney's evil? Evil is subjective, an undefinable (immaterial!) quality with no grounding in humanity's historical development. Does Romney carry homophobic, racist - not to mention sexist - views? He does. Will his presidency reflect this? I'd be surprised if it didn't. The idea that the viewpoints of this man is enough to grant a green light to Obama's reelection campaign is ridiculous however, as Obama will continue the same assaults on the rights of women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community, while simultaneously deepening the offensive against unions, education, and social programs. He will carry out or oversee private capital's intervention(s) in areas where its interests are threatened, initiating wave after wave of reaction and counter-reaction. Romney will fill the exact same role if elected. Will their presidencies differ on the surface? Undoubtedly, but that is not enough reason to throw up the 'lesser-evil' as soon as the openly reactionary side of capital enters into competition with its less obvious - but equally reactionary - twin.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Agree yet again with Le Socialiste.

I don't consider Mitt Romney evil, yet I oppose him not on these moralistic good cop/bad cop grounds, but because he will attack the working class. Obama is probably not 'evil' either, but again, same thing, oppose him on material grounds, not moralistic grounds.

If you want to be moralistic, there's a good section in the Communist Manifesto about Utopian Socialists.

[Rafiq]

Ok this is some serious bullshit. They are not "free-market capitalists" as you say it. Both Romney and Obama believe in a strong nanny state to guide the economy. So does Bush, Clinton, Regan, etc. and every other US politician. Anyone who claims to be a supporter of the "free market" is lying hypocrite. One example is Ron Paul who always complains about federal spending and cutting spending but yet he always wants MORE spending for the district he's congressmen of.

Free market capitalism doesn't exist.

You're a complete moron. "Free Market" or "State Capitalism" are irrelivent, i.e. Capitalism is defined, at least for us Scientific Socialists, very strictly and very objectively. Whether it exists in correlation with the market-utopia presented by the oh so many Englithenment thinkers is irrelivent to it's actual material existence.

But unlike the so-called "State capitalism" of the Soviet Union (A concept I have trouble really adhering to), there exists in the western world an actual, real, Bourgeoisie and a state to defend it's interests, not the other way around. The State is a mere weapon of the Bourgeois class, and to say otherwise is ludicrous. Every existent capitalist mode of production required a strong state to exist with it to regulate capital, market relations, etc., The system needs it. Therefore, there is no need for accusations like "state capitalism", except, for example, exclusive cases like China.

[Rafiq]

Through this thread, I think it's safe to say Muscular is a self admitted Idealist. He actually thinks that Romney will not be acting on behalf of the American Bourgeoisie, to forfill their interests, as a primary objective. No, to Muscular, he will act based on his personal beliefs and Ideas, which may or may not exist in the interest of the American bourgeois class.

[Blackscare]

For what it's worth, I'll be having a Doctor Who marathon at casa del Blackscare on election day. Bring some of that sticky icky cheeba and we'll have a grand old time out on the houseboat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're a complete moron.Comrade, this doesn't help the discussion and just polarizes things.

Lenin's advice about "patiently explaining" would apply here.


To a man like this it must be explained again and again that it is not a question of his personal wishes, but of mass, class, political relations and conditions, of the connection between the war and the interests of capital and the international network of banks, and so forth.

The key message here in regards to your explanation though... is "patience"

[JPSartre12]

You're fear-mongering. You have no proof that Romney wouldn't simply continue to crush street protests, give extra profits to insurance companies and increase the expansionism of drone strikes, war on terror etc., all stuff that Obama started/escalated.

End of the day, there is almost no difference between these guys' policies. If you took the (D) and (R)s away, you'd have no idea who was who, not really.

And let's not forget, this is NOT a battle between centre-left and centre-right. It's a right between liberals and conservatives. Right-wing third-wayers who follow the doctrine of Thatcher, Blair, Clinton et al., vs right-wing conservatives who follow the same doctrine but oppose same sex marriage and abortion, essentially.

Obama is further to the right than the Tories are here, so really if you're going to advocate a vote for Obama, then you won't mind advocating a vote for the Tories, Lib Dems or Labour in this country.

There is NO gain, WHAT-SO-FUCKING-EVER, for the proletariat, in this 'lesser evil' shit. It's not EVEN social democracy. It's right-wing liberalism vs right-wing conservatism. The economics is the same, ergo the plight of the working class is THE SAME whether it's Obama or Romney administering the pain. Don't you get this? They're both free-market capitalists. No, not 'state capitalist' vs 'free market capitalist'. BOTH are as right-wing as it gets on the economy.

Instead of spending so much effort defending a Democratic incumbent, why don't you see that all this energy is a waste of time as NOTHING will change. Never in history has revolutionary change come around by forcing the left-wing of Capital (of which Obama is not a member!) to somehow bring around Socialism by administering Capitalism. Nevermind that Obama is FIRMLY on the right-wing of Capital and will not be moved to do anything other than attack the proletariat.

If you want to vote for someone on the basis that their attacks will be extreme on the proletariat, but slightly less extreme than the other guy, then go ahead, but shame on you and your shitty politics. It's treacherous in the extreme and against every Socialist principle out there.

Haha I'm not fear mongering. I'm agreeing with a majority of what you said there - the difference between Obama and Romney isn't that significant. But I'm just saying that, seeing as we don't have much of a viable presidential option at this point in time, I think that it makes sense to vote for Obama if we live in swing states. A Romney win would hurt what little progressive movement we have in the country and shoot any additional healthcare reform down for another decade. His whole "national right-to-work" idea would absolutely obliterate our country's unions ... I'm not saying that a vote for Obama is pro-union (cause it really isn't), but a vote for Romney is definitely anti-union.

I agree that we need a revolution, big reform, etc :) totally on board with you. But I don't think that bashing what little progressive movement we have is going to solve much ... I think it's best for us to (skeptically, grudgingly, angrily, unfortunately) support Obama in swing states cause the alternative to him is just an even bolder austerity attack.

A President Romney doesn't float my boat, so I'm probably going to vote for Obama just because I'm living in one of the few swing states where my vote actually matters.

I like Stewart Alexander. Just sayin' ;)

[Positivist]

I say this constantly, but I believe in voting for the democrats for the sole purpose of discrediting them as actual allies of the oppressed segments of society, and as advocates of any progressive change whatsoever.

Don't vote for Obama because Romney is worse. Vote for Obama so that people begin looking elsewhere for progressive alternatives to our current system.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Haha I'm not fear mongering. I'm agreeing with a majority of what you said there - the difference between Obama and Romney isn't that significant. But I'm just saying that, seeing as we don't have much of a viable presidential option at this point in time, I think that it makes sense to vote for Obama if we live in swing states. A Romney win would hurt what little progressive movement we have in the country and shoot any additional healthcare reform down for another decade. His whole "national right-to-work" idea would absolutely obliterate our country's unions ... I'm not saying that a vote for Obama is pro-union (cause it really isn't), but a vote for Romney is definitely anti-union.

I agree that we need a revolution, big reform, etc :) totally on board with you. But I don't think that bashing what little progressive movement we have is going to solve much ... I think it's best for us to (skeptically, grudgingly, angrily, unfortunately) support Obama in swing states cause the alternative to him is just an even bolder austerity attack.

A President Romney doesn't float my boat, so I'm probably going to vote for Obama just because I'm living in one of the few swing states where my vote actually matters.

I like Stewart Alexander. Just sayin' ;)

I never said I want 'big reform', though admittedly for America that would be more realistic.

Look, if you want to vote privately for Obama, go for it. But why don't you spend more of your time agitating for Socialism, than for the lesser-evil voting strategy.

One of the few positives of 'liberal democracy' is the privacy of the vote. Use that if you want, but don't waste your time advocating for others to do that. It's not a viable political/class strategy, so there's no point spending your time advocating it.

[MuscularTophFan]

Comrade, that's a terrible reason! This is one of the reasons that Republicans opposed JFK - he was Catholic. And the Catholic Church (as someone who was raised catholic) is historically much more evil, basically invented modern anti-semitism during the Inquisition, aided and sanctified genocide in the Americas, and literally is run as a giant undemocratic cult.

But JFK, like a hypothetical Romney administration, was not run on the basis of religion, it was run on the basis of supporting US capitalism which means supporting US Imperialism as well as domestic racism and oppression.
Again this is different. The Mormon cult had in it's religious doctrine that if a "white man where to have sex with a black women they will die on the spot." Mormonism also taught that non-whites where a curse from god.(Curse of Ham) Mormonism also taught that non-whites where excluded from the highest part of Mormon heaven. Untill 1979 black people where prohibited from being bishops in the Mormon cult. So until 1979 Mitt Romney was a bishop in a white nationalist organization called Mormonism. And since Romney is a bishop in this cult that means he actually believes in this crap unlike Obama who is without a doubt an atheist.


Romney's religion is literally the only interesting and unique thing about him. Mormanism does have racist teachings (or at least did openly until the recent past) and along with the Catholic Church was one of the big organizers of the anti-gay marriage prop 8 campaign in California.I also got phone messages and mailers during this time in favor of Prop 8 that basically argued (I think they thought I was black because of my zip code) that all black churches and Obama are against gay marriage and all black people should be too.
Did they also mention the fact Obama publicly opposed Proposition 8?


So even thought most people who voted in that election in 2008 were Democratic party supporters and voted for Obama, prop 8 STILL passed.
And the overwhelming majority of people who voted where CHRISTIAN.(70%) The only religious groups to vote against Prop 8 was Jews/other religious minorities and Mainline Protestants. And I looked at the polls and over 60% of California Democrats voted agianist it while over 70% of California Republicans voted for prop 8.

So everything you just said is bs.


The way to fight against homophobia and racism is to organize an opposition that can make strong arguments: people in favor of gay rights who support the Democrats who give equivocations at best, undermines that.
YEAH BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE GONNA DO A BUNCH OF GAY RIGHTS!

* US constitutional ban on gay marriage
* DADT reinstated
* Lawrence v. Texas overturned
* Gay adoption bans

Don't be telling me "hurr republicans and democrats are all da same" bs on things like this. I live in Pennsylvania and the Republican controlled congress here and been trying endlessly for years now to trying to ban gay marriage and civil unions in the Constitution here. In neighboring West Virginia Democrats control a super majority in congress and the governorship and have kept constitional ban in that state.

[MuscularTophFan]

You're a complete moron. "Free Market" or "State Capitalism" are irrelivent, i.e. Capitalism is defined, at least for us Scientific Socialists, very strictly and very objectively. Whether it exists in correlation with the market-utopia presented by the oh so many Englithenment thinkers is irrelivent to it's actual material existence.

But unlike the so-called "State capitalism" of the Soviet Union (A concept I have trouble really adhering to), there exists in the western world an actual, real, Bourgeoisie and a state to defend it's interests, not the other way around. The State is a mere weapon of the Bourgeois class, and to say otherwise is ludicrous. Every existent capitalist mode of production required a strong state to exist with it to regulate capital, market relations, etc., The system needs it. Therefore, there is no need for accusations like "state capitalism", except, for example, exclusive cases like China.
You must either be very uneducated or ignorant to actually think what we currently have is "capitalism." Captialism has never existed anywhere thought history. It would destroy our economy in like 10 minutes. That's why there needs to be a strong nanny state to mange the economy. Everything country on earth is one form or another a state capitalist society.

[Ostrinski]

You must either be very uneducated or ignorant to actually think what we currently have is "capitalism." Captialism has never existed anywhere thought history. It would destroy our economy in like 10 minutes. That's why there needs to be a strong nanny state to mange the economy. Everything country on earth is one form or another a state capitalist society.I like how you took that right out of Chomsky's mouth.

It's amazing how people on both the right and the left will just parrot any one jackass, with no reservation for actual political analysis.

[MuscularTophFan]

You're basing your entire opposition on the fact that Romney, the assured Republican candidate for president, is Mormon? I know, I know, he's a state-embracing racist who must be stopped by Obama's subtler personality (the one who until recently opposed same-sex marriage, deported an unprecedented number of "illegal" immigrants, and continually reserves the right for the president to assassinate American citizens). Your argument is chock full of idealist, moralistic crap.
I'm not idealistic I'm realistic.


Of course we oppose racism! If we didn't what place would there be for us on the left? We stand firmly against homophobia, sexism, and the reactionary state of (un)organized religion.
There are a lot of stupid racist people in America that are trying everything they do to vote out Obama. Why do you think they call him a Kenyan? Why do you think they call him a Muslim? Why do you think they call him a socialist? It's all code words for racism. If Obama loses how are we ever gonna elect another non-white president in the next 40 years? We can't let the racists win.


We may do so on moral grounds, but these are superseded by the material properties abetting them. You say Romney's evil? Evil is subjective, an undefinable (immaterial!) quality with no grounding in humanity's historical development.
Prove it.


as Obama will continue the same assaults on the rights of women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community,
Uh what are you talking about? What "assaults" has Obama done on women and that lgbt community are you talking about?


Romney will fill the exact same role if elected.
There are differences. However minor there are still differences. Some of the differences are gay marriage, adoption, global warming, etc.


Will their presidencies differ on the surface? Undoubtedly, but that is not enough reason to throw up the 'lesser-evil' as soon as the openly reactionary side of capital enters into competition with its less obvious - but equally reactionary - twin.

Mitt Romney presidency = invade Iran and Syria
Mitt Romney presidency = racists win
Mitt Romney presidency = gay people go back into the closet
Mitt Romney presidency = theocracy

If that isn't enough reason to vote against Romney by voting for the other I don't know what is.

[Le Socialiste]

But I'm just saying that, seeing as we don't have much of a viable presidential option at this point in time, I think that it makes sense to vote for Obama if we live in swing states.

The left has never had a viable presidential option - at any point in time. Besides, you're placing far too much importance on these elections. Your original post asked a very specific question: what is the left's role in the 2012 presidential election? The same as it has ever been: to educate, agitate, and organize. To explain to people how elections within capitalism work, whose interests the elected truly serve, and the best course of action in combatting them. Most importantly, we refrain from 'lesser-evilism'. The left must devote itself to educating others as to the actual nature of these elections, while simultaneously preparing the groundwork for future struggle.


A Romney win would hurt what little progressive movement we have in the country and shoot any additional healthcare reform down for another decade. His whole "national right-to-work" idea would absolutely obliterate our country's unions ... I'm not saying that a vote for Obama is pro-union (cause it really isn't), but a vote for Romney is definitely anti-union.

Obama's healthcare reform will do more harm than good. It will do more to enrich the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex than help the millions without healthcare. Average people will be forced to buy terrible care they can't even afford, while insurance companies still reserve the right (through various loopholes) to withhold aid from those who need it the most. But I'm going off-topic. SocialistWorker.org has a great article on this - read it if you have the time: http://socialistworker.org/2012/07/09/john-roberts-and-health-care


I agree that we need a revolution, big reform, etc :) totally on board with you. But I don't think that bashing what little progressive movement we have is going to solve much ... I think it's best for us to (skeptically, grudgingly, angrily, unfortunately) support Obama in swing states cause the alternative to him is just an even bolder austerity attack.

If you believe Obama was playing nice these last four years, how do you think he'll do the next time around? He's not up for reelection again if he wins. He doesn't have to worry about public opinion (well, not as much), and will probably be, as you said of Romney, "even bolder" in his assault on the working-class.


A President Romney doesn't float my boat, so I'm probably going to vote for Obama just because I'm living in one of the few swing states where my vote actually matters.

It doesn't. I think we've illustrated that point quite well.

[Rafiq]

You must either be very uneducated or ignorant to actually think what we currently have is "capitalism." Captialism has never existed anywhere thought history. It would destroy our economy in like 10 minutes. That's why there needs to be a strong nanny state to mange the economy. Everything country on earth is one form or another a state capitalist society.

What definition of capitalism are you adhering to? Spit it out!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What definition of capitalism are you adhering to? Spit it out!

It's literally Chomsky's like labor days said. I assume he made it up himself while sitting in front of that book fort he always uses for a backdrop during his boring fucking interviews.

[Rafiq]

So he has Chomsky, and we have everyone else who doesn't have their head in their ass. Sorry, Chomsky has no right to re write historically accepted definitions of MoP's.

[JPSartre12]

The left has never had a viable presidential option - at any point in time. Besides, you're placing far too much importance on these elections. Your original post asked a very specific question: what is the left's role in the 2012 presidential election? The same as it has ever been: to educate, agitate, and organize. To explain to people how elections within capitalism work, whose interests the elected truly serve, and the best course of action in combatting them. Most importantly, we refrain from 'lesser-evilism'. The left must devote itself to educating others as to the actual nature of these elections, while simultaneously preparing the groundwork for future struggle.


So true! It would be nice if the Socialist Party USA had nation-wide ballot access. Probably wouldn't amount to much, but at least it would be nice to have some people in government who are receptive to the idea that the system needs to be changed. I know I'm stuck in that lesser-evilism nonsense :( but the idea of having my state's electoral votes get nabbed by Romney really irks me.


Obama's healthcare reform will do more harm than good. It will do more to enrich the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex than help the millions without healthcare. Average people will be forced to buy terrible care they can't even afford, while insurance companies still reserve the right (through various loopholes) to withhold aid from those who need it the most. But I'm going off-topic. SocialistWorker.org has a great article on this - read it if you have the time

Loved the article. I guess what I'm just saying that the Affordable Care Act creates a nice platform that we can build on - adding a robust public option (at the very least!), allowing people to opt-in to Medicare, maybe even getting the Kucinich-Conyers HR 676 single-payer bill passed or Sen. Sanders S915 state-run single-payer one .... Obamacare's a disaster right now haha I'm just thinking about what the future looks like with Obamacare in place now, versus what it looks like if it wasn't and all we had was the pre-Obamacare chaotic 'free market' private insurance mess.



If you believe Obama was playing nice these last four years, how do you think he'll do the next time around? He's not up for reelection again if he wins. He doesn't have to worry about public opinion (well, not as much), and will probably be, as you said of Romney, "even bolder" in his assault on the working-class.


Yeah! .... guess I didn't even think about that before I said it :tt2:



It doesn't. I think we've illustrated that point quite well.

Well, I know that my vote isn't going to amount to much (at all) to get rid of capitalism, but at least I might be able to get rid of Romney in my state :thumbup1:

[Le Socialiste]

I'm not idealistic I'm realistic.

Idealistic =/= Realistic.


There are a lot of stupid racist people in America that are trying everything they do to vote out Obama. Why do you think they call him a Kenyan? Why do you think they call him a Muslim? Why do you think they call him a socialist? It's all code words for racism.

And Obama's reelection will stop all this? Get real. We know there's racism out there, and it will be a guiding factor in how some people vote. Instead of reelecting Obama, why don't we begin combatting discrimination at the source, rather than masking over the problem? Fighting racism goes far beyond electoral strategies.


If Obama loses how are we ever gonna elect another non-white president in the next 40 years? We can't let the racists win.

Workers are entering into struggle around the world against the backdrop of a deteriorating financial system - and your primary concern is how we're ever going to elect another non-white president within the next forty years? Most leftists typically want to see the end of bourgeois power structures, yet you're worried over who will sit in the Oval Office in 2050!


Prove it.

I've already explained how moralistic arguments are prone to subjectivity; they're overly reliant on the principles and stances of the individual, and may be easily picked apart by others. The course of humanity has and always will be dictated by the historical development of its material surroundings, not by one's concepts of "good" and "evil". Evil doesn't exist; nor does good. Both are subjective terms with zero universality. Your definition of evil won't align with someone else's, and their's will clash with the views of another. They are undefinable, immaterial subjects with no real basis in capitalism's (or any prior system's) development. Romney is not evil, he is acting in the interests of his class. His opinions on women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community are symptomatic of a much broader issue. Obama may hold different views than his Republican counterpart, but he too will act according to the interests of the ruling-class. This has nothing to do with good vs. evil, but inter-competition within a capitalist framework. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."


Uh what are you talking about? What "assaults" has Obama done on women and that lgbt community are you talking about?

Obama has been complicit in the recent attacks on women's reproductive rights, and stayed largely silent on the struggles of the LGBTQ community. Saying during a reelection campaign that he personally thinks it's "okay" for same-sex couples to marry doesn't mean shit - his personal feelings on the matter won't change things and he knows it. He's pandering to his base, despite his lack of movement in the area.


There are differences. However minor there are still differences. Some of the differences are gay marriage, adoption, global warming, etc.

Again, personal views amount to squat in politics. Obama may campaign on his opinions, but as the last four years show these views won't translate into legislation or meaningful contributions to the movements around these issues.


Mitt Romney presidency = invade Iran and Syria
Mitt Romney presidency = racists win
Mitt Romney presidency = gay people go back into the closet
Mitt Romney presidency = theocracy

If that isn't enough reason to vote against Romney by voting for the other I don't know what is.

You say Romney, all I see is an individual carrying out the needs and interests of American capital. But since we're playing that game:

Obama's presidency = invasion/intervention in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Egypt, with the possibility of further action in Syria and Iran.

Obama's presidency = NDAA, 30,000 unmanned drones in U.S. airspace, H.R. 347 (known as the Anti-Occupy Law).

Obama's presidency = assassination of American citizens abroad, escalation of the "war on terror", "kill lists".

Obama's presidency = Deportation of more "illegal" immigrants than any previous administration.

See how easy it is?

At the end of the day, the party and the individual don't matter. They all serve the same interests. I read this quote online once, and I've liked it ever since. It describes perfectly how elections in this and other countries work:

"Electing the president is liking choosing the hood ornament on a car, only the car isn't yours - and you're sure as hell not behind the wheel. You're not even in the car."

[Lucretia]

Since this thread consists almost entirely of lesser-of-two-evils types talking about how important it is to cross the class line and support Obama against the Big Bad Republicans, why is this thread not moved to OI, and the reformist liberals restricted?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Did they also mention the fact Obama publicly opposed Proposition 8?No, just quotes by him saying that he doesn't support gay marriage. It was propaganda, no doubt - that's not my point. My point is that he ceded this position to the right and so voting for someone who equivocates on a polarized issues is essentially allowing who ever is fighting and organizing to carry the day just as much as if you voted for someone who supported it.

Imagine if at the heat of the civil rights movement, a politician said: "I'm personally in favor of equality, but I think it should be up to the states to decide questions of segregation". What does that mean in reality: that the unequal and repressive status-quo goes unchallenged, the position is ceded to the right-wing bigots.

Not that I think we could ever really count on a mainstream politician to fight our fights, but I think it shows the self-defeating result of voting on the basis of lesser-evilism.


And the overwhelming majority of people who voted where CHRISTIAN.(70%) The only religious groups to vote against Prop 8 was Jews/other religious minorities and Mainline Protestants. And I looked at the polls and over 60% of California Democrats voted agianist it while over 70% of California Republicans voted for prop 8.The majority of people in the state are Christian and yet millions of self-identified Christians in California also support gay rights and abortion rights and the separation of church and state. The politics are politics, it's not "religion" that's the problem, it's that the the right-wing supporters of the ruling class are much more organized and funded and have much more support in the media and connections with politicians. Voting does not change that equation - especially voting for a Democrat. What will change that equation is if working class people and allies and oppressed groups ORGANIZE THEMSELVES. Then, no matter who becomes the latest figure-head of US capitalism, they will have an opposition. Even on a reformist basis, voting for Democrats makes no sense BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY REPRESENT A REAL OPPOSITION TO THESE POLICIES.

Look at how the Democrats responded to the Scott Walker anti-union legislation. They "didn't vote" because there was so much mass opposition from their supporters. But they also didn't actually oppose the legislation. After it passed, they did a recall campaign, but didn't try and recall the legislation, just the Governor. Meanwhile in California, Democrat Jerry Brown has been trying similar anti-union measures and similar austerity arguments.


YEAH BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE GONNA DO A BUNCH OF GAY RIGHTS!My argument is that - left on their own - the Democrats, won't either. In fact, what did the leading members of the party say was the reason that Bush was re-elected: because gays pushed for rights "too-fast" and scared the "red-states" into turning out and voting for Bush.


Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.


Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.



And a gay Democratic politician (who just got married in the last month or so):

One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began.


From the same article, Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator who began her career in SF city council 40 years ago at the same time Harvey Milk was elected there...


"So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,'' she added. "And people aren't ready for it." Harvey was ready for it 40 years ago, thanks Diane. Back of the bus gays, say the Democrats.




* US constitutional ban on gay marriage
* DADT reinstated
* Lawrence v. Texas overturned
* Gay adoption bansThese are hypothetical but Clinton issued the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama could reverse it with the stroke of a pen - but he won't unless he is forced to by an outside movement.


Don't be telling me "hurr republicans and democrats are all da same" bs on things like this.They are not the same - they just have the same goals and interests.

[Geiseric]

We can think about who would suffer if say Arizona's nazism gets out of hand with a republican president overlooking it, or if abortion is put on the chopping block. Basically Obama has sections of the working class supporting him but also sections of the owning class as well. i would say fuck the election candidates, however vote on local and state initiatives. What we're seeing now is proof of why we need a workers party with a socialist platform.

[Kooksky]

You dont vote :D

[JPSartre12]

We can think about who would suffer if say Arizona's nazism gets out of hand with a republican president overlooking it, or if abortion is put on the chopping block. Basically Obama has sections of the working class supporting him but also sections of the owning class as well. i would say fuck the election candidates, however vote on local and state initiatives. What we're seeing now is proof of why we need a workers party with a socialist platform.

Best comment so far I think!

[Ismail]

The larger point is that when it comes to economics, social issues, etc. you don't rely on a "lesser evil" who might be forced into making some concessions only to work far more actively to undermine them at a later date, but to have a communist party which actually upholds and works to secure permanent economic and social progress on a level fundamentally far greater than anything that can be extracted from a bourgeois democracy, and this of course is possible only through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Without this you are, in fact, providing cover for a section of the bourgeoisie and subordinating the working-class to a "lesser evil" rather than have it mobilize independently of it.

Leftists should denounce the 2012 election as they denounced the 2008 election, the 2000 election, etc. The last time leftists could reasonably be encouraged to vote was in 1920 back when socialists actually had some electoral strength under Eugene Debs, who obviously was neither a Democrat nor Republican.

[Drosophila]

Did they also mention the fact Obama publicly opposed Proposition 8? [...]


So what? Social equality isn't going to be reached under capitalism. Only socialism can bring that about, as Ismail said above.

[Martin Blank]

Since this thread consists almost entirely of lesser-of-two-evils types talking about how important it is to cross the class line and support Obama against the Big Bad Republicans, why is this thread not moved to OI, and the reformist liberals restricted?

Because we have mods and admins who are liberals themselves, and are blocking any attempt to do so.

[Lucretia]

Because we have mods and admins who are liberals themselves, and are blocking any attempt to do so.

I guess this just begs the question, then, of why there are liberals being recruited into positions of authority on a board that, from my understanding, automatically restricts liberals. These two practices are definitely in tension with one another, and we can see that tension manifest in this ridiculous thread.

If I wanted to waste my time wading through thread after thread of "if you don't vote for Obama, you don't care about workers" pablum, I'd go to the thousands of liberal message boards that exist elsewhere on the web.

[mew]

clinton did things (e.g. welfare reform, DOMA) that were as bad as or worse than what any republican president has done.

[Martin Blank]

I guess this just begs the question, then, of why there are liberals being recruited into positions of authority on a board that, from my understanding, automatically restricts liberals. These two practices are definitely in tension with one another, and we can see that tension manifest in this ridiculous thread.

They're usually not liberals (or, perhaps, not so obvious liberals) when they are brought into the BA. They just seem to evolve in that direction. I call it the LSD Effect, after a former admin who ended up becoming a reformist and being restricted. They get tired, cynical or scared, and then all the rightwing shit just bubbles to the surface: supporting candidates of a bourgeois party; supporting imperialism and/or their proxies in war; making excuses for social backwardness; and so on.


If I wanted to waste my time wading through thread after thread of "if you don't vote for Obama, you don't care about workers" pablum, I'd go to the thousands of liberal message boards that exist elsewhere on the web.

If that's the case, then I would encourage you, and all those who agree with Lucretia, to PM every admin and mod, and tell them exactly that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is there not a case for liberal members of the BA of a revolutionary leftist forum to give up their positions, or be outed as liberals? For the good of the board.

[Le Socialiste]

Because we have mods and admins who are liberals themselves, and are blocking any attempt to do so.

Are you serious about this? Because if so that represents a problem. This forum restricts its liberal members (even, sometimes, going so far as to ban them), but if we have mods and admins actively fighting this then we need to address it. Is there a debate right now amongst the BA about restricting some of the posters in this thread? Do you even need a debate to restrict members?

[Martin Blank]

Are you serious about this? Because if so that represents a problem. This forum restricts its liberal members (even, sometimes, going so far as to ban them), but if we have mods and admins actively fighting this then we need to address it. Is there a debate right now amongst the BA about restricting some of the posters in this thread? Do you even need a debate to restrict members?

I cannot speak about what is going on in either the Mod or Admin forums, since it would be a violation of RevLeft's guidelines. What I can say is that I VERY STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO PM ALL THE OTHER MODS AND ADMINS AND STATE YOUR OPINION.

Are we clear?

[pastradamus]

Thread closed. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We believe in a Socialist ideal here on revleft not an Obama one. Revleft is a site for left-wingers, not people stuck in the middle. There are sites where you can discuss such non-issues elsewhere.