So...it looks like it will be Clinton vs. Trump

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

Aggressively imperialist (neo) liberalism vs. the Vulgar Neo-fascist Right. Truly a Sophie's Choice if there ever was one!

(not that the "choice" is a real one...)

[Cliff Paul]

It's 1 pm and I've already seen several "if you don't vote for Hillary now it's because you are privileged" arguments today. Shit's just too predictable nowadays.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's 1 pm and I've already seen several "if you don't vote for Hillary now it's because you are privileged" arguments today. Shit's just too predictable nowadays.

Yeah ... I'm not sure whether its worth wasting my time arguing against it all. Unfortunately, left-liberals find the line of reasoning convincing

[Cliff Paul]

Yeah ... I'm not sure whether its worth wasting my time arguing against it all. Unfortunately, left-liberals find the line of reasoning convincing

"You can only afford to not vote because you are white, privelged, etc."

The funny thing is that the people that left-liberals claim to be helping out are precisely the ones that don't care in the first place. Voter turnout amongst the poor and people of color is shit because they recognize that politicians don't act in their interest and don't care about them.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"You can only afford to not vote because you are white, privelged, etc."

The funny thing is that the people that left-liberals claim to be helping out are precisely the ones that don't care in the first place. Voter turnout amongst the poor and people of color is shit because they recognize that politicians don't act in their interest and don't care about them.

Yeah really ... you'd think if not voting was a sign of privilege, then turnout among poor and people of color would be 100% when in fact it is disproportionately lower for those classes.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If working outside of the system doesn't look more attractive now than ever...we're screwed.

[Rafiq]

The present task ahead of all of us is picking up Bernie Sanders' momentum.

No mercy for those who advocate for Clinton should Bernie fail. We must seize the opportunity that has presented itself before us: We don't have to align ourselves with Clinton because Bernie's momentum will outlive his failure to win the democratic nomination. We should commend Bernie's attitude of saying fuck you to the democratic party - we Communists can watch from a distance the Bernie momentum, pleased by it, and we can commend the attitude of 'packing up our bags and leaving Hillary to her own devices'. Even if it leads to a Trump victory: The point is not that Trump is not worse than Hillary, he is, the point is that to support Hillary at the present moment against Trump fails to locate what about Trump gains mass appeal.

If Trump wins the presidency, then we officially must abandon all 'establishment' politics all together: If Trump wins this nomination, that should be the death of bourgeois democracy (that has existed since WWII) in our eyes and it should signify that we should start investigating the political tactics of our forefathers in non-democratic states like Tsarist Russia, if you catch my drift. That would be the outset of an intensified struggle for re-invigorated democratic politics, against the growing technocracy, and so on. The need for a political struggle would be all the more apparent, where it is not already. If Trump wins, then no longer should we even think about participating in discourses of power unless they are directly opposed to that of the government. No compromise and no discourse with the reaction.

As for Hillary, should she be elected this will only strengthen the reaction. Tactically speaking it is better to sit back and watch her lose - if she is in danger of that - then to support her. That is because if Hillary wins, then in political discourse we can have it: "Had only Trump won". Meanwhile if Trump wins, that is also a great defeat on our part. But with Bernie we have been playing nice. They - the Bernie constituents - have been playing fair, by the rules, and in a way that compromises with the state apparatus. If Trump wins no longer will this be the case. If Trump wins - everyone - you can't pretend like you don't have anything to do. You will, and that will be to fight Trump in every possible way. And others know it too.

Today it is an unavoidable and even conventional truth that the 'system is rigged'. Before, even if you were aware of this you could pretend otherwise, but this is not the case anymore: The electoral system is in itself openly and not even controversially rigged in the favor of establishment politicians like Hillary. What I am saying is totally stupid because it's such a banal, conventional fact at this point which everyone has been saying, even major news outlets.

The significance is not therefore convincing people the failure of conventional politics, but now is truly the time that which we can begin to begin experimenting with unique means of political organization and political mobilization, we can begin with a culture - learning from the very best of our tradition - of debating and testing political tactics and the ironing out of a much larger strategy. We can do this because people have lost all hope and faith in conventional means of politics. Now is our time.

[A Psychological Symphony]

The present task ahead of all of us is picking up Bernie Sanders' momentum.

No mercy for those who advocate for Clinton should Bernie fail. We must seize the opportunity that has presented itself before us: We don't have to align ourselves with Clinton because Bernie's momentum will outlive his failure to win the democratic nomination. We should commend Bernie's attitude of saying fuck you to the democratic party - we Communists can watch from a distance the Bernie momentum, pleased by it, and we can commend the attitude of 'packing up our bags and leaving Hillary to her own devices'. Even if it leads to a Trump victory: The point is not that Trump is not worse than Hillary, he is, the point is that to support Hillary at the present moment against Trump fails to locate what about Trump gains mass appeal.

If Trump wins the presidency, then we officially must abandon all 'establishment' politics all together: If Trump wins this nomination, that should be the death of bourgeois democracy (that has existed since WWII) in our eyes and it should signify that we should start investigating the political tactics of our forefathers in non-democratic states like Tsarist Russia, if you catch my drift. That would be the outset of an intensified struggle for re-invigorated democratic politics, against the growing technocracy, and so on. The need for a political struggle would be all the more apparent, where it is not already. If Trump wins, then no longer should we even think about participating in discourses of power unless they are directly opposed to that of the government. No compromise and no discourse with the reaction.

As for Hillary, should she be elected this will only strengthen the reaction. Tactically speaking it is better to sit back and watch her lose - if she is in danger of that - then to support her. That is because if Hillary wins, then in political discourse we can have it: "Had only Trump won". Meanwhile if Trump wins, that is also a great defeat on our part. But with Bernie we have been playing nice. They - the Bernie constituents - have been playing fair, by the rules, and in a way that compromises with the state apparatus. If Trump wins no longer will this be the case. If Trump wins - everyone - you can't pretend like you don't have anything to do. You will, and that will be to fight Trump in every possible way. And others know it too.

Today it is an unavoidable and even conventional truth that the 'system is rigged'. Before, even if you were aware of this you could pretend otherwise, but this is not the case anymore: The electoral system is in itself openly and not even controversially rigged in the favor of establishment politicians like Hillary. What I am saying is totally stupid because it's such a banal, conventional fact at this point which everyone has been saying, even major news outlets.

The significance is not therefore convincing people the failure of conventional politics, but now is truly the time that which we can begin to begin experimenting with unique means of political organization and political mobilization, we can begin with a culture - learning from the very best of our tradition - of debating and testing political tactics and the ironing out of a much larger strategy. We can do this because people have lost all hope and faith in conventional means of politics. Now is our time.

This was rather inspiring! A nice change in the direction of optimism and revolutionary fervor rather than the typical revolutionary despair that seems to hangs around here

[Kilij]

I definitely agree that a Trump win would create the political polarity we need to really inspire direct action from the left, but I don't share in that we should commend Bernie for "saying fuck you to the democratic party", because it is all but certain he will just say how Hillary won the primary 'fair and square' and that his supporters should still vote democrat and all that bullshit. So some will switch over to Hillary, a few might go left, but most won't do anything. I still think a Trump presidency is unlikely, which kind of disappoints me seeing as I doubt any other candidate would be able to cause the status quo to collapse on itself.

[Rafiq]

I definitely agree that a Trump win would create the political polarity we need to really inspire direct action from the left

Let me clarify: In no way am I saying that a victory for Trump is in any way a victory. It is not a preferable outcome to a Hillary victory. I simply assert we have no obligation to Hillary, i.e. it is better to watch her lose than to compromise by putting out for her. The point is that: We don't need to trail any establishment politician even in the face of Trump: IF Bernie fails to win the nomination, that means that the state-apparatus has failed to demonstrate itself as legitimate in the eyes of this momentum.


, but I don't share in that we should commend Bernie for "saying fuck you to the democratic party", because it is all but certain he will just say how Hillary won the primary 'fair and square' and that his supporters should still vote democrat and all that bullshit.

Hey may do this, but as of recent his position has really been 'fuck you' to the democratic party. He states that he has no obligation to Hillary and that she herself will have to convince supporters, i.e. that he won't back her if he loses.

[Kilij]

Well, a Trump win isn't a "victory", but the conditions will change in a way that will prompt action from both left and right. The problem is that you're right, a Hillary win would strengthen the reaction, yes, the Bernie momentum may force her to make some more concessions on issues she has flopped on, but still virtually nothing would change from her predecessor's presidency. I think she'd also beat Trump, which while 'meh' for us could cause the far-right to make their moves. Honestly, I just don't care which one wins now, but I do feel Cruz would be the absolute worst outcome. As for Bernie supporters, we can definitely win them over either way, but they need to really be informed in what we represent and why revolutionary means are necessary, even they still think of tankies when they hear Communist and chaos when they hear Anarchist, also a lot of them are really pacifistic so that causes difficulty. Regardless, our time is indeed now, time for action.

[ComradeAllende]

Well, a Trump win isn't a "victory", but the conditions will change in a way that will prompt action from both left and right. The problem is that you're right, a Hillary win would strengthen the reaction, yes, the Bernie momentum may force her to make some more concessions on issues she has flopped on, but still virtually nothing would change from her predecessor's presidency. I think she'd also beat Trump, which while 'meh' for us could cause the far-right to make their moves.

Honestly, I don't care who wins (at least a Trump presidency would blow up the GOP), but in the interest of playing devil's advocate I must note that according to RealClearPolitics, a Clinton nomination would cost the Democratic Party 5% in votes, along with a 2-3% swing towards Trump. Now, Clinton still wins, but with only half the breathing-room that Sanders has. Also, I remember a somewhat pro-Clinton article noting the parallels between the anti-Clinton movement within Sanders' base and the KPD's policy of holding the "social fascists" of the SPD and "national fascists" of the NSDAP with equal hostility. Again, not saying I support these positions (and I get annoyed as hell when people start comparing Trump to Hitler or Sanders to the KPD), but that it's important to note that a Clinton victory isn't as clear as it once was.


Honestly, I just don't care which one wins now, but I do feel Cruz would be the absolute worst outcome. As for Bernie supporters, we can definitely win them over either way, but they need to really be informed in what we represent and why revolutionary means are necessary, even they still think of tankies when they hear Communist and chaos when they hear Anarchist, also a lot of them are really pacifistic so that causes difficulty. Regardless, our time is indeed now, time for action.

The worst outcome is Cruz or Trump getting elected and the radical Left spending four to eight years twiddling its thumbs like it did under Bush. Or Clinton getting elected and everybody associating her (a Goldwater Republican-turned-"New Democrat") with socialism and/or communism. Either way, I see things getting really shitty if the Left doesn't do something.

[ComradeAllende]

If Trump wins this nomination, that should be the death of bourgeois democracy (that has existed since WWII) in our eyes and it should signify that we should start investigating the political tactics of our forefathers in non-democratic states like Tsarist Russia, if you catch my drift.

Not to bash Lenin or anything, but I doubt that the Leninist tactics of democratic centralism and vanguardist organizational structure will be of any use in a digitized postindustrial society such as ours. Of course it wouldn't hurt to try, but I doubt we'd get away with that without turning off a lot of people with the authoritarian nature of the organization (no matter how necessary it might be).

Also, I'm not quite sure Trump is a fatal threat to bourgeois democracy, at least not any more than Strom Thurmond or George Wallace were. When he starts talking about the "Bolshevik threat" and centers power in his own hands like Huey Long, then let's talk. Now if Trump loses, and loses badly (i.e. a brokered convention), his supporters might just swinging towards the alt-right and bourgeois democracy will hear its death knells.

[Rafiq]

As for Bernie supporters, we can definitely win them over either way, but they need to really be informed in what we represent and why revolutionary means are necessary

The issue is that they are overwhelmingly predisposed to petty bourgeois tendencies, because they are not faced with the reality of the middle class's death. Bernie represents the last hope for it - this post-WWII middle class - in their eyes. For this reason, they still have much to lose, and thus are predisposed to petty bourgeois tendencies. This is why blacks are largely not for Bernie: They do not harbor such illusions.

This demographic - of youth - may be on the verge of having nothing to lose. But until they do not have anything to lose, to speak about the dissemination of revolutionary ideas among them is pointless. I am not saying we should not engage ordinary people - but that we should acknowledge the fact that they are not ready to shed the old world in its entirety behind. The task is thus to politically organize them for struggle, because even if they have not yet shed their illusions they are ready to struggle. Dissemination of revolutionary ideas, until then, can only be in either intellectual contexts other dissemination of these ideas not among Bernie's constituents but amongst the lowest layer of the American precariat which has nothing to lose and which Trotsky rightfully pointed out in a different context would drag the other layers of the working class along: The black working class (or the very poor 'redneck' white working class, i.e. of Appalachia, latinos, etc.).

A good indicator of what kinds of communities and groups are ripe for political mobilization is the degree of their religiosity and their dependence on religion for their own ability to get by. This is because it shows that these people were susceptible to having been organized, 'educated', etc. by the religious groups, and therefore are poised with the ability to search for alternatives - even if those alternatives, of course, perpetuate their predicament.

I presently believe what we should be doing is: Organize ourselves into small (if need be - we can only hope they can be large) intellectual circles in (what we expect to be - not necessarily) urban contexts ready to go out and engage the most marginalized and broken communities within the vicinity of their major cities. To go out to these communities, perhaps to find a way to listen to people - isolate the SPECIFIC concrete problems they are experiencing and articulate those in political ways. To politically mobilize the poorest of the poor, those who truly do not have anything to lose, to be able to equip them to struggle, will necessary pressure those other layers of the proletariat to pick a side and be dragged along.


and the KPD's policy of holding the "social fascists" of the SPD and "national fascists" of the NSDAP with equal hostility.

It is perhaps contestable that the KPD would have even been able to accrue the support it did without this policy. This is something overlooked by those who attack the third period policy of the Comintern: What if in fact, precisely the refusal to capitulate to the 'establishment' is what garnered the KPD what little support it could garner? Remember that one of its main constituent demographics were the unemployed.

Admittedly it is hard to tell which would have been the best course of action. Ultimately it can be argued that the failure was owed to a lack of an understanding of the nature of Fascism specifically, an underestimation of capitalism's perseverance (which they conceived falsely to be on the brink of spontaneous collapse). It was mistaken to qualify the social democrats as the same as the Fascists, but merely trailing the social democrats would have been a mistake. This is what is wrong with this comparison, the situation is simply incomparable: What the Hillary-toadies ask of us is not to collaborate with the establishment (which is impossible) but to capitulate to the establishment. More specifically however, let us ask: What happened to the KPD AFTER the ascension to power by the Nazis? This is the real question.

Finally only the most stupid could equate Trump with Hillary. Trump is a reactionary and Hillary is not. Trump represents a revived Fascism and Hillary does not. Of course Hillary is 'better'. But that does not mean she is worthy of support: If it was possible that a Hillary could indefinitely rule, fine, who cares? That's not the point: The reaction and discontent with the establishment is growing, the point is: THE EXISTING STATUS QUO CANNOT indefinitely rule. It will be devoured by reaction at the present state.

[Antiochus]

I find it hysterical that the Democratic Party even dares to demand the vote from progressive individuals (even Social democrats for that matter) at this point. The Democratic Party is simply the Republican party of 1990 today. Lets be honest now and I'll make the case for why it is better if Trump wins:

1) Trump can't really do ALL that much by himself. One thing about the U.S political system is that it was designed specifically to neuter outside machinations be they democratic in nature or 'dictatorial'.
2) There will almost certainly be a recession/depression within the next 4-5 years. I am hardly an astrologist but even that the neoliberal Capitalist system experiences one almost like clockwork each decade, we are "due" for one. If Hillary wins it will only mean a further weakening of the liberal system, more so than already.
3) Hilary is a snake but she is still an able politician who can potentially diffuse political and economic crisis with "fireman" tactics (think the bailout); Trump is an imbecile.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

I definitely agree that a Trump win would create the political polarity we need to really inspire direct action from the left

Really? Because from where I sit, the revolutionary Left as an organized movement in the U.S. has basically been dead for at least the past few decades (if not longer), and so a Trump win would be unlikely to inspire direct action from the Left. If anything, a President Trump would inspire the far Right (which definitely exists and is a lot bigger than some are aware) in a way that would be truly horrifying (and it would be almost certain that a significant segment of an increasingly reactionary capitalist class would support Trump and his movement - sure they loathe him now, but they are always willing to do business with any President...and American Presidents are necessarily bourgeois creatures, if not necessarily of bourgeois backgrounds themselves).

There are definitely growing feelings of frustration and impatience among the politically marginalized groups in society - the poor, racial minorities, young people, and working class people in general - which the Sanders campaign has capitalized on to some extent, but without an effective, radical, uncompromising political organization, all of that anger and deep desire for social change will be easily co-opted/assimilated back into the liberal structures of bourgeois politics.

Nothing is certain here.

[Verneinung]

Finally only the most stupid could equate Trump with Hillary. Trump is a reactionary and Hillary is not. Trump represents a revived Fascism and Hillary does not. Of course Hillary is 'better'. But that does not mean she is worthy of support: If it was possible that a Hillary could indefinitely rule, fine, who cares? That's not the point: The reaction and discontent with the establishment is growing, the point is: THE EXISTING STATUS QUO CANNOT indefinitely rule. It will be devoured by reaction at the present state.

I'll respond to this; but what I really want to address is this whole Trump thing, because it is getting ridiculous.

So, first, to get it out of the way, please qualify your statements with regard to the context of the situation. Trump in no way can be a fascist, if the word is to have any meaning beyond - a person to whom I am antithetically opposed as a leftist, yet can't properly define them.

You use the term reactionary, but reactionary has a completely different context within both developed bourgeois society, as well as between different political situations. When you are talking about reactionaries in the US, for example, which was a country founded on liberal, democratic-republican principles, you are talking about a return within the framework of bourgeois liberalism. This is evinced, really made blatantly obvious, by the fact that the people with whom we are dealing, themselves are dealing specifically with the purity and fantasy of the so-called "free-market", and/or they are anti-corporatism, anti-establishment, anti-cronyism, or whatever other nonsensical terms that expose that they have zero understanding of capital (or are lying/have been lied to).

Fascism, can exist within these types of societies, but only really with regard to support for it or in sympathy, in the fringe, it can't exist as an actual movement -- just pseudo or quasi. You can have nationalism, racism, xenophobia, populism, religious fundamentalism, etc. (and even these really as only elements) but not true fascism or any thing close. That fascism was a European phenomena, because they had both newly emerging, capitalist, industrial economies, coupled with the close ties to true aristocratic, feudal, authoritarian, non-secular forms of government. You only get fascism with that true conservatism (mixed with the racism, etc.) that has the deep authoritarian tendencies (or close) that represent a true reactionary movement against, not capital, but the effects of capital.

To go back, and to give another example as to why you can't even come close to having this in America, in comparison to China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.: in the US, what do they even call what I already described as a part of the reactionary flavor? - libertarian. Some of these same people are completely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations, etc. And even the ones of Tea Party variety are so because they feel oppressed by the authoritarianism of government control, and regulation of their lives, of opposition to free speech, violation of religious liberty (rightly or wrongly), etc.; and that is without even getting into the fact that it is influenced a lot by rural, country, small town, and otherwise opposing lifestyles within America. And to point out the other reactionary element within the American framework, i.e., slavery, the people who founded the original documents of the union were already ideologically opposed to slavery because of their liberal, bourgeoisie, ideology, and they only had to go through the material process of actualizing that reality through the Civil War, and now that that happened, psychologically, even the development of racism, shows how they can't even mentally cope with that as an institution.

So, in short, we don't even have the inherent conservationism necessary to even approach fascism, and to add on to the pile, that is even more evinced by the governmental framework which basically makes it impossible. We would literally have to have an intellectual awakening that completely brainwashed the entire population from traditional Anglo-Saxon framework (which is also important to keep in mind, same thing similar with the French, as examples of the preexisting liberal ideology that is pervasive), and then total destruction and rebuilding.

So, what then does Trump represent? He is a demagogue and a smoke-screen. He is already laying out in his own words and actions, as well as the words and actions of the media and political establishment that has built him up, what he is. Just in one debate Ted Cruz told him, and everyone watching, that he funded Hillary Clinton and Democrats; so Trump, knowing that the masses would not know any better, let it out that he also supported Ted Cruz (which if you follow politics you would know that the bourgeoisie in a response to Obama set up a campaign to elect obstructionist (Tea Party which it came to be) Republicans, people like Cruz, to literally shut down the government (which happened) as both a way to perpetuate a divide, create scapegoats, disillusionment, etc. (really goes on), and as an insurance policy against Obama passing any sort of progressive agenda or becoming popular with people. And Trump, as well as individuals working for his campaign, made it perfectly clear that he is just playing up certain things for support but can quote: be "capable of changing to anything [he] want[s] to change to". This again, in the face of all of the people who the bourgeoisie know are so lost as to see the trapdoor and still think magic has caused the trick.

I am really sick of people getting totally fooled by Donald Trump to the point where I know the big players, who have a win, win, win or win, situation, are watching this laughing at those whom they are playing with like puppets. From the people on the right who have been led into confusion, by years of intense conditioning and indoctrination, voting for a guy who fundamentally, as a person, contradicts what he is saying and what they think they stand for and verbally contradicts what he is saying, constantly, day to day, within the same speech, etc.; and to those on the left who ought to know what is going on, but are showing themselves as people who read one article on Wikipedia, picked up the Communist Manifesto and watched a YouTube video, and now think they are revolutionary socialists. He is not even trying to hide his disregard, lying, corruption, manipulation, egoism and cynicism. He is basically just laying the cards on the table, showing everyone his hand, and watching you fold why he and his team take the pot.

For coincidence theory 101, let me show you how this works. Let's do JFK, he is popular. JFK was according to certain reports and record: against he CIA, military industrial complex, etc., and was going to open diplomacy to Cuba, try to end the Cold War, get out of Vietnam. Then one day in Dallas, he was shot in the face (or the back of the head), by a random guy, who decided on his own that he no longer wanted a life because JFK really sucks; and the next day, we went to war with Vietnam, didn't open back relations with Cuba (to any extent) until Obama, and continued with the Cold War, anti-communism, war crimes, racism, eventually COINTELPRO, etc.

Now this can be done with Martin Luther King, Jr., the Vietnam war, 9/11, etc.

Now let us apply coincidence theory to this situation. We have a situation where a person (Hillary Clinton) is running for a progressive party with a record so reactionary that on paper you would think that you were voting for a far-right, modern (not even a RINO) Republican, who has the highest net unfavorable rating among any candidate in the history of party front-runners, who has had a major (often criminal) scandal at almost every possible turn for the last 20 or 30 years, and who has connections to every major, negative event, and dirty player in the American and foreign arenas, possible. Oh, and she is getting challenged by a candidate who could quite possible be the most honest, good-guy, anti-establishment, independent politician, that represents more popular issues and platform positions of any candidate imaginable with a record of taking interests on for 30+ years to back it up, and who fits perfectly as a puzzle piece in the equation of if (x) comes to play, the game is in some danger; as well as representing one of the greatest stories imaginable for a journalist or media mind. Then, one day, one of the most popular, selfish, celebrity, Clinton, Democrat and Republican, contributing, liberal bigots, who runs a show that involves raising massive amounts of money for charity and involves all types of other celebrities of all racial and minority backgrounds, with whom he is often friends, steps into the election as a Republican; and he is someone who has supported and who represents every candidate and corrupt politician, along with everything that is wrong with not only politics but the entire socioeconomic and political situation in this country as a whole. And, he gets 24/7 media coverage, billions of dollars in free on air exposure, destroys all of the candidates on the one side who had a shot of beating Hillary Clinton, gets painted as everything antithetical to liberal, American values (offensive, vulgar, no substance, a bigot, a racist, anti-women, anti-gay, promotes violence, supports the KKK, anti-immigrant, etc.), runs a perfect PR campaign that mirrors perfectly right-wing memes and talking points that have been fed to the American public for the past 10-15 years, steals ideas and supporters from Bernie Sanders and eventually some voters, prevents/gives excuse for any discussion or coverage of any major problems with the country/world or any discussion or policy or substance, prevents/gives excuse for little to no coverage of both Bernie Sanders and/or negative coverage of Hillary's scandals or record, creates/perpetuates the classic divide between working class and poor white voters and Latino, black, working voters, creates/perpetuates (along with Ted Cruz) the divide between middle class liberals and "social-conservative" on wedge issues...and Jesus Christ, this could go on forever but a few more...gets protested with those protests getting massive coverage (these are also protest that just so happen to paint Bernie Sander's supporters negatively) making more of a false divide, while masking the constant protests and movements going after the Clintons, money in politics, media coverage, election fraud, etc., fools the public and has them reacting to him and losing all focus on what is truly at stake in this election and instead worrying about how to side with the bourgeoisie (which he is a part of) in stopping him (or they support him), represents and dominates coverage (again over Bernie) of a candidate against the establishment and system, against corruption and fraud, etc. (all while representing it), and to wrap it up (even though I could probably go on all day), leading to the eventual situation where people are discussing an election where the two candidates with the highest negatives in history are being argued about in terms of who is worse with the ball having been set up for saying things like, "if you don't vote for Hillary/you most vote for Hillary" (over this lunatic) or (x), with people all over going crazy about how they have to (or possibly have to) in a mandatory way, vote for exactly who the powerful want as president, and so on and so on.

The media got people totally stupid. Even looking at last night Larry and Obama, especially Obama, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, totally roasted the media and Hillary Clinton while really not hitting Trump that hard, and today, CNN had the audacity to push the narrative that they roasted Trump. They treat people as if they are that stupid, because they know the deal. They, i.e., the media and propaganda machines, have that much power and influence and control over what people think, they pull it over on even people who (think that they) know these organizations are lying about everything.

Now, just to mention, at the end. Hillary (and neoliberalism) is the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie within the context of our liberal, democratic-totalitarian society. It represents the reaction against the true gains of civil rights (see: war on drugs, law and order, tough on crime, gun control, etc.), against the movements of labor (see: union busting, control over unions (how the union leadership supported Hillary in massive amounts without even considering their member/how members were even to an extent promoted and coerced into going against their interests/basically how unions are really controlled not representing workers in certain cases), trade deals (de-industrialization), financialization, cutting hours, cutting pay, or increasing hours with less workers, increasing productivity with no benefits to workers, pushing for higher inequality, etc.), control over education and schools, pushing of social and wedge issues to create divide and distraction and put working class in opposition, expanding globalization, increasing imperialism, etc. This is all the framework, in which, the illusion is created with what we consider as the Republican (right-wing) party. Their job is to trick you into thinking that they actually support things that represent the wedge (e.g., religious, racist, etc.) elements, when their goals are exclusively neoliberal. That they are more militaristic, when behind the scenes the CIA and FBI and military advisers, will get exactly what they want from a president (like they did with Obama being responsible for basically more foreign government overthrows than Bush while saying he opposed that type of policy), and if they can't they will take you past the old grassy knoll and put someone in power who fits them. Same on financial policy, taxes, regulation, etc. You can look at what the Supreme Court has done, etc.

You have to think for a minute about those in power having so much control over you that they control you even in your own house, i.e., within your own psyche. Even thinking about how there are probably government trolls even on this site, knowing that Hillary Clinton's campaign, as well as the government generally, infiltrates across the entire web to spread lies and propaganda to have to off your game, upset at the wrong things, opposed to the wrong people, questioning who to trust and who not to trust. It is not even a question, if you were Stalin or any leader, you would have just wanted to kill every single person around you not knowing which ones were real. They had the same control over even left movements in the US, where top officials, bodyguard, etc., were provocateurs.

And when you are not even hip on the easy stuff. When you can't even deal with the 101 elements, not even as individuals, but as a groups in discussions, and not even in play, but in hypothetical and principle, what are you really going to do when it comes to the real movements?

[Sixiang]

I presently believe what we should be doing is: Organize ourselves into small (if need be - we can only hope they can be large) intellectual circles in (what we expect to be - not necessarily) urban contexts ready to go out and engage the most marginalized and broken communities within the vicinity of their major cities. To go out to these communities, perhaps to find a way to listen to people - isolate the SPECIFIC concrete problems they are experiencing and articulate those in political ways. To politically mobilize the poorest of the poor, those who truly do not have anything to lose, to be able to equip them to struggle, will necessary pressure those other layers of the proletariat to pick a side and be dragged along.
I completely agree, but I want to add that I also think these intellectual circles of communists should not only just try to go and talk to individuals but to also engage actively with the very organizations that the poor have created on their own. With or without revolutionary intellectuals to teach them theory, the poorest people have their own ways of trying to deal with and confront their oppressors: I am thinking of the Black Lives Matter movement or even the way people in Flint have been organizing their own networks to deal with the water crisis and confront the politicians involved with it. I'm not saying communists need to necessarily try to join and take over these groups from within, but that at the very least we need to engage with them in some way. I suppose these intellectuals circles should hash out in their own meetings how exactly they want to go about doing this, even if it means taking notes on conversations at meetings of the masses and going from there.

[ckaihatsu]

You have to think for a minute about those in power having so much control over you that they control you even in your own house, i.e., within your own psyche. Even thinking about how there are probably government trolls even on this site, knowing that Hillary Clinton's campaign, as well as the government generally, infiltrates across the entire web to spread lies and propaganda to have to off your game, upset at the wrong things, opposed to the wrong people, questioning who to trust and who not to trust.


Sorry, but this part is just an over-the-top rant that only applies to political newbies, at best.

Politics isn't about 'trust', it's about *issues*, and anyone in the world can certainly keep their own 'scorecard' on anyone who claims to represent a stated umbrella of political positions.

I found (revolutionary) politics to be more difficult to do in the past, before the mass popularity (and technical maturity) of the Internet -- sure, face-to-face discussions can have more impact, but they can also be unfocused and unwieldy, while RevLeft's discussion-board format (or anything similar) allows for much more focused and thoughtful attention to any given matter, barring none.





It is not even a question, if you were Stalin or any leader, you would have just wanted to kill every single person around you not knowing which ones were real. They had the same control over even left movements in the US, where top officials, bodyguard, etc., were provocateurs.


And this part is just anachronistic and counterproductive, which is a disservice -- we don't need to play into the 'leftist dictator' boogeyman stereotype when we're now living in a distinctly different historical era. Mass politics is far more direct and impactful than ever before, due to the circa-2003 international protests against Bush's war on Iraq (and Afghanistan), and it threatens to trump the faux-democratic ritual of electoralism itself.

Populism -- as seen in Sanders' popularity -- is the tone of the day, which unfortunately is being courted by the likes of Trump as well.





And when you are not even hip on the easy stuff. When you can't even deal with the 101 elements, not even as individuals, but as a groups in discussions, and not even in play, but in hypothetical and principle, what are you really going to do when it comes to the real movements?


This is incredibly *vague* and oblique -- it's something of a juxtaposition of theory and practice, but you may want to try again and focus on some *specifics* so as to mitigate the rant-like quality.

[Cliff Paul]

Personally, I think Trump will win. Part of that is because apparently everyone I even give the victory to fails, but also due to the culture and mindset of America. The right has cut itself, hit itself, and enraged itself. The centrists look on, the left doesn't care anymore. The manifestation behind Trump - the fact that once more this nation was founded by rich white males, for their own benefit and no one else, not even their women or poor - is not surprising to me, and if he wins, then maybe everyone can drop the charade that the US is some paradise; that the crazies and regressives still exist. If it takes their victory and the subsequent years of toil and suffering and collapse to verify it, then....

Trump will lose in a landslide. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections + they certainly aren't about to lose to the most unpopular presidential candidate in recent memory.

[Rafiq]

So, first, to get it out of the way, please qualify your statements with regard to the context of the situation. Trump in no way can be a fascist, if the word is to have any meaning beyond - a person to whom I am antithetically opposed as a leftist, yet can't properly define them.

First, noticed the careful use of terminology here. I claim that Trump represents a revived Fascism, and I have thoroughly qualified what I mean by this in previous threads. I quite explicitly qualify (http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195372-We-must-all-unite-to-oppose-Trump?p=2869013#post2869013) that Trump's Fascism is irreducible to him as an individual - he represents a new kind of reinvigorated Fascist politics. I have quite explicitly qualified what Fascism is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195372-We-must-all-unite-to-oppose-Trump?p=2869025#post2869025). Trump the individual, as I stated, is ambiguous - he could be a Fascist, or he could be an incomplete reaction, i.e. in order for Trump himself to be a Fascist, he is going to have to link the 'plebian' reactionary sentiments with the aspirations of a social formation that could actually represent an alternative trajectory path for state-civic society as a whole, and I have claimed earlier that Trump will have to align himself with the 'virtual' or rentier-bourgeoisie - specifically the digitarii of Silicon Valley whose interests are more and more inversely proportional to those of Wall Street in order to truly not only represent but BECOME an alternative force of power - just as Putin is in Russia with the oligarchs. It is commonly thought that Putin's interests are inversely proportional to those of the oligarchs, but in fact whatever tension between Putin and the oligarchs is like the tension between a king and his lords, or even the bourgeoisie against the state who taxes them. In effect the system of oligarchy found absolution in Putin - this is how Putin is able to be in power and not just represent the 'plebian' discontent like Trump does.

Now, as materialists we do not qualify Fascism as the shit-mongering liberals and idealists do. The so-called 'definition' of Fascism in the specific context of Germany and Italy, its aesthetic, or what might superficially be 'similar' to it - in the sense of qualifying it in terms of vague abstractions like "A return to a great empire, 'glorification of war'," and so on, is thoroughly anti-Marxist and formalist. It assumes that formal definitions are enough to contain what is essential about them. Conversely we materialists recognize that what is essential to the word 'Fascism' is irreducible to what can be self-contained in that word alone, it instead relates to essential social and historical phenomena. Meaning, the use of the word Fascism is what is important, not the word itself. What was essential to Fascism both in Germany and Italy, has nothing to do with the outwardly superficial aspects of it - rather what is essential to Fascism as such, relates to the world-historical process and direction of capitalism as it presently exists, on its 'enlightened' trajectory path (i.e. that is, liberal capitalism). Fascism represents something unique to the epoch of enlightenment because it is precisely a deviation from it - it represents its degeneracy. I have written about this extensively here. Fascism is an alternate modernity.

So the context of the use of Fascism is far from arbitrary. It has nothing to do with making pretense to eternal, formal 'definitions' of Fascism that are purported, instead the ESSENTIAL social, ideological processes which underlied and which constituted Fascism during the 20th century, in relation to the teleiosis of capitalism as we know it, is responsible for the qualification of Donald Trump's momentum as Fascistic. What actually made Fascism, Fascism, what made it a world-historical phenomena, is present in the momentum that Donald Trump represents. That is to say, Donald Trump's momentum represents in relation to present day capitalism EXACTLY what Fascism in the 30's represented in relation to the capitalism as it existed then - that it is different in certain ways only reflects the fact that capitalism as such is different, and the conditions of life - both as it concerns the cultural, political, etc. context is different. The social formations that exist today are different.

The idiocy of conflating Trump, or 'categorizing him' in this idealist way - with being the present incarnation of 19th century protectionist populism is a falsity because it fails to understand the genesis and maturity of what is politically and ideologically constitutive of the social antagonism: The expression of ideology has matured and grown in congruence with the increased socialization of labor. For example, to clarify myself, Marx and Engels talked about reactionary socialism. But they weren't talking about some ossified phenomenon - reactionary socialism would meet its final genesis in Fascism, because the maturity of these ideas lead them to push come shove. It is not possible to be the incarnation of 19th century protectionist populism, becasue this ignores the historical developments that have existed since then, which 19th century protectionist populism was unable to own up to and relate itself to. Meanwhile Fascism constitutes something universal to capitalism, no matter its particular incarnation, what makes Fascism Fasicsm for us is its relation to the world-historical trajectory path of capitalism. Fascism is different across history. And likewise dealing with Fascism today is different from dealing with it before. Before, the 'hegemonic' social formation of Fascism was the industrial capitalist class.

Today, this hegemonic social formation is the class of rent - the digitarii, and the oligarchs, who are 'non-productive', i.e. rent collecting as a result of increased technological automation. These are distinct, quite distinct, from the finance-capitalist class which was responsible for neoliberalism. This represents something new.

In the present epoch of capitalism, history is acausal. You are either a Communist, for the status quo (to whatever degree) or you are a Fascist. What you fail to understand is that the nature of reaction has sophisticated and has been forced to assume its highest conclusions. The past has already happened.


You use the term reactionary, but reactionary has a completely different context within both developed bourgeois society, as well as between different political situations. When you are talking about reactionaries in the US, for example, which was a country founded on liberal, democratic-republican principles, you are talking about a return within the framework of bourgeois liberalism. This is evinced, really made blatantly obvious, by the fact that the people with whom we are dealing, themselves are dealing specifically with the purity and fantasy of the so-called "free-market", and/or they are anti-corporatism, anti-establishment, anti-cronyism, or whatever other nonsensical terms that expose that they have zero understanding of capital (or are lying/have been lied to).

The specific historical circumstances of a country's national character is an interchangeable cosmetic, that effectively does not mean anything as far as what is essential about reaction is concerned. Again, you are here conceiving history in terms of the history of formally defined ideas, but this fails to acknowledge the precise nature of reaction: Reaction in the united states is only COSMETICALLY representing a return to the foundational principles of the United States. To end it there, is to again ignore the social dimension of making a pretense to the 'founding myth' of state civic society. That is, what does it mean for the real social formations as they exist in the here and now, to make a pretense to what they conceive to be the foundational myth of state-civic society? You see the assumption of the idealists is that it is at the expense of the real conditions of state civic society that people possess ideas which just 'happen' to be reactionary in its context. But you fail to understand that the only reason that reactionaries in 2016 can talk about the founding myth of state civic society is owed to the conditions of state civic society as they exist in 2016. Reactionaries are not taking a step back and looking at the holistic picture of American history - they are insisting upon the founding myth of the United States precisely because this founding myth constitutes the hegemonic conditions of state-civic society as they exist now.

You allot them too much and your understanding of the nature of reaction is shallow precisely because you assume outright that 'corporatism', the 'establishment', and so-called 'cronyism' are inevitably betrayals of the historical foundation of the United States. The precise nature of what constitutes the betrayal of the 'original principle' in any society for that matter, relates to the precise nature of the reaction. The petty bourgeoisie are going to inevitably emphasize certain aspects of the 'founding myth' of a country, and this is what makes them reactionary - not some insistence on a return to the late 18th century that is real, but an insistence upon a sacred which constitutes civil society as the basis of ones opposition to it. This is precisely what defines reaction: A reactionary is PRECISELY a reactionary because they oppose the existing order, but in such a way that insists upon a sacred that constitutes it. A sacred, is precisely those superstitions which reproduce the existing social order ideologically - which reproduce the social order in ways that don't allow us to conceive the social order in a way that allows real knowledge of it.

The precise cosmetic nature of this sacred, just like the precise aesthetic nature of Fascism, is dependent upon the cosmetic and aesthetic character of a country, but as far as what is historically and essentially constitutive of that country, it is nothing but a superficiality. Each nation relates to the world-historical universality that it forms a part of, in their own particular ways. Fascism will not look the same in America compared to Fascism in Turkey, or Fascism in Egypt will not look the same as Fascism in France. All this word 'Fascism' means is the common and essential universal relation to the universality of capitalism, that all capitalist societies embody. The reason it is Fascism has nothing to do with 'doctrine' or any of that nonsense. What Mussolini said about Fascism doesn't actually mean shit. The point is: What was essentially constitutive of this Fascism, and how does that express itself in other nations? The point is: Fascism is an attempted escape from the trajectory path of modernity that leads us to Communism, that leads discontent and opposition to the status quo, in ways that ultimately reproduce it. Old traditional bursts of reaction had no hegemonic potential in the past - because they were precisely spontaneous oppositions to the ruling order. When they become capable of assuming an entirely new ruling order, they become Fascistic.

Their insistence upon the founding myth of the United States is precisely because this founding myth constitutes state-civic scoeity - that is, neoliberal, 'corporatist' American capitalism, itself. They are opposing the ruling conditions of life but in such a way that insists upon one of the various superstitions which reproduces it. THAT is what defines reaction - and what defines this reaction as Fascist or not, has nothing to do with this or that 'ideal' qualification, it has to do with whether this reaction can own up to the whole extent of modernity by owning up to the highest conditions of ruling consciousness. Hence Fascism is a reactionary modernism, it is an attempt to simultaneously appease mass discontent with the ruling order by safeguarding certain sacreds while reconciling this with the status quo. Fascism is when reaction actually manages to seize power and reproduce that power. So when I say that Trump represents a new kind of Fascism, I do not mean that he himself IS inevitably a Fascist, but that he represents precisely the necessary step towards actual Fascism, he represents a new Fascism because he embodies discontent with the existing order channeled in a reactionary way, whose success or failure depends upon whether it can truly become a new Fascism.



To go back, and to give another example as to why you can't even come close to having this in America, in comparison to China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.: in the US, what do they even call what I already described as a part of the reactionary flavor? - libertarian. Some of these same people are completely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations, etc.

No, I insist we compare libertarianism to Fascism as it expresses itself in Russia, Germany or Italy. You claim that 'some of these people are compositely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations'. In what way is this different from how European Fascists, both in the past and the present, are also in this superficial way 'on our side' (in most abstract fashion) with regard to the side that Leftists in those countries take? There is no difference whatsoever in that sense! You clearly pay no attention to the actual political rhetoric of Fascists in those states - they ARE against global capital, in France FN is directly opposed to Austerity, Fsacists in Russia are often DIRECTLY opposed to the oligarchs, in Germany Fascists are opposed to austerity measures, are opposed to the big bourgeoisie, and so on. Your reasoning is so pathetic: The same stupidity of "We're all brothers! Left and right, we are united!" is MORE SO present in Europe than the US. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, all it shows is the Fascistic nature of 'libertarianism', all it shows is that what is particular about libertarianism is cosmetic and nothing more: It relates to the same essential phenomena that working people oppose in a reactionary way, that ultimately benefits those in power and specifically the decaying bourgeois classes (petite bourgeoisie, national, non-globalist bourgeoisie, ETC.). You fail to understand the catch:

Yes, they are isolationists. But this also translates to a further insistence upon borders, and disallows further solidarity with other working classes of other nations. It translates into the reactionary anti-globalism that constitutes every outburst of reaction in the 21st century. Globalism is double edged sword. Remember Lenin in hte context of Imperialism:

Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.

And the same goes for the national sovereignty of the national bourgeoisie with regard to globalist capital: We oppose the national bourgoeisie and we regard global capital as, in comparison to the pre-globalist, protectionist national-capitalism as progressive. Putinite anti-globalism is reactionary.

Yes, they are for so-called 'civil rights'. But that can also translate to the 'right' in the face of the state to discriminate against blacks and gays in their businesses. Yes, they are for 'civil liberties'. But this easily translates into the right to 'free speech' for them - in particular at places like university campuses, as an opposition to 'political correctness'. Yes, they oppose the government - but this opposition is really an opposition to our 'democracy' - our ability to collectively effect the policy making decisions of the state, whether that is more welfare, higher taxes for the bloodsuckers, and so on, against the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie. It goes on - you abstract the nature of these vague oppositions from their real reactionary context. No they are not on our side - NOT TO ANY DEGREE WHATSOEVER is there ANY common ground between us and them. They are precisely our enemies BECAUSE they oppose the ruling order - but in such a way that makes impossible its super-session.

This is why Libertarianism finds a spectrum in the United States: from the 'plebian' Ron Paul libertarianism to the explicitly Fascist 'dark enlightenment', and ruling libertarian discourse falls somewhere in between and is more and more shifting towards the latter end. Take one ignorant worker who ascribes to Libertarian ideas. Isolate those ideas and take those ideas to their highest conclusion. At the end of the road you will find explicit calls for the destruction of democracy, privatization of all things, establishing a 'national CEO' instead of a president, explicit pseudo-scientific racism, and an unapolegetic disconetnet for those same 'unwashed masses'. You see the worker libertarian is a toady, an underlying, who salvages what piece of 'dignity' that this reaction allows he can, permanently ashamed of his inability to enter the ranks of the ruling classes. The worker-libertarian, is like the slave who betters himself by being closer and more obedient to his master, salvaging what scraps that he can so that he might have a piece of the life of the 'master'.

You fail to understand that the discontent they are relating to, is not of their creation - they are relating to an essential mass discontent with the ruling order WHICH EXISTS independently of them. What that means is that we must oppose the Fascists, the 'libertarians' with far more ferocity than we even oppose the 'status quo', because unlike the ruling liberal order the Fascists DIRECTLY insist upon the social antagonism in a way that disallows consciousness of it. The ruling order - in comparison is 'neutral' in the sense that it does not even regard mass discontent towards capitalism, it instead denies and seeks to repress it all together.

This is why you arrive at a disgusting and reactionary position on the matter:


Now, just to mention, at the end. Hillary (and neoliberalism) is the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie within the context of our liberal, democratic-totalitarian society.

And one is tempted to say this derives from your lack of imagination. The nonsense of this kind of reasoning is that it is ahistorical: Why wasn't New Deal era welfare capitalism 'the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie' as some stupid Leftists tried to say back then (Where today, to insist on policies that were simply a given in the 60's is a radical act)? Why wasn't pre-Fascist liberal-democratic imperialism the 'most reactionary form of the bourgeoisie'? Within the context of our liberal democratic society, reaction is only possible if it represents an opposition to the ruling conditions of this context of liberal-democratic society. You are simply ignorant as it concerns our present predicament: Hillary is not only not an 'extreme' reactionary, she is not even a reactionary at all, because she PERFECTLY REPRESENTS THE 'ORGANIC' TRAJECTORY PATH OF THE RULING CONDITIONS, of the status quo, she is precisely not a reactionary at all because she is the object of reaction itself - she embodies the object that which the reactionaries themselves are reacting to.

Leftists have this idiotic notion that the ruling order, the ruling class, is constantly reacting to their 'true Socialism'. As if Hillary Clinton gives a fuck about your 'true socialism'. She does not, I promise. She goes to bed and wakes up in the morning without even thinking once about it. There is nothing they are reacting to. They are not reactionaries because you are not a formidable force enough for them to react to. Meanwhile the actual reaction is reactionary insofar as it opposes the prevailing and hegemonic conditions of state-civic society in capitalism, culturally, politically and socially.

A Communist has no sacreds but the Communist movement, the self-discipline that embodies Communism, the real self-conscious individuals are all that we insist upon, ourselves, and those who we will 'convert' - that is it, that is all we have. We make no pretense to trans-historic principles or beautiful words, we make no pretense to eternal ideas that exist at the expense of men and women and the real conditions of life they face, we Communists are Communists because we are historically self-conscious, we subject our conditions of life to scientific knowledge, and thus, we alone embody the aufheben of the ruling order of things, because we directly assume what is essential about the constitution of the real conditions of life in a CONSCIOUS and DIRECT manner - through our insistence upon the proletariat as the revolutionary class, we supersede capitalism because now our opposition to capitalism no longer makes pretense to any constitutive sacred of it, but precisely an INSISTENCE upon capitalism by being socially conscious of it. We own up to capitalism, by directly being conscious of those essential things which constitute it, and this consciousness is the overthrow of capitalism itself, capitalism which can only exist insofar as it disallows direct social consciousness of it (i.e. social planning).

[ckaihatsu]

Chicano students tell Hillary Clinton to get out of East LA

By staff

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/Killary.jpg

Los Angeles, CA - On May 5, students and community members protested the visit of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Clinton spoke to supporters on the East Los Angeles College (ELAC) campus Thursday afternoon. 500 protesters demanding she leave the campus marched on the gymnasium where she spoke.

Protesters gathered in nearby Belvedere Park and marched to the campus chanting “Deport Hillary!” “Hillary fuera! Fuera de East LA!” and “Chicano power!” Once on campus they were met by East LA sheriffs. Many of the sheriffs were on horseback. Many police helicopters hovered overhead. As the protesters kept chanting they gathered on campus for a round of speeches. After the speeches, they marched on the gymnasium and were met by barricades and more police.

Irving Grey Angeles, one of the organizers with MEXA de ELAC said, “The message is clear. She represents the 1%. She gives closed door speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars and won't release the transcripts. She has called for the deportation of undocumented people, even children. As a working-class and immigrant community, clearly, she does not have our best interests at heart. In a classic display of pandering, she decides to visit us on 5 de Mayo. We're not having that. The protest brought out hundreds of students and community members who are tired of being lied to and misled by opportunist politicians. All power to the people!”

A few protesters went into the event and chanted during her speech. Clinton's speech was cut short by ten minutes and she was forced to leave early. As Clinton supporters filed out of the event, the protesters kept chanting: “Hey hey ho ho! Hillary Clinton's got to go!” “Vendidos!” and “Sell-outs!”

Long time Chicano activist Carlos Montes said, “We're not going to get Chicano political power through Hillary Clinton or the elections. We need to keep organizing and fight for equality and self-determination!”

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

- - - Updated - - -

Immigrant rights group announces support for anti-Trump march at RNC

By staff

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/carlos.jpg

Los Angeles, CA - The Legalization for All Network (L4A Network) announced its support today, May 7, for the Dump Trump protest that will take place on the opening day of the Cleveland Republican National Convention, July 18. The Legalization for All Network is national network of immigrant rights organizations that fights against discrimination and advocates legalization for all undocumented people in the U.S.

Carlos Montes, of the Legalization for All Network states, "Dump Trump and his racist attacks must be our call to action! His rhetoric of hate is blaming immigrants, especially Latinos, for the suffering of working people. This suffering is in fact caused by the billionaire class that Trump represents. We say ‘Dump Trump’ and march on the RNC.”

Montes is a veteran leader of the Chicano and immigrant rights movements. He played a prominent role in the 2008 RNC protests in St. Paul and in the 2012 RNC protest in Tampa, Florida.

To view the Facebook event for the protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/574059672757617/

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Homo Songun]

"You can only afford to not vote because you are white, privelged, etc."

The funny thing is that the people that left-liberals claim to be helping out are precisely the ones that don't care in the first place. Voter turnout amongst the poor and people of color is shit because they recognize that politicians don't act in their interest and don't care about them.

I agree with this observation 100%. Change never originates with the ballot. At the same time, I resolutely defend voting rights, especially for traditionally disenfranchised groups. Shit is like all dialectical and stuff.

To the OP's point I think there is a very real chance Hillary withdraws from the race prior to November because FBI partyvan. The Clintons are immensely powerful, but there really are clearcut violations of the law on the part of Hillary and co. despite what the true believers say.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with this observation 100%.




Change never originates with the ballot. At the same time, I resolutely defend voting rights, especially for traditionally disenfranchised groups. Shit is like all dialectical and stuff.


I'll just note that this kind of thing -- voting rights in the bourgeois arena -- can be seen in terms of politics-strategies-tactics. Of course we support reforms like enfranchisement, but we'd never base our *politics* (principles) on such reformism.

[Homo Songun]

I'll just note that this kind of thing -- voting rights in the bourgeois arena -- can be seen in terms of politics-strategies-tactics. Of course we support reforms like enfranchisement, but we'd never base our *politics* (principles) on such reformism.
What is so heinous about supporting bourgeois-democratic suffrage in "principle"? I unashamedly do so. I have no illusions about its built-in limitations.

[ckaihatsu]

What is so heinous about supporting bourgeois-democratic suffrage in "principle"? I unashamedly do so. I have no illusions about its built-in limitations.


Well, that sounds like something of a *contradiction* -- would a person's principles have 'limitations' -- ?

Sure, struggles for reforms can have revolutionary implications, so there's never a good reason to *summarily* write off such struggles, but the question can soon become 'What is anyone doing about *revolutionary* issues' -- it's about priorities, as with anything.

And with the issue of *suffrage* in particular anyone who *does* take the bourgeois-arena vote seriously is now looking at a real possibility of either Clinton or Trump, so there's that. (Does the Sanders camp have a 'hard-left' wing that agitates for his presidency for the sake of *world revolution* -- ?)

[Homo Songun]

Well, that sounds like something of a *contradiction* -- would a person's principles have 'limitations' -- ?
I meant the limitations of bourgeois elections, of course.

[ckaihatsu]

Permits demanded for “Dump Trump” rally and march for first day of RNC

By staff

Minneapolis, MN - The Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC applied for permits from the City of Cleveland May 10, for a major protest July 18, the first day of the Republican National Convention (RNC). The protest will put forward the slogans, “Dump Trump, Say No to the Republican Agenda,” and “We Demand Peace, Justice and Equality.”

Tom Burke, a spokesperson for Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “We have now applied for permits to march on the RNC and we insist that the permits are granted in a timely manner. We have a right to protest Trump and his racist, reactionary agenda, and that is exactly what we will do on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.”

Mick Kelly, also of the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC, added, “While the coalition wants permits to ensure the broadest participation in the protest, we will march permits or not.”

The Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC permit application is for a rally at Cleveland Public Square followed by a march down Ontario Street to the Quicken Loans Arena – the site of the RNC.

According to a statement from protest organizers, “Activists from around the country will be converging on Cleveland, Ohio, July 18, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Inside the convention hall, Republicans will promote their agenda of bigotry, racist discrimination, Islamophobia, war and austerity. On the streets of Cleveland, we will demand peace, justice and equality.”

Many of the organizers of this protest helped lead the mass marches that drew thousands at the 2008 RNC in Saint Paul, Minnesota and the 2012 RNC in Tampa, Florida.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[ckaihatsu]

Nationwide support for “Dump Trump” rally and march on first day of RNC

By staff

Cleveland, OH - The anti-Trump rally that’s being organized by the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC on July 18, day one of the Republican National Convention (RNC), is gaining the backing of progressive organizations across the U.S.

Tom Burke, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “Organizations are contacting us every day, telling us that want to join this march, and to let the world know that we will stand up to racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attacks.”

Over the past week, chapters of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at Pennsylvania’s West Chester University; the University of MN; Houston, TX; Tampa Bay, FL and Tallahassee, FL have announced their support for the protest.

The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, which is leading the fight for community control of Chicago’s police has also decided to back the march on the RNC.

Other groups backing the protest include the Welfare Rights Committee, MN Anti-War Committee, Anti-war Committee Chicago, L.U.P.E - Tucson, AZ, Los Angeles’s Centro CSO, Legalzation for All Network, and the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAC).

Mick Kelly, also of the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “We expect thousands to join us for the march on the RNC. We have applied for permits, and expect to get them, but we plan on marching whether we get them or not.”

The protest will put forward the slogans, “Dump Trump, Say No to the Republican Agenda, Stand Against Racist, Anti-Immigrant, and Anti-Muslim Attacks,” and “We Demand Peace, Justice and Equality.”

Many of the organizers of this protest helped lead the mass marches that drew thousands at the 2008 RNC in Saint Paul, Minnesota and the 2012 RNC in Tampa, Florida.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

could a donald trump presidency mean a blow to the evil empire from within? could he be america's nero or something? i mean, if he does half the shit he says hell do, itll be disastrous for everyone... workers, capitalists, women, immigrants, et al. imagine that man as head of state... will western capitalism as we know it ever recover? the mere fact that hes been nominated and brought his lunacy to the mainstream is a sign that the end is nigh for american bourgeois democracy imo. discuss

[bluetortilla]

I have not read through the whole thread and I'm new around here but I believe it a grave mistake to underestimate the dangers of a Trump presidency. I don't think I need to spell that out to anyone here. I also find it reckless to sit back and watch what happens.
I am very skeptical of the unstated suggestion that a Trump Presidency will be easier to fight because of the chaos it will create (my interpretation). Chaotic political situations usually mean more bloodshed, and could mean a slamdown on any descent. With Clinton it will be business as usually and easier to continue our work, albeit the wheels will grind slower. For the victims of 'hot combat' imperialism, I can only see Trump as being worse (kill free trade agreements and 'bomb every square inch' of the enemy). Accordingly, I will vote for Clinton in hopes of slowing Trump, and hope that Sanders is the VP. That being said, if it's rigged it's rigged, but then again, how do we know the extent to which elections are rigged? Especially with Trump. A great many GOP people never expected to see him as the nominee, and at this writing are publicly showing their disdain.
Finally, I don't see Trump as a populist at all; he's an opportunist who cares for no one but his self and power. You might be able to say that about just about any nominee but Trump is particularly vile, ignorant, and hateful. Comparisons with Hitler, in some important respects, hold water.
I have confidence we can contain to a degree the growing police state under the current bipartisan arrangement- but when it comes to a Trump presidency, all bets are off. Bullets will fly. What is our role then?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

killing free trade agreements will be tremendous for workers

[bluetortilla]

killing free trade agreements will be tremendous for workers

That sounds like a nationalist argument for sure, and tenuous. What the world needs are new industries and new kinds of occupations- not shifting jobs that feed consumerism back to the U.S. From our viewpoint, it is the same if jobs are lost in Mexico let's say and gained in the U.S. So Mexico gets 'poorer.' Does that make us better off?

What people need to understand are new concepts of job creation, not getting past decades' production lines back. For example, how about instead of washing dishes building solar panels? Just for starters...

[Tio Pepe]

Ironically, Trump may be slightly less dangerous to humanity than Warmonger-In-Waiting SHillary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That sounds like a nationalist argument for sure, and tenuous. What the world needs are new industries and new kinds of occupations- not shifting jobs that feed consumerism back to the U.S. From our viewpoint, it is the same if jobs are lost in Mexico let's say and gained in the U.S. So Mexico gets 'poorer.' Does that make us better off?

What people need to understand are new concepts of job creation, not getting past decades' production lines back. For example, how about instead of washing dishes building solar panels? Just for starters...

its not nationalist because im not american. free trade is a policy envisioned and implemented by and for finance capital. to use your example, the outsourcing of jobs destroys workers bargaining power, generates a net decrease in working cinditions and consequently hampers international unity and solidarity

[TheIrrationalist]

Ironically, Trump may be slightly less dangerous to humanity than Warmonger-In-Waiting SHillary.

there is nothing in trump's platform or rhetoric that would suggest this. "make america great again" is clearly nothing but a slogan for imperialism. it is the hitler idea of the german empire, a declining and betrayed empire. the call make it great again is a call for intensified imperial war and rape. he says that stupid 'anti-nato' shit to gain support among the isolationist right, the tea party type. if he is elected there is no way he will dismantle the most extensive and successful imperialist apparatus the world has ever seen.