Vote Kerry $$ [Archive]

Sabocat

7th October 2004, 13:22

thats right, if bush get elected america will be putting more gasoline on the fire over there in Arabia, gerogie boy is going ta make yall dumb and shit

man if i was u , i'd get your ass down ta tha corner stoore and buy me soma that there heinz katsup for ya fries.

push the bush to the curb, and vote yourselves Mr. Kerry smile.gif

You can't be serious.

I implore you, if you're any kind of leftist at all, to read this article closely. This is an excellent description by John Pilger of the "differences" between the candidates. Open your eyes. Pay particular attention to the item in bold. Both Republicans and Democrats almost unanamously voted for the resolution below. They have the same goals.

Bush vs. Kerry: The fake debate

October 8, 2004

JOHN PILGER is a renowned journalist and documentary filmmaker, and one of the best-known international voices speaking out against war and imperialism over more than three decades--from Vietnam and Southeast Asia, to Africa, to Palestine and Iraq in the Middle East. His most recent documentary is Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror, which demolishes the case for going to war on Iraq, and his most recent book is a collection of essays titled The New Rulers of the World. This article on the U.S. election was first published in Britain’s New Statesmen magazine. Read more of John Pilger’s writings on his Web site www.johnpilger.com.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ON MAY 6, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that, in effect, authorized a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power."

The joining of hands across America’s illusory political divide has a long history. The native Americans were slaughtered, the Philippines laid to waste and Cuba and much of Latin America brought to heel with "bipartisan" backing. Wading through the blood, a new breed of popular historian, the journalist in the pay of rich newspaper owners, spun the heroic myths of a super-sect called Americanism, which advertising and public relations in the 20th century formalized as an ideology, embracing both conservatism and liberalism.

In the modern era, most of America’s wars have been launched by liberal Democratic presidents--Truman in Korea, Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in Afghanistan. The fictitious "missile gap" with the former USSR was invented by Kennedy’s liberal New Frontiersmen as a rationale for keeping the Cold War going.

In 1964, a Democrat-dominated Congress gave President Johnson the authority to attack Vietnam, a defenseless peasant nation offering no threat to the United States. Like the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, the justification was a nonexistent "incident" in which two North Vietnamese patrol boats were said to have attacked an American warship. More than 3 million deaths and the ruin of a once bountiful land followed.

Read the rest (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/515/515_06_JohnPilger.shtml)

yes i am arab

7th October 2004, 19:41

all the candidates are the same, they are all bein founded and pushed by big corperate america, thats the only thing these candidates are good for, killing innocent people and taking away their own citizens rights, for the most part the people on this forum have opened their eyes and know that biased and corrupted american media isnt the real news. destroy this 2-party system we have in america, then you will overthrow the balance, and re-instate rights to the people. thats why no third party candidates are in the debat, they make you think that america has free politics, but its all the same...

Valkyrie

7th October 2004, 21:32

yeah, not only is there no difference between Bush and Kerry --- this election is no different than any other either. It's not good practice to start voting for the status quo, --- it could become a habit. There is always that option of Not voting at all if one is not there that represents your views.

fridabella

7th October 2004, 21:55

As previously stated, it doesn't matter which one of them wins (though, come on people. Bush and Cheney hold a firm grip over the voters. It's just inevitable that he'll continue to be ahead). I like to classify Bush as the egotist and Kerry as the spindoctor. Bush was terrible in office and I honestly believe Kerry will be as well. But as stated, either way, the war will continue and everything at home will stay the same.

I'd also like to take this oppurtunity to say that I despise the way the elections are held. I mean, both of the candidates have spent countless billions of dollars on advertisement. ADVERTISEMENT. Now, tell me there must have been something more important that they could have spent that money on. They focus so much on going back and forth at one another that the issues NEVER get addressed. You'd wonder if either of them really graduated from teenagerhood to adulthood with all of the pettiness and finger pointing. It's just pathetic. I hate U.S. politics. They must be reading "The Prince" in Politics 101.

By the by, does anyone else think there is no way in hell Cheney will be alive in four years? I mean come on, the guy is a total geriatric. Not to mention, he's evil. Perhaps Bush should have picked someone healthier like I dunno... Bob Dole? ::laughs:: Oh, I crack myself up.

NovelGentry

7th October 2004, 22:08

I'm sick of hearing this bullshit about "continuing the subjucation of the working class by voting."

All you're doing by not voting is giving the bourgeoisie voters more of a say. If no one by Kerry, Bush, and both their families voted it would come down to whoever has the biggest family. Whether you like to admit or not, if the entire working class got together and voted for a truly progressive candidate we might see change. Furthermore, it's 10 minutes out of your day which you'd probably spend doing nothing more than *****ing at people not to take part in bourgeoisie politics.

Vote someone truly progressive. Kerry and Bush are not the only two options you know.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th October 2004, 22:23

Even a candidate who may claim to be progressive, will be completely unable to accomplish anything for the socialist cause. I apologize for all the commie rhetoric, but class antagonisms are not reconcilable through these "elections". The US government is necessarily a political arm of the capital-wielding elite. Ralph Nader will never change that.

And furthermore, voting is not only useless, but it's also harmful. By voting we're telling the bourgeoisie that we approve of the system. If we inherently disapprove of capitalism, the we must abstain from capitalist elections. Voting tells them otherwise. It gives them the consent to fuck us over.

NovelGentry

7th October 2004, 23:36

And furthermore, voting is not only useless, but it's also harmful. By voting we're telling the bourgeoisie that we approve of the system. If we inherently disapprove of capitalism, the we must abstain from capitalist elections. Voting tells them otherwise. It gives them the consent to fuck us over.

Let them think we approve all they want, all the more surprise when things change. Furthermore, they're going to fuck us over whether we give them the consent or not, so you lose nothing by voting. And while I"m aware Nader or any other progressive candidate can never make REAL change, they can at least make some.

Edit: Also, someone like Nader being elected would send a message to the bourgeoisie that we're not just going to lie back and let them run the show as easily as they might like. It shows them that they won't always hold every position of power and take everything right out of our hands without any sort of dissent.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2004, 02:38

A progressive candidate will never get in office. Even if most people vote for him, they wouldn't let that kind of shit go down. Remember that they make up the results.

Furthermore, they're going to fuck us over whether we give them the consent or not, so you lose nothing by voting.

When we vote and give them our consent, we're letting them know that we're satisfied with the system. They'll use that as an excuse to rule even more according to their corrupt agenda and ignore even more the demands of the working class.

And while I"m aware Nader or any other progressive candidate can never make REAL change, they can at least make some.

He will never accomplish anything that will even lead to real change. And by real change, I mean socialism. As long as the public is deprived of power, nothing will improve. And Nader will never even work towards the goal of egalitarianism.

Also, someone like Nader being elected would send a message to the bourgeoisie that we're not just going to lie back and let them run the show as easily as they might like.

No!
Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie once he's elected. And if he refuses, he'll be completely immobile. The bourgeoisie will be laughing their asses off if we elect Nader thinking that we're advancing the socialist cause by doing so.

NovelGentry

8th October 2004, 02:54

When we vote and give them our consent, we're letting them know that we're satisfied with the system. They'll use that as an excuse to rule even more according to their corrupt agenda and ignore even more the demands of the working class.

This is seriously flawed. When I vote for a candidate who actually represents things I believe in I'm letting them know that I'm not satisfied with my choices -- and that's fair enough within the system, because the system wasn't designed to change itself, only to present us these choices.

As far as an excuse, they don't need an excuse, they'll do it anyway. And the only people buying the excuses are the people who already aren't conscious enough to think otherwise. NOTHING IS LOST.

He will never accomplish anything that will even lead to real change. And by real change, I mean socialism. As long as the public is deprived of power, nothing will improve. And Nader will never even work towards the goal of egalitarianism.

This isn't a debate about Nader, I just used him as an example of a progressive candidate. And yes, you can't bring about socialism under the current system because of the laws already in place, nor does he look to bring about socialism, but then again, I'm not going to vote for him cause I think he'll bring abous socialism. I'm gonna vote for him to give a big giant finger to Kerry and Bush and because I still believe that while we live under capitalism it should at least be the kind of capitalism he represents.

No!
Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie once he's elected. And if he refuses, he'll be completely immobile. The bourgeoisie will be laughing their asses off if we elect Nader thinking that we're advancing the socialist cause by doing so.

If you think Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie I suggest you take another look at his entire life's work. No matter how immobile he may be from a new legislative sense, he would still hold executive power which would allow him a lot more flexibility to exact more change. For example, with a new AJ he could start prosecuting more corporate criminals.

I'll be laughing my ass of for anyhint thinking that if we elect Nader we're advancing the socialist cause. Nader is not a socialist candidate, nor do I think he wants to make the US a socialist country. He's above and beyond all a consumer right's activist.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2004, 04:53

Are you even a socialist at all?
What are you doing here?

This is seriously flawed. When I vote for a candidate who actually represents things I believe in I'm letting them know that I'm not satisfied with my choices

What??
When you vote for a candidate who represents your opinions, you're letting them know that you're not satisfied with your own choices? WTF?

that's fair enough within the system, because the system wasn't designed to change itself, only to present us these choices.

The system was designed to cater to the capitalist class. That's the only thing that it can do. As long as economic classes exist, the wealthy elite will wield power over all of the government. One man cannot change that. Not even a little bit.

This isn't a debate about Nader, I just used him as an example of a progressive candidate. And yes, you can't bring about socialism under the current system because of the laws already in place, nor does he look to bring about socialism, but then again, I'm not going to vote for him cause I think he'll bring abous socialism. I'm gonna vote for him to give a big giant finger to Kerry and Bush and because I still believe that while we live under capitalism it should at least be the kind of capitalism he represents.

So socialism doesn't exist. And while the power still belongs to the bourgeoisie and the masses are still powerless, Nader will be giving Bush and Kerry the finger? How so? On what behalf? Not on behalf of the left, because any leftist would not hold a position of power where the capitalist class is calling the shots.

If you think Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie I suggest you take another look at his entire life's work. No matter how immobile he may be from a new legislative sense, he would still hold executive power which would allow him a lot more flexibility to exact more change. For example, with a new AJ he could start prosecuting more corporate criminals.

Yes, please take a look at his life's work. Notice that he hasn't done anything to fight the oppressors. He has never done anything to reverse class antagonisms. He has never done anything progressive. He is a bourgeois politician.

What would the prosecution of corporate criminals accomplish? Will that in any way help to create socialism?

NovelGentry

8th October 2004, 11:57

Are you even a socialist at all?
What are you doing here?

No, I'm not socialist, I consider myself Marxist/Communist

What??When you vote for a candidate who represents your opinions, you're letting them know that you're not satisfied with your own choices? WTF?

My choices being my greater choices. For example... if my "choices" are Kerry or Bush, and I vote Nader, I'm saying fuck you to Kerry or Bush.

The system was designed to cater to the capitalist class. That's the only thing that it can do. As long as economic classes exist, the wealthy elite will wield power over all of the government. One man cannot change that. Not even a little bit.

And it does so by disabling 3rd party candidates from obtaining office. Even if they did, they'd still have the House Reps + Senate to deal with to get any legislature working. Like I said, the power isn't in the Legislature. A 3rd party candidate cannot make a long lasting lawful change, but he can piss off and fuck over a lot of corporate interests while he's in there. I don't vote because I think Nader's going to magically somehow turn us into a socialist nation, I vote because I know every vote is another slap in the face to the bourgeoisie "masters" of this system.

Look, do you really think the people in these power positions are gonna be like "Oh, see, they voted for Nader, they believe in the system." If he got elected? Or do you think it would be something more like "FUCK, they voted for Nader... what the hell does this mean? We can't fool them anymore? Are they learning? What's going on?"

So socialism doesn't exist. And while the power still belongs to the bourgeoisie and the masses are still powerless, Nader will be giving Bush and Kerry the finger? How so? On what behalf? Not on behalf of the left, because any leftist would not hold a position of power where the capitalist class is calling the shots.

Socialism exist, but it cannot be brought about through the current system. That system has to be overthrown.

On my behalf. Look, if you really think that Bush doesn't give a shit that he's in office and he's running the show for Haliburton instead of Heinz you have another thing coming. You forget that the bourgeoisie don't just fuck us over, they try to fuck one another over. If someone like Nader were elected that would fuck both Bush and Kerry over. Not completely, no, they'd still have huge influence even if they weren't in politics (just with the money they have), but it's at least the equivalent of an insult.

Yes, please take a look at his life's work. Notice that he hasn't done anything to fight the oppressors. He has never done anything to reverse class antagonisms. He has never done anything progressive. He is a bourgeois politician.

Progressive Tax Policy:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=7

Takes millions if not billions from corporate interests and relieves the tax burden on the lower classes.

Pro Union:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=12

Agrarian Reform:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=9

Quote from that: "Additionally, we must challenge misallocation of resources caused by the growing concentration and wealth by agribusiness...."

Help destroy poverty:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=10

Single Payer Healthcare:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=4

True Democracy:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=5

Providing better and MORE education:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=16

He talks about providing preschool for all there, however, it should also be noted that he's mentioned on several occasions that college could and SHOULD be paid in full.

On top of what he WANTS to do, he has already done more than I'm sure you can ever say you've done for the socialist cause.

Information taken from: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/ralphnader1.html

Nader's crusade caught on, and swarms of activists, called "Nader's Raiders," joined his modern consumer movement. They pressed for protections for workers, taxpayers, and the environment and fought to stem the power of large corporations.

In 1969 Nader established the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, which exposed corporate irresponsibility and the federal government's failure to enforce regulation of business. He founded Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group in 1971, an umbrella for many other such groups.

A prolific writer, Nader's books include Corporate Power in America (1973), Who's Poisoning America (1981), and Winning the Insurance Game (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you don't think these things have anything to do with socialism, but I do. Every single one of these issues he's destroy class antagonisms. You act as if classes are not a product of the system -- you don't just wave a magic wand and say "My goal is to destroy class antagonisms and I will do it." It's not an issue that stands alone by itself, it's an issue that can only be fixed by fixing a number of other issues and that is equalizing people, ALL people.

Aside from Nader, if I recall correctly, there is a socialist candidate in there too.

What would the prosecution of corporate criminals accomplish? Will that in any way help to create socialism?

Yes. If you can't see how then I seriously think you're a lost cause.

You sound like a damn fool going on about how taking 10 minutes to vote for a candidate who represents your ideals is wasting time and "showing THE MAN that you're Ok with the system." If you were OK with the system you wouldn't take the time to vote, you'd say "vote whoever you want, the system works fine the way it is." The fact is candidates like Nader WANT to change the system. That doesn't mean they can, but they want to, and whether you believe it or not, they are a threat to the bourgeoisie.

So much so that I'm quite confident they'd have him assassinated if he were elected.

Oh, btw, what action have you taken to destroy class antagonisms?

Fidelbrand

8th October 2004, 20:55

hilarious n energizing stuff
http://www.slambush.net/video/

Fidelbrand

8th October 2004, 21:26

Yeh, we know Kerry labelled as a communist by the Bush camp is a cynical joke, because he is NOT.

Anyway, I think this guy can alter (to some extent) the course of history if he wins the presidency.
- He cares about the environment and believes U.S. can take back its lead to lead the world for a more ustainable future.
- He proposes on urging teens to participate more in community service.
- He cares about better and "reachable" healthcare , education and other elements for subsistence. Certainly paying attention to the grassroots.

He is a bit "leftist" in some sense, and he being the president of the hegemon, i think, can change the world system more to our desired situation. (Incremental steps are fine for me.)

Any opinions?
(especially comrades in U.S.)?

Commie Girl

8th October 2004, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:26 PM

He is a bit "leftist" in some sense
:D Sorry, I am astonished that people refer to him as Leftist!!

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2004, 23:55

No, I'm not socialist, I consider myself Marxist/Communist

That would make you a socialist. Marxism is "scientific socialism".

And being a Marxist makes it even more absurd for you to advocate any action within the US government.

My choices being my greater choices. For example... if my "choices" are Kerry or Bush, and I vote Nader, I'm saying fuck you to Kerry or Bush.

No, you're saying that you advocate bourgeois politics. You're saying that you believe that progress can be achieved even while the revolutionary proletariat is not in power. This is not true.

The only progress that can be achieved is one which gives power to the public and removes power from the capitalist class. And nothing that jeopardizes the bourgeoisie's power will ever be done peacefully. Isn't possible.

A 3rd party candidate cannot make a long lasting lawful change, but he can piss off and fuck over a lot of corporate interests while he's in there.

When has this ever happened? Why would those in power let some reformist like Nader threaten their power? The president can't just "piss off" and "fuck over" whoever he wants. The president is a pawn of the ruling class.

I don't vote because I think Nader's going to magically somehow turn us into a socialist nation, I vote because I know every vote is another slap in the face to the bourgeoisie "masters" of this system.

That's a big misconception.
Unless we somehow remove the power from these *****es and create socialism, there is no "slap in the face". The "masters of the system" wouldn't let somebody like Nader get into office and jeopardize their power. Remember that they're the masters of the system.

Look, do you really think the people in these power positions are gonna be like "Oh, see, they voted for Nader, they believe in the system." If he got elected? Or do you think it would be something more like "FUCK, they voted for Nader... what the hell does this mean? We can't fool them anymore? Are they learning? What's going on?"

It would certainly be more like the first reaction.
As long as you vote, you're cooperating with capitalist politics and therefore with capitalism as well.

Socialism exist, but it cannot be brought about through the current system. That system has to be overthrown.

I agree that socialism cannot be brought about through the current system and an overthrow of the current system is necessary, but you just said that socialism exists. What the fuck does mean? If it exists, why would we want to overthrow capitalism? And how exactly does socialism exist?

On my behalf. Look, if you really think that Bush doesn't give a shit that he's in office and he's running the show for Halliburton instead of Heinz you have another thing coming.

Oh, I completely agree that he's running the show both for Halliburton and Heinz. And every other corporation. Bourgeois politicians act in the class interest of the bourgeoisie. And they certainly have a common class interest.

You forget that the bourgeoisie don't just fuck us over, they try to fuck one another over.

Hold on. You just said that If I think that Bush is condoning Halliburton’s interests instead of Heinz's interests, then I'm wrong. Now you're saying that the bourgeoisie doesn't have common political interests. It's becoming very hard to follow you here.

If someone like Nader were elected that would fuck both Bush and Kerry over. Not completely, no, they'd still have huge influence even if they weren't in politics (just with the money they have), but it's at least the equivalent of an insult.

It might insult Bush and Kerry, but those guys are only the puppets of the real enemy. What would that accomplish? We need to fight the enemy. Not buy into this contest of who is the best minion of the capitalist class.

Progressive Tax Policy:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=7

Takes millions if not billions from corporate interests and relieves the tax burden on the lower classes.

Pro Union:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=12

Agrarian Reform:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=9

Quote from that: "Additionally, we must challenge misallocation of resources caused by the growing concentration and wealth by agribusiness...."

Help destroy poverty:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=10

Single Payer Healthcare:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=4

True Democracy:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=5

Providing better and MORE education:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=16

He talks about providing preschool for all there, however, it should also be noted that he's mentioned on several occasions that college could and SHOULD be paid in full.

On top of what he WANTS to do, he has already done more than I'm sure you can ever say you've done for the socialist cause.

Information taken from: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/ralphnader1.html

Nader's crusade caught on, and swarms of activists, called "Nader's Raiders," joined his modern consumer movement. They pressed for protections for workers, taxpayers, and the environment and fought to stem the power of large corporations.

In 1969 Nader established the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, which exposed corporate irresponsibility and the federal government's failure to enforce regulation of business. He founded Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group in 1971, an umbrella for many other such groups.

A prolific writer, Nader's books include Corporate Power in America (1973), Who's Poisoning America (1981), and Winning the Insurance Game (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you don't think these things have anything to do with socialism, but I do. Every single one of these issues he's destroy class antagonisms. You act as if classes are not a product of the system -- you don't just wave a magic wand and say "My goal is to destroy class antagonisms and I will do it." It's not an issue that stands alone by itself, it's an issue that can only be fixed by fixing a number of other issues and that is equalizing people, ALL people.

None of those things that Nader advocated or even did will actually work in the way of overthrowing the current ruling class. Many democrats have advocated those issues, but those ambitions never led to anything, did they? The democrats haven't done a thing for the radical left. And neither has the Green Party.

They may be pro-union, but they never reversed the Taft-Hartley Act.
They may be in favor of public healthcare, but that doesn't exist, does it?
And how exactly would Nader do it?

You can't create equality within capitalism. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Do you think Nader's gonna abolish capitalism, or something?

NovelGentry

9th October 2004, 01:05

That would make you a socialist. Marxism is "scientific socialism".

I disagree. I don't consider myself "socialist" above Marxist/Communist because I don't believe things should be stopped at socialism. Some people do, to me, that is a socialist, as far as I'm concerned socialism is only one spot on the path to communism.

And being a Marxist makes it even more absurd for you to advocate any action within the US government.

Why's that?

No, you're saying that you advocate bourgeois politics. You're saying that you believe that progress can be achieved even while the revolutionary proletariat is not in power. This is not true.

Saying progress CANNOT be achieved is the only thing here that's not true. Progress can be achieved, but it is limited and temporary progress, not real progress.

And nothing that jeopardizes the bourgeoisie's power will ever be done peacefully. Isn't possible.

Overruling Taft-Hartley would jeopardize the bourgeoisie's power. It opens the door for union activism and gives the union back to the workers as just another weapon in overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Overruling the Taft-Hartley act can be done by reform.

When has this ever happened? Why would those in power let some reformist like Nader threaten their power? The president can't just "piss off" and "fuck over" whoever he wants. The president is a pawn of the ruling class.

It hasn't happened. In case you're not aware we've never had a true 3rd party candidate in office. And they wouldn't, once again, I firmly believe he would be assassinated. As far as how to piss off and fuck over, once again, appoint an attourney general and fight for prosecution of corporate criminals.

Unless we somehow remove the power from these *****es and create socialism, there is no "slap in the face". The "masters of the system" wouldn't let somebody like Nader get into office and jeopardize their power. Remember that they're the masters of the system.

So what would they do if Nader got majority in enough states that would win any other normal 2 party candidate the electoral votes? You fail to see this as a means of showing America the flaws of the system. Most people don't understand the kind of control that the electoral college has, if they tried to shut him out after gaining a truly majority vote in enough states to win the electoral vote for anyone else, then you have an tool to argue that. Then you have another reason to get people pissed off. You can't just tell people the system doesn't work and beg them to believe it, you have to SHOW them it doesn't work... and what kind of argument can you make when they ask "Well have you ever tried to work within the system?" Your answer is No, My answer is yes -- if you ask me, it's just another tool for us.

What the fuck does mean? If it exists, why would we want to overthrow capitalism? And how exactly does socialism exist?

You said socialism doesn't exist. By that I assumed you meant that it's a fallacy, that there's no such thing as socialism, this is what I was arguing. I realize very well that socialism doesn't exist here.

You just said that If I think that Bush is condoning Halliburton’s interests instead of Heinz's interests, then I'm wrong. Now you're saying that the bourgeoisie doesn't have common political interests. It's becoming very hard to follow you here.

Key word INSTEAD. What I'm saying is quite simple. Bush first and foremost is there to protect his own capitalist interests in the companies he has direct relationships. The bourgeoisie's common political interest goes little beyond that of suppressing the proletariat, they don't care about one another's interests. Furthermore, the only reason they share that one interest is because it is in their OWN interest. That is their own individual interest. What I am saying is that the bourgeoisie does not have any common political interest that isn't derived from their own individual interests. That simple.

It might insult Bush and Kerry, but those guys are only the puppets of the real enemy. What would that accomplish? We need to fight the enemy. Not buy into this contest of who is the best minion of the capitalist class.

You're stretching my words here quite a bit. It has nothing to do with "who is the best minion." The bourgeoisie is a social class, not a political class -- granted that they hold political power, and NEED to in order to maintain that class distinction, but that does not mean everyone who runs for office is bourgeoisie, if you think that is the case apparently you've never looked at elections on a local level.

The entire proletariat does not realize revolution as AN option, let alone as the only option. If they did we'd be there already. As such they will CONTINUE to support this system until the system can no longer sustains their life and they realize revolution is their only means to survive (as some have argued this is when capitalism sees it's major collapse and revolution is inevitable) or until they are shown that the system doesn't work. Once again, you can't just TELL them it doesn't work, you have to show them. How do you expect to do this without any failed representation there?

You say "we need to fight" as if we as communists move on without the support of the proletariat. What we need is to raise class consciousness, and in order to do this education remains key, but we can't argue the failures of the system without proof of that.

As I said in a recent essay:

As pointed out by Ernesto Che Guevara, “Where the government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.” - Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare If we expand this argument to say that not only guerrilla outbreak, but revolution in general, cannot be promoted under such conditions, then we can now see that not only does a centralized state fail to stop a secondary revolution, it promotes ones by failing to maintain this democratic appearance.

My point here isn't against a centralized state, but nonetheless revolution in general is not possible under such circumstances. We have to DESTROY this appearance of constitutional legality, and we cannot do that by staying outside the system. The minute we prove that the vote of people means nothing is the minute EVERYONE can abandon the idea of voting, until then we should be pushing for everyone to vote for someone like Nader.

Let me put it to you this way. Right now approx 50% of American voters don't vote, I guarantee that the majority if not ALL of these votes are members of the proletariat. Assuming Nader has 3% of the voters that do vote, that gives him 53% approval if we were able to mobilize all current non-voters to vote for him (or any other such candidate who doesn't stand a chance). This means Kerry and Bush would be splitting the remaining 47% (probably just about evenly), so assume Kerry gets 22% and Bush gets 25%. This would mean Nader has "won" by a landslide. Now watch the electoral college try to still push Bush or Kerry through -- it'd be a disaster and it would be calling the system out on it's failings. Now assume Nader actually gets through... He's not an inactive kind of guy, he's the kind of guy who would TRY to do things (99.999999% of these things would fail). We now have this example to prove that NO MATTER WHAT WE DO AS VOTERS, THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. This is solid proof. This is something you don't have by stipulating simply that it "doesn't work." This is a reason for the proletariat to mobilize in revolution rather than reform.

I have another post in a thread somewhere else with less detail, but in short, it explains how I think this type of reform to reach revolution is the only way. It is our way to massively educate the working class on the need for revolution, and as far as I can see it is the ONLY way. We don't have the numbers to do it otherwise -- and other than that we just sit around waiting for the "inevitable collapse of capitalism" we keep hearing about, which I have stated many times before we will never see: The bourgeoisie will destroy the world before they see their power crumble from their own failed system.

None of those things that Nader advocated or even did will actually work in the way of overthrowing the current ruling class.

No, but they can in general help the working class, more importantly, and again if they fail not for lack of trying, they are our working example that the system need to be overthrown.

Many democrats have advocated those issues, but those ambitions never led to anything, did they? The democrats haven't done a thing for the radical left. And neither has the Green Party.

They may be pro-union, but they never reversed the Taft-Hartley Act.
They may be in favor of public healthcare, but that doesn't exist, does it?
And how exactly would Nader do it?

No, but all of them first and foremost never actually tried. They SAY they will, but won't try because the corporation buys them out. Nader wouldn't do it, but Nader has shown time and time again to be immune to this kind of pay off. So you are faced with a unique situation where the only way in which these fail is because the system is unworkable.... and once again, this is something we need to make people aware.

You can't create equality within capitalism. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Do you think Nader's gonna abolish capitalism, or something?

I'm not sure exactly where you did hear it from. On the issue of whether or not Nader is going to abolish capitalism, I think I've made my position and my beliefs quite clear. You can continue to think I'm a reformist or use whatever words you want to use. Put as many words into my mouth as you want, but I don't think you begin to understand HALF of the reasons why I vote, nor am I sure you could if you tried.

In short, you can go on believing whatever you want. But I'm not going to dismiss my methods only to replace them with inactive revolution among 1% of the proletariat who has the honor of calling themselves communist.

Fidelbrand

9th October 2004, 12:56

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 9 2004, 04:41 AM
:D Sorry, I am astonished that people refer to him as Leftist!!
maybe a bit more tily towards the "left" when compared to most presidents in U.s. history?

Severian

9th October 2004, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:05 PM

As pointed out by Ernesto Che Guevara, “Where the government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.” - Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare If we expand this argument to say that not only guerrilla outbreak, but revolution in general, cannot be promoted under such conditions, then we can now see that not only does a centralized state fail to stop a secondary revolution, it promotes ones by failing to maintain this democratic appearance.
If you want to argue that it's impossible to work towards revolution, go ahead, but don't bodysnatch Che for that purpose. He meant only one thing by that quote, that you don't take up arms under those conditions. And there's no logical "expansion" of that argument - you just jump to a conclusion without justifying it.

And why do you think Nader as president would be such a huge problem for capitalism? Capitalism's endured far more "radical" people in other countries. He's not even a social democrat or Moscow-oriented "Communist", and capitalism has made use of both of those in high office.

Right now, there's a "Workers Party" president in Brazil, a former steelworker and union militant, who's been very careful not to offend "the markets" (really, the investors) or do anything that will threaten their profits in any way. Which means he does very little that's in workers' interests. If somebody like Lula can be useful to capitalism, why not a middle-class reformer like Nader, who has no real connection to the workers' movement?

Supporting candidates of workers' parties can be sometimes useful, but what's really important is what happens outside the voting booth, when people take action for themselves instead of waiting for someone else to come along and liberate them.

In case you're not aware we've never had a true 3rd party candidate in office.

False. Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans started out as a "3rd party", y'know. There are many more recent examples if you mean offices more minor than the White House.

But who gives? The important thing ain't the number of parties. It's the need for a workers' party. Whether we have 2,3, or 15 capitalist parties, that doesn't matter.

Severian

9th October 2004, 22:45

Anyway, I came in here since this is some kind of Kerry thread and I wanted to post this:

Kerry attacks Bush for being soft on Cuba (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/9854630.htm?1c)

Powell, of course, has since come back explained that he was misunderstood, and is just as anti-Cuba as Kerry.

NovelGentry

9th October 2004, 23:25

He meant only one thing by that quote, that you don't take up arms under those conditions.

And what do you think revolution is, baking cookies for the capitalists so that they will hand over the world for 1001 chocolate chips?

To Che, Guerrilla Warfare WAS revolution, thus it is hardly any exagerration or assumption on my part. What Che said was and is true and it proves my point quite concisely that we have to destroy the democratic image of capitalism before we can mobilize people to physically overthrow capitalism.

And why do you think Nader as president would be such a huge problem for capitalism? Capitalism's endured far more "radical" people in other countries. He's not even a social democrat or Moscow-oriented "Communist", and capitalism has made use of both of those in high office.

It's not a huge problem for capitalism. In fact, I'm quite certain Nader is 100% for capitalism. But it will be a problem for the bourgeoisie, as he is for a very socially responsible capitalism one that does not allow them to exploit as much or as easily as they did before.

You can war with another country, not so with your own President. You can certainly assassinate them, hell, look at JFK... but JFK is not a clean example because there's still insane amounts of mystery around it. And the people for whom JFK was an example of failed democracy for are above and beyond the age of revolution.

Lastly, it doesn't have to be Nader, the socialist candidate would be just as good. But the fact is we have to illustrate first hand, especially to today's youth, that the system doesn't work. We cannot do this by mere assertion. Me and you agree the system doesn't work, and that's fine... hell, maybe even the 50% of the non-voters agree the system doesn't work, but they're not pushed to revolution, and they still have another 50% of voters who seriously believe the system does work.

It's this simple... when someone asks you "How do you know the system doesn't work?" Do you want some general vague answer like "It's never worked!!!" without any proof, or do you want to be able to say "Look... LOOK WHAT WE TRIED TO DO! Look at how much the world supported this man, look at how much he tried, look at all the bills he supported and proposed, and look how we have gotten no where. Look how our represenatives have been bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder. LOOK HOW REFORM HAS FAILED US!" ?

Hell, if the electoral college shoots him down on a majority vote, even better. Then you can flat out say "Nader won every states popular and no states electoral...."

Right now, there's a "Workers Party" president in Brazil, a former steelworker and union militant, who's been very careful not to offend "the markets" (really, the investors) or do anything that will threaten their profits in any way. Which means he does very little that's in workers' interests. If somebody like Lula can be useful to capitalism, why not a middle-class reformer like Nader, who has no real connection to the workers' movement?

Nader has no real connection to the workers movement? WTF.... That's all I can really say to that is WTF.

It seems to me that everyone who has argued that someone like Nader can't post a threat has been severely ignorant about the man they who the claim to understand all the shortcomings of.

Supporting candidates of workers' parties can be sometimes useful, but what's really important is what happens outside the voting booth, when people take action for themselves instead of waiting for someone else to come along and liberate them.

I agree... I have ALWAYS agreed, but they do not see a reason to take action yet, because they still believe the system works. This has been my point all along from the beginning of that Che quote to the end of this sentence. If you can't grasp that then you're just like every other blind and passive revolutionary that comes in here and fails to see the reality of the situation.... indeed the revolution will "happen when the people are class conscious" -- but when they are class conscious depends very greatly on the circumstances their environment has imposed.

I've heard the argument that "People will revolt when they see revolution as the only option." Well start fucking showing them that it's the only option. Prove to them that our pseudo-democracy doesn't work... stop blathering on about "Dear lord, our system has failed, capitalism can't succeed, the people are being exploited and tricked" and FUCKING SHOW THEM.

You are the equivalent of another pamphlet, 1000 words about how the system has failed us and not a single proof that can be considered self-evident for the worker you hand it to. You are a shameful shameful tactic, and one that will never be revolutionary enough.

False. Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans started out as a "3rd party", y'know. There are many more recent examples if you mean offices more minor than the White House.

Starting out as a 3rd party doesn't make it a 3rd party forever... there is a point where it stops becoming a third party and replaces one of the other two. In this case the Whigs all but collapsed in the democratic terms leading up to Lincoln, so in essence the Republicans were one of the two major parties BEFORE Lincoln was elected, not because he was elected.

The position of a TRUE 3rd party candidate is to win without majority support... which coicidentiall is only applicable because of the style of government we have. Under something like IRV the idea that a third party is even a third party flies out the window, because in order to win someone NEEDS majority support. The best example of this is the example I gave earlier where the initial voter majority is split while new mobilized voters are devoted to that third party. In this essence, the third party stops becoming a third party BECAUSE tha candidate was elected, not because one of the initial two parties is going down the crapper from internal disagreements.

But who gives? The important thing ain't the number of parties. It's the need for a workers' party. Whether we have 2,3, or 15 capitalist parties, that doesn't matter.

I don't support parties in general.... if you ask me what we need to do is trash these freakish borish ideas of "parties" and simply run on our own terms. In case you weren't aware, this is something Nader is doing this election year. It's this simple, you either represent the majority of everyone else (namely the workers) or the minority of yourself and your bourgeoisie partners, who you only support because they support you. As far as the need for someone who represents the majority to be elected... it doesn't go beyond that of proving the system is failed. Reform will not be able to make the changes we need, however, the failure to reform despite no lack of trying will be able greatly improve the mobilization of people to make the changes we need through the methods that CAN make these changes.

Severian

10th October 2004, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:25 PM

And what do you think revolution is, baking cookies for the capitalists so that they will hand over the world for 1001 chocolate chips?

To Che, Guerrilla Warfare WAS revolution, thus it is hardly any exagerration or assumption on my part. What Che said was and is true and it proves my point quite concisely that we have to destroy the democratic image of capitalism before we can mobilize people to physically overthrow capitalism.
Revolutions typically involve armed conflict but the revolution is not just armed conflict. If it was, every two-bit coup would be a revolution. A revolution is a transformation of society brought about by the mass action. I don't have feel the need to go into depth on this rather basic subject here but I encourage you to read more about the history of some major revolutions.

And you're bodysnatching Che again. "To Che, Guerrilla Warfare WAS revolution, " just because you think so doesn't mean he did. Che was neither ignorant nor stupid and was fully aware that revolutions come in many forms. He saw revolutionary mass mobilizations in Bolivia in the 50s, read the Motorcycle Diaries. Nor was the Cuban Revolution just guerilla warfare. (Indeed, no national government has ever been overthrown by guerilla warfare alone, although colonial powers have been driven out.)

You have every right to support middle-class reformer candidates. But you don't get to cite Che in support of this position unless you can show where he did the same.

t's not a huge problem for capitalism. In fact, I'm quite certain Nader is 100% for capitalism. But it will be a problem for the bourgeoisie, as he is for a very socially responsible capitalism one that does not allow them to exploit as much or as easily as they did before.

I think you're dodging the question with semantics. Again, why is this a major problem for the capitalists, when they've made use of plenty of other politicians who wanted to reform capitalism? Why is this such a huge problem that they'd discard bourgeois democracy just to get rid of Nader?

Just because he "wants" a socially reponsible capitalism - I'll assume his sincerity, for the sake of argument - doesn't mean it'll happen automatically when he gets into office. What do you think Lula wants, maximum exploitation by capital? I doubt it, but that's what he's getting.

They didn't get rid of Allende just because of Allende, y'know. They got rid of Allende in order to crush the mass organizations and mass actions of Chilean working people, which was their real problem.

You can war with another country, not so with your own President. You can certainly assassinate them, hell, look at JFK... but JFK is not a clean example because there's still insane amounts of mystery around it.

There's no mystery about one thing: JFK was a good and faithful servant of the capitalist class, and one of the most warlike in the U.S. history. Brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in his effort to destroy the Cuban Revolution, escalated the Vietnam War, etc. Whoever assassinated him, and whyever, it wasn't the ruling class upset 'cause he wasn't serving their interests!

When the ruling class does decide to ditch a president, it has other means, within the limits of bourgeois democracy. Consider what happened to Nixon, when he became a liability. Consider the means used by some elements of the system to try to get rid of Clinton. Consider the leaks and investigations as elements of the national security bureaucracy are going after the Bush administration now - the FBI is accusing one administration official of being an Israeli spy, and investigating others, and then there's the Plame investigation, and numerous embarassing leaks....

Severian

10th October 2004, 01:01

Continued....

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:25 PM
t's this simple... when someone asks you "How do you know the system doesn't work?" Do you want some general vague answer like "It's never worked!!!" without any proof, or do you want to be able to say "Look... LOOK WHAT WE TRIED TO DO! Look at how much the world supported this man, look at how much he tried, look at all the bills he supported and proposed, and look how we have gotten no where. Look how our represenatives have been bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder. LOOK HOW REFORM HAS FAILED US!" ?
That's been happening for decades. The labor movement and millions of people have been supporting capitalist and middle-class reformers for decades, and there's no shortage of examples to point to of how that's failed. No shortage of politicians who've made all kinds of promises and then been "bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder" as you put it.

And people know this. That's why so many people don't vote, and most of those who do, hold their noses and have no real enthusiasm about it. In my experience, it's a lot easier to get people excited about a demonstration, a strike, anything but voting, writing your congressman, etc. If you want them to get involved with election campaigns, you have to make them forget what they know about the rottenness of the system, tell them every vote counts, etc. Haven't you seen the "get out and vote" ads on TV?

C'mon, what do you tell people on the street when you're campaigning for Nader, and they say, "aren't all politicians worthless"? Don't you have to convince them he's different - in other words, that the system isn't all rotten?

Hell, if the electoral college shoots him down on a majority vote, even better. Then you can flat out say "Nader won every states popular and no states electoral...."

Right, 'cause the Democrats have done so well by winning the popular vote 4 years ago, and saying that Bush is an illegitimate president ever since. That's been a big help to them.

The electoral college is a Bad Thing in that it's contrary to "one man, one vote" but it cannot stand at the center of a revolutionary strategy.

Nader has no real connection to the workers movement? WTF.... That's all I can really say to that is WTF.

I stand in awe of your carefully reasoned argument. Tell me what that connection is if it's so obvious. What union has he ever belonged to? What working-class job has he held lately, or ever for all I know? Etc. Some workers support Nader of course, but more support Kerry or even Bush.

I agree... I have ALWAYS agreed, but they do not see a reason to take action yet, because they still believe the system works.

I couldn't disagree more. In my experience, most people, especially working-class people, are not overcome with enthusiasm for the wonderfulness of the capitalist system or even its "democratic" political system.

The problem is, is there something else which works better? Not just in theory, people want to see something.

Nader is not an example of something which works better. He isn't even an example which points in that direction, or contains elements of what we'll need. Mass actions do contain elements of it, 'cause working people's self-organization, increasing consciousness, etc., are at the core of what's needed for workers' power and socialism.

And some workers are taking actions. Support them. Forget about Nader.

I've heard the argument that "People will revolt when they see revolution as the only option." Well start fucking showing them that it's the only option. Prove to them that our pseudo-democracy doesn't work... stop blathering on about "Dear lord, our system has failed, capitalism can't succeed, the people are being exploited and tricked" and FUCKING SHOW THEM.

Sure. Fine. People don't mostly accept that revolution's the only option, I'll agree with you there. Which is to say they don't accept that they are the only ones who will liberate themselves. They still hope that someone else will. Like, say, Nader. I don't see how telling people to vote for Nader solves this problem.

If the capitalists smashed bourgeois democracy, sure, that'd show a lot of people that revolution's the only option. But you haven't explained how that would possibly result from a Nader victory.

Even if he somehow won. Which he won't, and we all know it.

With a candidate of a workers' party, his/her candidacy can build that party, spread its ideas, etc., regardless of how many votes they get. The argument for those candidates doesn't depend on some fantasy about winning the election and then getting assassinated or whatever.

Nader's candidacy, on the other hand, will build no organization since he's running as an independent as you just pointed out. Not even the reformist, middle-class Green Party. The ideas he's spreading are reformist, middle-class, nationalist ideas. Including support for protectionism, American jobs for America, and other garbage that leads people in the direction of Il Duce Patrick Buchanan. Who, BTW, had a sympathetic interview with Nader in his newsletter a while back.

Incidentally, in another thread you said that Castro's not an "intense internationalist". As long as you're supporting a nationalist like Nader, that statement becomes extra-ridiculous.

In the real world - not in some fantasy where Nader A) wins the election and B) the ruling class for some unexplained reason can't accept the electoral victory and coopt him - you have not and cannot explain anything positive that will result from supporting the Nader campaign.

Nader himself expects only one thing from it: he hopes it will move the Democratic Party slightly to the left, or as he puts it force them to address some of his issues.

Oh, here's the candidate I'm supporting for president. (http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6838/683801.html) He doesn't go around telling people that the system can be reformed or that voting is the answer. Hell, he's not even constitutionally eligible to be president. He doesn't say, vote for me and I'll set you free. He says, take action and begin to set yourself free.

NovelGentry

10th October 2004, 01:23

Oh, BS. Revolutions typically involve armed conflict but the revolution is not just armed conflict. If it was, every two-bit coup would be a revolution. A revolution is a transformation of society brought about by the mass action.

I'm aware armed conflict is not the ONLY requirement, I never said it was. However, if you think a complete transformation of society can be brought about WITHOUT armed conflict, you're sadly mistaken.

Che was neither ignorant nor stupid and was fully aware that revolutions come in many forms. He saw revolutionary mass mobilizations in Bolivia in the 50s, read the Motorcycle Diaries. Nor was the Cuban Revolution just guerilla warfare. (Indeed, no national government has ever been overthrown by guerilla warfare alone, although colonial powers have been driven out.)

No one said the cuban revolution was JUST guerrilla warfare (once again people seem to adhere to the habit of putting words into my mouth), and thank you very much but I've read The Motorcycle Diaries and Reiminiscence of the Cuban Revolution. However, if you would like for a better understanding of why I say Che thought Guerrilla Warfare WAS Revolution, you need only to read the first section of the first chapter of Guerrilla Warfare titled: The Essence of Guerrilla Warfare. This isn't to say Che thought it was the ONLY form of revolution, but Che saw guerrilla warfare as a form of revolution, and more specifically a form that was applicable to the places in which he sought revolution.

Nice dodge! Again, why is this a major problem for the capitalists, when they've made use of plenty of other politicians who wanted to reform capitalism? Why is this such a huge problem that they'd discard bourgeois democracy just to get rid of Nader?

The answer to your first question is once again that he is not a threat to capitalism, whether you want to call it a dodge or not is up to you. But I'm not going to say Nader threatens capitalism, he's 100% for it, and last I checked is very active within the stock market.

To answer your second question, which once again has put words into my mouth. They won't discard bourgeois democracy -- they have no need to as bourgeois democracy allows them to get away with this. However, they will have to subvert some of the laws that their bourgeois democracy has produced in order to get rid of Nader. This becomes the smelling salt of the people. If by chance they somehow "get away with it" then you try try again, but this is once again why I support voting. You put these kinds of people in power until society as a whole recognizes that the system is failing despite our attempts to try.

Just because he "wants" a socially reponsible capitalism - I'll assume his sincerity, for the sake of argument - doesn't mean it'll happen automatically when he gets into office. What do you think Lula wants, maximum exploitation by capital? I doubt it, but that's what he's getting.

You continue to miss the point. The point of these candidate is not to make the reform... they will never get their reforms passed... they will never make true change. They can't even make trivial change because the bourgeoisie will not let them. We're not using them to make the change, we're uisng them to prove that there is no way to make the change utilizing the current "democratic" means. You're mistaking me for a reformist here, which is very disheartening.

Oh, fer crying out loud. There's no mystery about one thing: JFK was a good and faithful servant of the capitalist class, and one of the most warlike in the U.S. history. Brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in his effort to destroy the Cuban Revolution, escalated the Vietnam War, etc. Whoever assassinated him, and whyever, it wasn't the ruling class upset 'cause he wasn't serving their interests!

The deeper meaning of events seems to elude you with brisk ease. The point is very simply that JFK didn't do what certain people wanted and he was killed for that. If you are making the assumption that these people were not members of the bourgeoisie I suggest you re-examine the case. JFK's example is only proof that the bourgeoisie does not construct itself to protect it's own class. They attempt to protect themselves as individuals, and as a consequence tend to support the entire position of the class. What you seem to be failing to see is that JFK's example shows what happens when even a bourgeoisie president directly opposes some other portion of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, this does not change that MILLIONS of working class people supported JFK, and in doing so these working class people saw what happens when someone they feel represents them tries to utilize the power they have supposedly given them.

When the ruling class does decide to ditch a president, it has other means, within the limits of bourgeois democracy. Consider what happened to Nixon, when he became a liability. Consider the means used by some elements of the system to try to get rid of Clinton. Consider the leaks and investigations as elements of the national security bureaucracy are going after the Bush administration now - the FBI is accusing one administration official of being an Israeli spy, and investigating others, and then there's the Plame investigation, and numerous embarassing leaks.

Well... you mentioned one person who resigned, the rest have maintained their "power" under these situations. Furthermore, these "other means" have all depended on the immoral and frequently illegal actions of these administrations. If watergate never happened, you might have a chance at convincing me that these "means" can work on anyone.

Key words on Clinton and Bush are "try to get rid of," and I hate to tell you but Clinton's blowjob is far less scandelous than watergate. The point of this is simple... yes, they do have means within the system, but these means are dependent on the public swallowing the excuses without spitting some out. When's the last time you actually talked to someone who was like "I can't believe what that Bill Clinton man did! he should have been dragged out of office and shot through the head." These are not real means to ditch, they do little more than to soil a good name.

There is only one way to ensure a threat is stopped, DESTROY the threat, and if anyone has the means to do that with the best liklihood and easiest means of covering it up, it's the bourgeoisie. And like I said before, even if they did manage to squeeze Nader out by some "legally acceptable" means, it still makes a HUGE amount of people question the system that normally may not question it at all and like I said, you try, try again. Put these people in power until the bourgeoisie is FORCED to take means outside what can be considered "legally acceptable" and then call them out on it.

BTW... it seems rather amazing you're willing to criticize my ideas on how to make people aware of this systems failusre, but you seem to keep rather silent on your own. So precisely what action is it that we should be taking to make people aware of the necessity for revolution?

Rasta Sapian

10th October 2004, 16:13

Bravo, good comments people, people of the new age, where we can all think beyond the brainwashed sheep wandering the plains of America.

yes, there are only 2 choices for your president, one is your current leader, who desided to attack the nation of Iraq, a country who apparently bombed the twin towers (What about Bin Ladin and Afganistan or Saudi Arabia?) a country that possed an emidiate threat to America, where it was harbouring weapons of mass destruction (Which were not found under the ruins of Tikrit ie. ancient babylon)

The facts are that the president is a business man well connected around the industrialized world, thinking about OPEC, wouldn't Iraq and Saudia Arabia be in direct competition on the world market for crude oil?

Has bush made some stupid decisions? Has the EU and united nations supported his decisions, do the American troops want to return home from there crusades overseas?

you the American people must deside?
will it be Heinz or Enron?

Sometimes people in power can make a difference, wheather it is moderate or drastic change can happen!

Perhaps if kerry were elected there would be more funding into education, and more of the nation would be aware of what is really happening in the world, and the impirialist centre of the universe. and you would eventually have a more open system of democracy, one respected by the United Nations and the rest of the free world.

Severian

10th October 2004, 23:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:23 PM

I'm aware armed conflict is not the ONLY requirement, I never said it was.
Well, thanks for clarifying what you mean. So: revolution includes many things besides armed conflict. So, why do you think that, just because it's a mistake to start armed conflict under "democracy", it's automatically a mistake to start other aspects of revolution under "democracy"?

Again, you're free to think so, though you've given no logical reason for this opinion. But it wasn't Che's opinion, and it's dishonest for you to quote him in support of it.

To answer your second question, which once again has put words into my mouth. They won't discard bourgeois democracy -- they have no need to as bourgeois democracy allows them to get away with this. However, they will have to subvert some of the laws that their bourgeois democracy has produced in order to get rid of Nader.

You are still dodging the question of why they would have to get rid of Nader. Again, politicians far more radical than Nader have served out their terms without causing major problems for the capitalists. The system can contain them. Sometimes, they are very useful for containing and diverting the capitalists' real problem, the mass actions of working people.

And you've failed to explain what supporting the Nader candidacy will accomplish given the reality that he's not going to win.

You've also failed to explain what, exactly, JFK did to piss of a portion of the bourgeoisie. In the absense of any answer on your part, I have to guess this is some variant of Oliver Stone's theory that he suddenly decided to leave Cuba and Vietnam alone, but as I explained JFK was in reality doing the opposite.

And I have to say, that of the many people who believe the different conspiracy theories about JFK, this has not specially led them towards revolutionary conclusions. Quite the opposite, conspiracism tends to lead people to think that it's not the sytem that's the problem, rather shadowy cabals of bad people who are subverting the sytem. A good explanation of why conspiracism is ultimately mainstream and reformist. (http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/conspiracism-07.html)

I have to say you're a good example of this. You may not think of yourself as reformist, but your practical proposals are. You've suggested that communists should abandon principle to support a middle-class reformer who's just trying to shift the Democrats left a little, with no rational chain of reasoning at all.

And if you think assassination attempts succeed more reliably than scandals and impeachment attempts, think again. Even of those assassination attempts which succeed, most in history have failed to achieve their political goals - many have produced a backlash in the opposite direction.

Scandals, on the other hand, even when they fail to remove a politician, often succeed in altering their policies. That's certainly the case with Clinton, that the incessant Republican attacks pushed him to the right. It's no surprise that they failed to impeach and remove him, since he was supported by other sections of the capitalist class. I have no need to prove that scandals, or anything else, always work on "anyone". The real world is messy, and there are no guarantees of anything.

NovelGentry

11th October 2004, 00:16

Well, thanks for clarifying what you mean. So: revolution includes many things besides armed conflict. So, why do you think that, just because it's a mistake to start armed conflict under "democracy", it's automatically a mistake to start other aspects of revolution under "democracy"?

Again, you're free to think so, though you've given no logical reason for this opinion. But it wasn't Che's opinion, and it's dishonest for you to quote him in support of it.

I'm really starting to wonder where you get your information from. When did I say it was a mistake to start armed conflict under "democracy".... I didn't say it was a mistake, I said quite simply that it is not possible for popular armed conflict to succeed when people still believe democratic means have not been exhausted, and this is very much something Che believed. Likewise though, Che also believed that such conflict could bring about other conditions necessary, certainly it must be the case then that the only TRUE requirement that HAS TO BE MET for armed conflict to succeed is that democracy has been proven not to work. This does not mean that the government has given up on it, quite the contrary they will continue the charade to give some sort of legitimacy to their power. The difference is quite simply that the people have, and try as they might, it will be the eventual position of the people to overthrow that pseudo-democracy.

I am free to think so, but because you say I think so does not mean I think so.

You are still dodging the question of why they would have to get rid of Nader. Again, politicians far more radical than Nader have served out their terms without causing major problems for the capitalists. The system can contain them. Sometimes, they are very useful for containing and diverting the capitalists' real problem, the mass actions of working people.

Really, you seem to be missing something here. My original point was one of the 3rd party representing a threat, and that not 3rd party has ever come behind to take the presidency and represent the people. You continue to talk about "far more radical" people having "served out their terms".... and this may be so, but not on a presidential level. When you answer me where we've seen someone like Nader in hte presidency and not being "gotten rid of." Then you can pretend that they won't have a need, but more importantly, a desire to.

And you've failed to explain what supporting the Nader candidacy will accomplish given the reality that he's not going to win.

You've failed to concede to any of the points I've made. The point isn't to support a candidate like Nader even if he can't win. The point is to support candidates like Nader until one of them DOES win. If they never win we're left with as much proof of the systems failures as if they never ran. You're still trying to make it sound like I'm saying reform will work. So let me make it loud and clear.

REFORM WILL NOT WORK. REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE REVOLUTION WE HAVE TO PROVE TO THE PEOPLE THAT REFORM WILL NOT WORK, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT ***YOU*** BELIEVE, NOT EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES THE SAME WAY, AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS STILL A HUGE ABUNDANCE OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE DEMOCRACY CAN AND WILL WORK.

You've also failed to explain what, exactly, JFK did to piss of a portion of the bourgeoisie. In the absense of any answer on your part, I have to guess this is some variant of Oliver Stone's theory that he suddenly decided to leave Cuba and Vietnam alone, but as I explained JFK was in reality doing the opposite.

JFK's enemies once again, were not for the sake of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, it was bourgeoisie vs. bourgeoisie. You forget some of JFK's ties to the Mafia, you also seem to forget some of the "administrative" changes he was making towards the CIA which directly threatened the Nixon agenda, and yes, Nixon had an agenda LONG before he became president.

And I have to say, that of the many people who believe the different conspiracy theories about JFK, this has not specially led them towards revolutionary conclusions. Quite the opposite, conspiracism tends to lead people to think that it's not the sytem that's the problem, rather shadowy cabals of bad people who are subverting the sytem. A good explanation of why conspiracism is ultimately mainstream and reformist.

I wasn't using JFK as an example of someone trying to make change for the proletariat, simply as someone trying to make change an directly opposing other members of the bourgeoisie. Once again, it was a bourgeoisie vs. bourgeoisie issue -- thus it is not the kind of example we can use to show that the system does not work. Even more reason why we need an example... the point is very simply this, when members of the ruling class are threatened (even in the smallest way), they will NOT let you procede without a fight. This does not distinguish whether it's a proletariat or bourgeoisie threat, very simply, any threat will cause them to react this way.... so why would a threat in favor of the proletariat not have the same end result? Only difference would be that this time we can say "that person why trying to change it for us." Kennedy was only trying to change it for himself.

And if you think assassination attempts succeed more reliably than scandals and impeachment attempts, think again. Even of those assassination attempts which succeed, most in history have failed to achieve their political goals - many have produced a backlash in the opposite direction.

It doesn't have to be an assasination attempt... it very well could be, but it could just as easily be a scandal. Hell, it can simply be that the house never lets any of the proposed changes get through.... it doesn't matter HOW they stop the person, it simply matters that they stop it, and we can openly show that they have stopped it, and that reform cannot and will not work. And as I said, if this takes more than one election, so be it.

In short, if the proletariat organizes and votes for truly progressive candidates for say 16 years in a row, and time and TIME again these candidates, no matter how hard they try, are shut down and no real change is made, they will begin to see the futility of attempted reform. Only then are these people ready. This isn't to say that ALL people need this. Many of us are already well understanding of the failure of reform... but unless you think 1% is all we need, then we NEED to do this. Either that or we need to show people another way.... but once again, let me ask you.

How are we going to show these people that reform cannot work? What magic key do you have that can educate people in this way that I don't know about.... and if your current method works so well, how come it's not taking us anywhere? The proletariat forces of the world have been far more class conscious at other times in our history than they are today.

Severian

11th October 2004, 02:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:16 PM
I'm really starting to wonder where you get your information from. When did I say it was a mistake to start armed conflict under "democracy".... I didn't say it was a mistake, I said quite simply that it is not possible for popular armed conflict to succeed when people still believe democratic means have not been exhausted, and this is very much something Che believed.

Hm....popular armed conflict can't succeed, but somehow it's not a mistake? Seems obvious to me that it's a mistake to start things that can't succeed. That it's two ways of saying the same thing. If you disagree, that would certainly help explain a lot about why you think it's not a mistake to support Nader, even though you can't give any serious reason to think this might conceivably succeed in accomplishing anything.

Look, I'm tired of these quibbles where you complain that I'm not phrasing things exactly as you would. That's all you do, and you're still refusing to explain WHY you think anything.

You continue to talk about "far more radical" people having "served out their terms".... and this may be so, but not on a presidential level.

Of course they have. Just not in the U.S. I've given examples.

When you answer me where we've seen someone like Nader in hte presidency and not being "gotten rid of."

I gave examples at the very beginning of this argument. Europe and the world are full of "Socialist" heads of state, and have been for decades. Heck, even Blair's from the Labour Party. Then there's Lula.

All these people are not "like Nader" of course. They're from workers' parties, in some sense. In Lula's case, a former worker and union militant himself, as well as a far leftist. Nader's just a middle-class do-gooder. In a class sense, they're more dangerous to the capitalists than Nader....in the sense that a thumbtack is more dangerous than a pillow.

Throughout this argument, you've resolutely ignored these numerous and well-known historical examples. Apparently anything that didn't happen in the U.S. is invisible to you.

You've failed to concede to any of the points I've made.

That's because you haven't even tried to prove any of them, with either facts or a chain of reasoning. I'm not obligated to concede just because you keep repeating yourself.

The point isn't to support a candidate like Nader even if he can't win. The point is to support candidates like Nader until one of them DOES win. If they never win we're left with as much proof of the systems failures as if they never ran.

How? When people don't vote for Nader - which most won't no matter what you or I do - how does that prove the system doesn't work? It just proves people didn't support Nader. Logically, then, we just need more people to vote for Nader, and then it might work. Damn all those people who don't vote because they're so fed up with the system! We need to convince them the system works, so they'll vote for Nader and help us prove the system doesn't work!

And if it this was somehow true, then Nader's candidacy would have this effect whether we support it or not, logically.

How are we going to show these people that reform cannot work?

No magic key. Just help organize mass actions of working people. Strikes, demonstrations, etc., usually demanding "reforms" of different types - in the sense of changes short of abolishing capitalism. From individual employers, the government, whatever. Often this works in a way similar to what you mistakenly hope to achieve by electoralism.

1. If the ruling class refuses to grant the demanded reforms, that shows the changes cannot be achieved under capitalism.

2. If they do grant 'em, which does happen sometimes y'know, that increases workers' self-confidence in our own collective power. Rather than confidence in the politician who handed down the reforms.

(Directly advocating revolutionary ideas also has a role of course, but I agree that telling without showing is not enough by itself.)

and if your current method works so well, how come it's not taking us anywhere?

I could ask you the same, with more justice. Over the past several decades, a lot more leftists have been tied into the Democratic Party and other capitalist parties and candidates, than have been trying to promote independent working-class action. That's been true since the 30s, when the Communist Party USA - a large overganization at that time - first decided to go for FDR. Their approach is essentially similar to yours, except for different choices about which capitalist politicians to support. Have they promoted revolutionary conciousness? Have they built their organization? On the contrary, they've withered to a shell of their former strength, and a mockery of their once-revolutionary program.

That's true internationally, as well - the social democrats and pro-Moscow Communist Parties have worked to win places for themselves in government, often in coalition with "truly progressive" capitalist politicians.

Neither of us is advocating a remotely new position. The balance sheet, IMO, is far more favorable to mass action than to electoralism.

The proletariat forces of the world have been far more class conscious at other times in our history than they are today.

Eh, there's positive developments as well as negative. But certainly there's been a tremendous crisis of organized workers' parties. I'd suggest that a major cause is precisely their reformist approach in practice very similar to yours. And yes, no matter how loudly you shout that you don't believe in reform, voting for capitalist candidates is in practice reformist.

The have gotten into office, and very often, rather than showing the worthlessness of the system or the impossibility of reform, these parties have usually only shown their own rottenness and treachery.

NovelGentry

11th October 2004, 03:55

Hm....popular armed conflict can't succeed, but somehow it's not a mistake? Seems obvious to me that it's a mistake to start things that can't succeed. That it's two ways of saying the same thing. If you disagree, that would certainly help explain a lot about why you think it's not a mistake to support Nader, even though you can't give any serious reason to think this might conceivably succeed in accomplishing anything.

Look, I'm tired of these quibbles where you complain that I'm not phrasing things exactly as you would. That's all you do, and you're still refusing to explain WHY you think anything.

It's not a matter of you not phrasing things exactly, it's a matter of you misquoting me and putting words into my mouth. You've done it here yet again. I DID NOT SAY POPULAR ARMED CONFLICT CAN'T SUCCEED. I said popular armed conflict cannot exist when the "popularity" is not ready for armed conflict. They are not ready because they do not see armed conflict as the only solution, they still believe in democracy.

Popular armed conflict CAN succeed when that popular force recognizes armed conflict as the only solution.

If you stop misquoting me like someone off Bush's PR campaign then we won't have any issue.

Of course they have. Just not in the U.S. I've given examples.

Well that would be useful if we were talking about some place that's not the US. Too bad that if you read everything in context I've only been talking about the US, and above and beyond that I have directly addressed this as the US's pseudo-democracy. Some places don't have the same issues we have with their democracy -- so none of this would apply there, nor did I ever intend to say it would.

I gave examples at the very beginning of this argument. Europe and the world are full of "Socialist" heads of state, and have been for decades. Heck, even Blair's from the Labour Party. Then there's Lula.

That's good, and if you recall I said: "It seems to me that everyone who has argued that someone like Nader can't post a threat has been severely ignorant about the man they who the claim to understand all the shortcomings of." You either concede to this point if or you don't... if you don't then you can't argue nader. You say in your very next sentence they're not "like Nader" and then try to argue that somehow they are more leftist -- very well, if they're not "like Nader" you can't use them as an example to argue the legitimacy and the attempts Nader would make.

Furthermore, you're still assuming that I have a reformist attitude, that I think Nader will make change through reform. That ONCE AGAIN, is not my point. The point is that Nader WILL fail... he will fail, and we will use that to exemplify the failed system.

Throughout this argument, you've resolutely ignored these numerous and well-known historical examples. Apparently anything that didn't happen in the U.S. is invisible to you.

Maybe that's because we're arguing the US political system and a US presidential candidate.... and what needs to happen for revolution in the US. I don't believe these reformist steps are necessary worldwide, because many nations already have proof that their "democracy" doesn't work. The US, however, does not.

That's because you haven't even tried to prove any of them, with either facts or a chain of reasoning. I'm not obligated to concede just because you keep repeating yourself.

I wouldn't have to keep repeating my points if you'd stop misquoting and misrepresenting them in your arguments. Your arguments to my points are moot because you're not arguing the points I'm making, you're arguing the points you want to pretend I'm making.

How? When people don't vote for Nader - which most won't no matter what you or I do - how does that prove the system doesn't work? It just proves people didn't support Nader. Logically, then, we just need more people to vote for Nader, and then it might work. Damn all those people who don't vote because they're so fed up with the system! We need to convince them the system works, so they'll vote for Nader and help us prove the system doesn't work!

And if it this was somehow true, then Nader's candidacy would have this effect whether we support it or not, logically.

Now you're trying to floor my entire initial argument FOR voting. The point for voting is because we need that support. We should be mobilizing ourselves and others to vote in order to SHOW that we are attempting to support them. I'm well aware that Nader does not have enough people voting for him, what do you think I've been arguing we need to do?

And no, we don't convince them reform works... we convince them very simply that we need to prove reform doesn't work. I don't make the assumption that reform works, nor should anyone who already believes it DOESN'T work.... but we should be convincing these immobilized voters to take a position such as mine, where they take the 10 damned minutes it takes to vote so that we can show even a candidate with majority support will never be able to help. In turn this will show other currently mobilized voters who believe in "democracy" that it doesn't work, and they will stop believing, and THEN we are ready for revolutionary means.

No magic key. Just help organize mass actions of working people. Strikes, demonstrations, etc., usually demanding "reforms" of different types - in the sense of changes short of abolishing capitalism. From individual employers, the government, whatever. Often this works in a way similar to what you mistakenly hope to achieve by electoralism.

1. If the ruling class refuses to grant the demanded reforms, that shows the changes cannot be achieved under capitalism.

2. If they do grant 'em, which does happen sometimes y'know, that increases workers' self-confidence in our own collective power. Rather than confidence in the politician who handed down the reforms.

(Directly advocating revolutionary ideas also has a role of course, but I agree that telling without showing is not enough by itself.)

Strikes cannot work, they cannot work because unions cannot work... once again, I raise you Taft-Hartley act which you have yet to see. Demonstrations exist, they've existed for a LONG time, remember vietnam? The problem is very simply that demonstrations are never far enough, large enough, or demanding enough. They settle for current "hot issues," for example, war protests. These don't benefit class consciousness or reconciliation of social injustice because they simply aren't aimed at them. I agree that we COULD have such a demonstration, but as these others are, it'd be short lived and very small. People can demonstrate against something like War because a HUGE number of people disagree with it for a very diverse amount of reasons, they believe killing is wrong, they believe imperialism is wrong, they believe it's for the wrong reasons...etc..etc. Such diverse arguments cannot hold for fights for social justice.

In response:

1. Non-class conscious individuals are not aware of a "ruling class" -- they are aware simply of political power. Thus they do not see it as the "ruling class" who is stoping their reform... they see it as the current political power (which they do not recognize as the ruling class). Their argument would simply be, "We need to elect politicians who will grant us reforms."

2. If they do grant them it does not raise self confidence, it destroy class consciousness, becuase they begin to assume that the "political power" represents them, and as such they do not feel that class is even an issue. They feel more and more that reform WILL work. Your argument makes sense only if they are already class conscious and realize there IS a ruling class. But they don't.

(Good, then it becomes only a disagreemnt on how to show them... so how do you respond to the flaws I've pointed out in your method of showing them).

I could ask you the same, with more justice. Over the past several decades, a lot more leftists have been tied into the Democratic Party and other capitalist parties and candidates, than have been trying to promote independent working-class action. That's been true since the 30s, when the Communist Party USA - a large overganization at that time - first decided to go for FDR. Their approach is essentially similar to yours, except for different choices about which capitalist politicians to support. Have they promoted revolutionary conciousness? Have they built their organization? On the contrary, they've withered to a shell of their former strength, and a mockery of their once-revolutionary program.

That's true internationally, as well - the social democrats and pro-Moscow Communist Parties have worked to win places for themselves in government, often in coalition with "truly progressive" capitalist politicians.

Neither of us is advocating a remotely new position. The balance sheet, IMO, is far more favorable to mass action than to electoralism.

Very simply you're outlining leftists settling for "liberal" reform. In short, it's not enough. The most far left democrat is not even comparible to the most far right socialist. This is why even Nader is questionable... I'd say shoot for an even further left candidate, if I knew of one. Maybe we should promote one, but it has to be the extreme, or else it won't even be possible to mobilize enough people to take the time to vote. This is why we still have 50% of the registered voters failing to go to the polls. In short.... do I think Nader is the right candidate for us to mobilize these people for? I'm not sure.... it doesn't really matter so long as the people do mobilize, this way here the candidate is put in what the majority sees as the "political power" and they realize that despite this, the candidate has no political power. This is when people begin to realize there IS a ruling class, and thus they realize they are not it, and that no matter who they support, the ruling class holds the power, not the people's politician.

Eh, there's positive developments as well as negative. But certainly there's been a tremendous crisis of organized workers' parties. I'd suggest that a major cause is precisely their reformist approach in practice very similar to yours. And yes, no matter how loudly you shout that you don't believe in reform, voting for capitalist candidates is in practice reformist.

The have gotten into office, and very often, rather than showing the worthlessness of the system or the impossibility of reform, these parties have usually only shown their own rottenness and treachery.

Their "reformist" approach is not similar to mine. That is where you fail to make the distinction. My reformist approach is to prove that reform does not work, their reformist approach is because they believe it does work. By that standard, I disagree... voting for capitalist candidates is reformist if you're attempting to change the social situation through reform, but not if you're only using them to exemplify that reform does not work. It is simply using the system to prove it doesn't work.... there's no other way TO prove it doesn't work.

Severian

11th October 2004, 18:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:55 PM

It's not a matter of you not phrasing things exactly, it's a matter of you misquoting me and putting words into my mouth.
Misquoting you would be a neat trick, since I'm quoting using the board's "quote" function and copy-paste when I quote you.

I'm also paraphrasing you - hint, it's not quoting unless there are some kind of quote marks - and I think it's paraphrases which hit the core ideas. In any case, the quotes are right there, so you don't have to constantly restate them to the exclusion of adding anything new to support them.

I also tend to think you're changing your positions without acknowledging it, and that you can't state clearly whatever it is you think exactly, and are complaining because I'm taking your confused statement literally. (I have to, 'cause I can't read your mind.)

I think it's time to rescue what Che actually - and correctly - said from under this mass of confusion: "Where the government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.” - Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare

In other words - and as communists were saying long before Che - where the government is bourgeois-democratic in form, it is not yet time to take up arms, because you can typically use peaceful means of struggle without being gunned down in the street or disappeared in the middle of the night. That's all. Nothing about whether people have given up on bourgeois democracy or not, nothing about whether it's time to begin other types of revolutionary struggle. He simply doesn't comment on those subjects. And explicitly, it doesn't matter how fraudulent the bourgeois democracy is.

Maybe that's because we're arguing the US political system and a US presidential candidate.... and what needs to happen for revolution in the US.

So, like I said, the historical experience of other countries is invisible to you. If you refuse to learn from other people's experience, you'll usually end up repeating all of their mistakes. (Probably the working class in this country will have to go through some of those mistakes unfortunately, but communists can help other people run through 'em quicker rather than getting hung up on 'em ourselves.)

And so: Countries around the world have all kinds of reformers as heads of state, even "socialists', and their capitalists classes handle it just fine. But the US is somehow unique, although you didn't point out any difference that would plausibly make the U.S. capitalist class unable to tolerate Nader.

Which is where this argument started out, you were talking about how the capitalists would assassinate Nader, or rig the electoral college to keep him out, or would have to stop him in some such way. You still haven't given any good reason for this belief.

I'm well aware that Nader does not have enough people voting for him, what do you think I've been arguing we need to do?

So are you admitting that Nader does need a large number of votes - maybe even more than 50%? - for this whole thing to work, then? 'Cause that ain't gonna happen this year, regardless of what you and I do, or even if everyone who considers themselves communist campaigned for him.

Supporting communist candidates makes sense regardless of how many votes they get, because by campaigning for 'em you spread their communist ideas. By campaigning for Nader, you spread only the ideas Nader speaks about: reformist cure-alls and protectionist, nationalists, "American jobs" trash. You haven't even attempted to give any reason to campaign for Nader in the real world, where he'll get only a few votes.

Strikes cannot work, they cannot work because unions cannot work

So: the basic defense organizations of our class, which have existed almost as long as the modern working class, and have shown amazing durability even under some very repressive dictatorships, cannot work because of a piece of paper known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Says someone who believes that an elaborate electoral fantasy will work.

As the miners said during the '77 strike: Taft can mine it, Hartley can haul it, and Carter can shove it.

If they do grant them it does not raise self confidence, it destroy class consciousness, becuase they begin to assume that the "political power" represents them,

If people win their demands through mass actions, it is usually somewhat apparent that the demands were granted under pressure, not out of the goodness of politicians' hearts. Many people realize that movements, the actions of large numbers of people were required to organize unions and improve conditions in mass-production industry, to end Jim Crow segregation, to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Some of it does rub off on JFK and FDR unfortunately, but nothing's perfect.

If people don't win 'em, it's apparent the "political power" - often in both its liberal and conservative factions - is being d unresponsive to "the will of the people" they like to go on about -and people will at least begin thinking about why.

Mass actions do not need preexisting high levels of class conciousness in order to have the effects I described; rather they promote class consciousness, as workers reach out for solidarity to other workers and typically run into the hostility of a whole range of ruling-class institutions.

And historical experience in a number of countries show- not theory, not guessing - shows that as mass movements grow, it's harder and harder for the capitalists to deal with them without open,bloody repression. Eventually, they have to ditch bourgeois democracy and employ some form of dictatorship to squish the working class.

And by doing this, the capitalists dispel a lot of illusions and help create more of the conditions for revolution.

Their "reformist" approach is not similar to mine. That is where you fail to make the distinction. My reformist approach is to prove that reform does not work, their reformist approach is because they believe it does work.

This is a distinction without a difference. Actions speak louder than words, and actions tend to have the same effect regardless of your subjective motivation for taking them.

NovelGentry

11th October 2004, 21:20

I'm also paraphrasing you - hint, it's not quoting unless there are some kind of quote marks - and I think it's paraphrases which hit the core ideas. In any case, the quotes are right there, so you don't have to constantly restate them to the exclusion of adding anything new to support them.

Yeah you're an excellent paraphraser, so far you've said I said:

- Popular conflict can't succeed
- Communists should abandon principle to support a middle-class reformers

... There's more too, but I'm not going to cull through the entire thread looking for them.

I also tend to think you're changing your positions without acknowledging it, and that you can't state clearly whatever it is you think exactly, and are complaining because I'm taking your confused statement literally. (I have to, 'cause I can't read your mind.)

I believe I mentioned before that if you can't understand my points you're in no position to argue them.

That's all. Nothing about whether people have given up on bourgeois democracy or not, nothing about whether it's time to begin other types of revolutionary struggle. He simply doesn't comment on those subjects. And explicitly, it doesn't matter how fraudulent the bourgeois democracy is.

And you don't think Che understands that people will not give up on bourgeoisie democracy if those peaceful means have not been exhausted? Arguing like that would imply that Che didn't think Guerrilla Warfare would have been possible in Cuba, let alone other places he outlines for it to be possible.

Once again, Che also mentions more times than I can count that the armed struggle can impress some of these positions. A quote that comes to mind from a recent "documentary" I saw on Huey P. Newton is that when the people being oppressed rise up forcefully against their oppressors the oppressor is forced to increase the oppression.

Very simply, it's not cut and dry WHEN revolution is possible. If you cannot, infer, however, from Che's argument that this point can be influenced in terms of when it occurs, then I don't really see how you can ever think for yourself beyond the writings of others. Do you have no intellect of your own?

So, like I said, the historical experience of other countries is invisible to you. If you refuse to learn from other people's experience, you'll usually end up repeating all of their mistakes. (Probably the working class in this country will have to go through some of those mistakes unfortunately, but communists can help other people run through 'em quicker rather than getting hung up on 'em ourselves.)

It's not invisible, I'm just not going to concede that we're in exactly the same position. This is why I don't dismiss the vanguard completely, I assume it needs to change form. This is why I don't oppose fighting bourgeoisie politics, but I think we have to use them to prove their inabilities. This is why I don't think Guerrilla Warfare, won't work, but I think it has to be on such a wide scale that it would be considered by Che to be later stages of Guerilla Warfare. As he points out, guerrilla warfare is a phase of the armed struggle, it is what occurs before the forces are large enough to constitute a full army.

I don't take the extreme of ignoring history, but I don't follow the extreme of thinking that history has all the answers, because then you fall into the very same trap of following all their mistakes. Remember, we've never seen a fully successful progression to communism.

And so: Countries around the world have all kinds of reformers as heads of state, even "socialists', and their capitalists classes handle it just fine. But the US is somehow unique, although you didn't point out any difference that would plausibly make the U.S. capitalist class unable to tolerate Nader.

Countries around the world's governments are not formed in the same way ours are. There are striking similiarities, but also obvious differences.

Which is where this argument started out, you were talking about how the capitalists would assassinate Nader, or rig the electoral college to keep him out, or would have to stop him in some such way. You still haven't given any good reason for this belief.

"some such a way" -- as in, any means of stopping his reform? This is my point, they will stop his reform one way or another, PERIOD. If they don't stop that reform, then you have to admit that reform is possible.

So are you admitting that Nader does need a large number of votes - maybe even more than 50%? - for this whole thing to work, then? 'Cause that ain't gonna happen this year, regardless of what you and I do, or even if everyone who considers themselves communist campaigned for him.

No, Nader could win with 34% of the votes, assuming that the other 66% is split evenly among democrats and republicans. However, that'd be touchy because it'd be so "close" that the electoral college could have an influence which would be considered lawful. If Nader had something like 50% of the votes, it'd be a lot more difficult for the electoral college to indescriminately push a republican or democratic candidate into office.

I never said it would happen this year. In fact, I believe I said it could take many MANY years.

However, if we do not push for such action now then it will NEVER happen, and we follow blindly into proclaiming that the "system has failed us" with no proof for the people who won't believe us by word alone.

Supporting communist candidates makes sense regardless of how many votes they get, because by campaigning for 'em you spread their communist ideas. By campaigning for Nader, you spread only the ideas Nader speaks about: reformist cure-alls and protectionist, nationalists, "American jobs" trash. You haven't even attempted to give any reason to campaign for Nader in the real world, where he'll get only a few votes.

We don't need a communist candidate to prove the system wrong, and it'd be more difficult to even garner enough support for such a candidate in order to put them into a position to prove the system doesn't work. I'm not here to tell people to vote for Nader, I'm here to tell people to vote. Vote for whoever the hell you want, but don't think you can convince someone that "voting doesn't work" when you've never actually tried to do it, or seen enough people do it for it to even have a chance of working.

So: the basic defense organizations of our class, which have existed almost as long as the modern working class, and have shown amazing durability even under some very repressive dictatorships, cannot work because of a piece of paper known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Says someone who believes that an elaborate electoral fantasy will work.

As the miners said during the '77 strike: Taft can mine it, Hartley can haul it, and Carter can shove it.

Do you have another excuse for the decline of unions since the Taft-Hartley act's induction? Are the people just getitng lazier? Are they becoming LESS class conscious? Less confident in their own power? Watching a union organizer getting arrested for what he's trying to do is going to disuade a huge amount of others from trying to do the same thing, whether you like to believe it or not.

If people win their demands through mass actions, it is usually somewhat apparent that the demands were granted under pressure, not out of the goodness of politicians' hearts. Many people realize that movements, the actions of large numbers of people were required to organize unions and improve conditions in mass-production industry, to end Jim Crow segregation, to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Some of it does rub off on JFK and FDR unfortunately, but nothing's perfect.

What if that "mass action" was voting? You're making a blatant contradiction here... you're saying that mass action of people telling the political powers to be to "go their way" can cause change, but mass action of people voting for a candidate who already goes their way to become the political powers to be cannot.

If people don't win 'em, it's apparent the "political power" - often in both its liberal and conservative factions - is being d unresponsive to "the will of the people" they like to go on about -and people will at least begin thinking about why.

Agreed, but this would work precisely the same way if once again that mass action were voting. The only difference is the only way to stop it at it's root would be to take away the people's right to vote. I think that would not only help people begin to "think about why", but I think it would help people to immediately start looking for another line of action, in my ideology that other action is revolution.

Now before you go on and say "Oh, so you're saying the government will take away the people's right to vote if Nader gets elected?" -- think about what I said for a minute, and realize the conditionals.

Mass actions do not need preexisting high levels of class conciousness in order to have the effects I described; rather they promote class consciousness, as workers reach out for solidarity to other workers and typically run into the hostility of a whole range of ruling-class institutions.

Actually Mass actions DO. I think what you're trying to say here is that it doesn't have to be a mass action right away... you're saying it can be a very small action that can gain support through it's actions and raising of class consciousness and eventually become a mass action. To that, I agree... but it can be destroyed a lot easier when it's a very small action, before it ever has time to grow. As such, we need movements that cannot be destroyed when they're still small through excessive legislation (like the Taft-Hartley Act once again)... voting fits this mold.

And historical experience in a number of countries show- not theory, not guessing - shows that as mass movements grow, it's harder and harder for the capitalists to deal with them without open,bloody repression. Eventually, they have to ditch bourgeois democracy and employ some form of dictatorship to squish the working class.

Agreed, but once again the "mass action" doesn't exist and then grow, it exists as a very small action, and grows to a mass action, and can continue to grow even beyond that. Then you only go on to admit my point "It's harder and harder for the capitalists to deal with them" as they grow... which is why they deal with them while they're small, before they ever have a chance to grow -- because it's easier, and still extremely possible.

Now back to the voting idea... how exactly is it that the government would "deal with people voting." Granted they already have some means, Nader can't even get on the ballot in some states, including my own (I plan to write him in). And that is one way to deal with that, but Nader has also won court battles on the unconstitutionality of such practice, thus, the only way to TRULY prevent it, would be to change the constitution, or rewrite candidacy laws to exclude third parties. This would have the same "dictatorial" effect you talk about -- and once again, is brought about by people wanting to vote and showing they support an alternative and truly progressive candidate, WHOEVER that candidate may be.

This is a distinction without a difference. Actions speak louder than words, and actions tend to have the same effect regardless of your subjective motivation for taking them.

The difference is that you don't see voting as an action, I do. You don't concede that it is the ultimate "mass action" that can have the same effect as your union-based mass action. Let me ask you this, why can't union organizers become corrupt but politicians can? Why is it that political representatives are affected by bourgeoisie tactics to limit their power, but not union representatives?

Sure you can have a union that does not have a "representative" or any executive branch, but this would fall to the same troubles that I mention stateless socities would in my essay. You'd have some workers who are arguing that higher wages are more important, others would argue healthcare, others would argue work place rights...etc...etc. And you'd have this crazy fragmentation, all of them fighting for change but none of them fighting for the same change. So they would argue amongst themselves about what their primary demands are and never actually get anything done.

Severian

11th October 2004, 23:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:20 PM
And you don't think Che understands that people will not give up on bourgeoisie democracy if those peaceful means have not been exhausted? Arguing like that would imply that Che didn't think Guerrilla Warfare would have been possible in Cuba, let alone other places he outlines for it to be possible.

I don't know what you mean by the confused first sentence. Or your other confused paragraphs on this subject. But no, my statements do not imply guerilla warfare was impossible in Cuba for the simple reason that bourgeois democracy did not exist, which is basically another way of saying, as Che did, that peaceful methods of struggle have been exausted, that a government is not based on any kind of popular vote, and that it does not maintain even the pretense of constitutional legality.

To follow through your maze of confusion would only lead to more confusion, so I'll just restate. Che was saying only one thing in that quote, that guerilla war should not be started under bourgeois democracy.

Once again, Che also mentions more times than I can count that the armed struggle can impress some of these positions. A quote that comes to mind from a recent "documentary" I saw on Huey P. Newton is that when the people being oppressed rise up forcefully against their oppressors the oppressor is forced to increase the oppression.

Very simply, it's not cut and dry WHEN revolution is possible. If you cannot, infer, however, from Che's argument that this point can be influenced in terms of when it occurs, then I don't really see how you can ever think for yourself beyond the writings of others. Do you have no intellect of your own?

Wait, does that mean you should start armed struggle in order to replace bourgeois democracy with bourgeois open dictatorship? If that's not the meaning, it's too confused to have any meaning. Plenty of Latin American groups did try that, and it worked marvelously as far as the dictatorship goes.....not so well on bringing about revolutions. The Black Panthers also were very successful in bringing about their own destruction with a mostly-rhetorical version of this strategy.

Incidentally, this is a marvelous example of how reformism and ultraleftism are two sides of one coin. One one side, we have Huey P. Newton; on the other, "vote Nader".

It's not invisible, I'm just not going to concede that we're in exactly the same position.

Nor, apparently, are you going to explain what the relevant difference is, that would make the U.S. ruling class uniquely unable to accept or contain a Nader presidency, as you earlier argued.

"some such a way" -- as in, any means of stopping his reform? This is my point, they will stop his reform one way or another, PERIOD.

Not exactly what you set out to argue. You seemed to be arguing that they would have to stop Nader, not just the reform. I'm going to do a little gallery of quotes from you on this in another post.

No, Nader could win with 34% of the votes, assuming that the other 66% is split evenly among democrats and republicans. However, that'd be touchy because it'd be so "close" that the electoral college could have an influence which would be considered lawful. If Nader had something like 50% of the votes, it'd be a lot more difficult for the electoral college to indescriminately push a republican or democratic candidate into office.

I never said it would happen this year. In fact, I believe I said it could take many MANY years However, if we do not push for such action now then it will NEVER happen, and we follow blindly into proclaiming that the "system has failed us" with no proof for the people who won't believe us by word alone..

Well, he's not going to get 34% of the votes. Even Nader knows that - last time he was hoping for 5%. He's running as an independent, so it's not building any organization for the long term. Who knows if he's even going to run again?

The only thing the Nader campaign is going to do possibly push the Democrats a little left, as they try not to lose too many votes to Nader. And promote some of his ideas.

I'm not here to tell people to vote for Nader, I'm here to tell people to vote. Vote for whoever the hell you want, but don't think you can convince someone that "voting doesn't work" when you've never actually tried to do it, or seen enough people do it for it to even have a chance of working.

Well, gee, all those people not voting seem to think it doesn't work, and all those "get out the vote" ads are trying to convince 'em different. And that's a lot of people. As I was saying earlier, the larger problem is they're not convinced that anything else, like say revolution, would work either.

Do you have another excuse for the decline of unions since the Taft-Hartley act's induction?

Correlation is not causation, which is something that's useful in remember in evaluation Kennedy assassination and other conspiracy theories BTW. And in fact union membership peaked in '53, 6 years after the introduction of the Taft-Hartley act. It continued at high levels, and wages, benefits and conditions were improved in many industries, up to roughly the '74-'75 recession.

'Course during that time the unions were getting weaker in a less obvious sense of being rotted out by bureaucracy and collaboration with the bosses, the most militant people witch-hunted out, etc....but that kinda answers the question about why the unions are weaker y'know.

Taft-Hartley is a Bad Thing, but not a sole explanation. The unions are weaker than in the 30s...but bigger and stronger than before the 30s, when mass production was almost all unorganized. Which oughta illustrate the short-sightedness of writing 'em off.

Watching a union organizer getting arrested for what he's trying to do is going to disuade a huge amount of others from trying to do the same thing, whether you like to believe it or not.

Y'know I've never seen that happen, or heard of anyone being arrested for being a union organizer nowadays either. They do come down and outlaw strikes and especially mass picketing that stops scabs of course.

What if that "mass action" was voting?

What if pigs could fly? Voting is not a mass action, everyone does it by themselves in a little booth. It doesn't promote organization or solidarity or confidence in our collective power. And it's a symbolic action, purely involving a little mark on a piece of paper or, sometimes, some electrons in a computer.

'Course a lot of demonstrations are also purely symbolic, but at least they're something people A) do themselves, not relying on a representative, and B) do together, coming in contact with others for a common action. Strikes have these advantages and also have a material effect.

You're making a blatant contradiction here... you're saying that mass action of people telling the political powers to be to "go their way" can cause change, but mass action of people voting for a candidate who already goes their way to become the political powers to be cannot.

How is that a contradiction, to say one thing works and another doesn't? And experience shows it's true. Politicians routinely refuse to carry out their promises, whether due to insincerity or bourgeois control of the economy and permanent state machinery. Mass action, on the other hand, can force even reactionary politicians to give a little ground.

Agreed, but this would work precisely the same way if once again that mass action were voting. The only difference is the only way to stop it at it's root would be to take away the people's right to vote. I think that would not only help people begin to "think about why", but I think it would help people to immediately start looking for another line of action, in my ideology that other action is revolution.

Now before you go on and say "Oh, so you're saying the government will take away the people's right to vote if Nader gets elected?" -- think about what I said for a minute, and realize the conditionals.

There aren't any conditions in this part of your post except for "if once again that mass action were voting" and "if Nader gets elected" so I have no idea what conditions you are referring to.

Actually Mass actions DO. I think what you're trying to say here is that it doesn't have to be a mass action right away... you're saying it can be a very small action that can gain support through it's actions and raising of class consciousness and eventually become a mass action.

The meaning of "mass action" in traditional Marxist jargon can be a bit confusing...it doesn't just refer to the size of the action. E.g. a strike that brings out nearly all the workers in the plant, actively involving that whole section of the class, is a mass action in a class sense, even more than a huge rally in Washington that brings in scattered individuals from all over. Though the latter can be a fine thing in its own way.

But that's aside from the point in my last post: people, including sometimes large numbers of people can participate in actions for certain demands without necessarily having a high level of class consciousness. They might think it's just this boss here that's bad, or just this particular official or policy, etc., but through the experience of the struggle come to see they're up against much more. And you see who else is supporting you too.

Agreed, but once again the "mass action" doesn't exist and then grow, it exists as a very small action, and grows to a mass action, and can continue to grow even beyond that. Then you only go on to admit my point "It's harder and harder for the capitalists to deal with them" as they grow... which is why they deal with them while they're small, before they ever have a chance to grow -- because it's easier, and still extremely possible.

Harder and harder to deal with, in the sense of contain short of open, bloody repression. Bourgeois democracies do NOT typically outlaw social movements when they just start out. Why would they, when those movements might be dealt with by less drastic means, or decline with time?

Let me ask you this, why can't union organizers become corrupt but politicians can? Why is it that political representatives are affected by bourgeoisie tactics to limit their power, but not union representatives?

They can and most are, but the difference is that union power is fundamentally about people taking action themselves, not solely relying on their representatives. The union is the ranks, not just its official leaders.

Severian

12th October 2004, 00:46

NovelGentry's real big on claiming he never said X, and complaining that I paraphrased him badly. But seems to me he's changing his position without acknowledging it. Here's a litte collection of cut-and-paste quotes, in order of posts:

Beginning position: "And while I"m aware Nader or any other progressive candidate can never make REAL change, they can at least make some."

Reforms do happen of course, but I'd argue they are byproducts of revolutionary struggle. When the rulers get scared enough, they make concessions regardless of who's in the White House. Kennedy got the U.S. into Vietnam; Nixon got out. FDR ran for election promising budget cuts; due to pressure from below he ended up enacting a bunch of social programs instead. The party of slavery and segregation repositioned itself as seemingly pro-civil rights when the pressure got hot enough.

Then later: "If you think Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie I suggest you take another look at his entire life's work No matter how immobile he may be from a new legislative sense, he would still hold executive power which would allow him a lot more flexibility to exact more change." -

And then: "The fact is candidates like Nader WANT to change the system. That doesn't mean they can, but they want to, and whether you believe it or not, they are a threat to the bourgeoisie. So much so that I'm quite confident they'd have him assassinated if he were elected."

And in your next post: "In case you're not aware we've never had a true 3rd party candidate in office. And they wouldn't, once again, I firmly believe he would be assassinated."

Or maybe:

"So what would they do if Nader got majority in enough states that would win any other normal 2 party candidate the electoral votes? You fail to see this as a means of showing America the flaws of the system. Most people don't understand the kind of control that the electoral college has, if they tried to shut him out after gaining a truly majority vote in enough states to win the electoral vote for anyone else, then you have an tool to argue that."

In any case "We have to DESTROY this appearance of constitutional legality, "

Then I come in, my first post of the thread, and ask: "And why do you think Nader as president would be such a huge problem for capitalism? Capitalism's endured far more "radical" people in other countries. He's not even a social democrat or Moscow-oriented "Communist", and capitalism has made use of both of those in high office." A still unanswered question BTW, aside from quibbles about "problem for capitalism" vs "problem for capitalists".

NovelGentry's next post: "You can certainly assassinate them, hell, look at JFK..." or maybe "look at how much he tried, look at all the bills he supported and proposed, and look how we have gotten no where. Look how our represenatives have been bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder." or maybe "Hell, if the electoral college shoots him down on a majority vote, even better. Then you can flat out say "Nader won every states popular and no states electoral....""

And next post: "However, they will have to subvert some of the laws that their bourgeois democracy has produced in order to get rid of Nader."

and: "The point of these candidate is not to make the reform... they will never get their reforms passed... they will never make true change. They can't even make trivial change because the bourgeoisie will not let them."

Wow! bit of a change from where he started out, huh?

And still in that post: "There is only one way to ensure a threat is stopped, DESTROY the threat, and if anyone has the means to do that with the best liklihood and easiest means of covering it up, it's the bourgeoisie. And like I said before, even if they did manage to squeeze Nader out by some "legally acceptable" means, it still makes a HUGE amount of people question the system that normally may not question it at all and like I said, you try, try again. Put these people in power until the bourgeoisie is FORCED to take means outside what can be considered "legally acceptable" and then call them out on it."

I can't find where you "said" that "before". Wait, does it matter if the means used to force him out are legally acceptable or not? And can they "ensure a threat is stopped" by "legally acceptable" means or not? Getting a little fuzzy there.

Next post:"When you answer me where we've seen someone like Nader in hte presidency and not being "gotten rid of." Then you can pretend that they won't have a need, but more importantly, a desire to."

and "You're still trying to make it sound like I'm saying reform will work. So let me make it loud and clear. REFORM WILL NOT WORK. REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY. "

Hm, not exactly what you started out saying there. What was that? Oh yeah, "And while I"m aware Nader or any other progressive candidate can never make REAL change, they can at least make some."

But we start seeing a further shift on the "getting rid of Nader front" in this very same post: apparently it doesn't matter if they do or not, let alone how. "It doesn't have to be an assasination attempt... it very well could be, but it could just as easily be a scandal. Hell, it can simply be that the house never lets any of the proposed changes get through.... it doesn't matter HOW they stop the person, it simply matters that they stop it, and we can openly show that they have stopped it, and that reform cannot and will not work."

Hm. "It doesn't matter HOW they stop the person," so what was all that stuff about "However, they will have to subvert some of the laws that their bourgeois democracy has produced in order to get rid of Nader." and "We have to DESTROY this appearance of constitutional legality," and the Che quote?

And in his last post: ""some such a way" -- as in, any means of stopping his reform? This is my point, they will stop his reform one way or another, PERIOD. If they don't stop that reform, then you have to admit that reform is possible."

So it doesn't matter how. Or wait, maybe it does:
"how exactly is it that the government would "deal with people voting." Granted they already have some means, Nader can't even get on the ballot in some states, including my own (I plan to write him in). And that is one way to deal with that, but Nader has also won court battles on the unconstitutionality of such practice, thus, the only way to TRULY prevent it, would be to change the constitution, or rewrite candidacy laws to exclude third parties. This would have the same "dictatorial" effect you talk about -- and once again, is brought about by people wanting to vote and showing they support an alternative and truly progressive candidate, WHOEVER that candidate may be."

Well, whatever NovelGentry is saying this minute, it seems to me it does matter whether they prevent the fulfillment of Nader's promises within the bounds of apparent constitutional legality or not. And there's no reason to think the ruling class would have to "DESTROY this appearance of constitutional legality" simply in response to the election of yet another middle-class figure who is in no way unique.

NovelGentry

12th October 2004, 01:37

I don't know what you mean by the confused first sentence.

My god, now I have to break down the English language for you? So be it:

And you don't think Che understands that people will not give up on bourgeoisie democracy if those peaceful means have not been exhausted?

-- The "And" is superfluous, so let's start with "you don't think Che understands"

This is the root of the question, I'm asking you whether or not you think Che understands something.

"that people will not give up on bourgeoisie democracy"

This is the root of the "something." In short, this is what I'm asking if you think Che understands or not.

"if those peaceful means have not been exhausted"

This is the conditional. It means that I'm stating a condition that must be met. Without the condition the meaning is changed and it would become simply whether or not you believed Che understand that people will not give up on bourgeoisie democracy -- which deosn't make any sense at all if you know anything about Che.

I'm not going to do this for every sentence, so I'm just gonna make the assumption that you can figure the rest out on your own.

Che was saying only one thing in that quote, that guerilla war should not be started under bourgeois democracy.

And I disagree, Che was saying that guerrilla war should not be started under something that even resembles bourgeoisie democracy. You forget that bourgeoisie democracy is still democracy. Che includes fraudulent versions of such democracy... for example the "elections" Batista held in Cuba in between the two terms he served. If I recall correctly there was an election every 4 years, and he served 1940-44 and was "elected" again in the 1951 and 1955 elections.

So I guess Guerrilla Warfar shouldn't have been started in Cuba.

Wait, does that mean you should start armed struggle in order to replace bourgeois democracy with bourgeois open dictatorship?

I'm not sure EVERYTHING it means. You'd have to ask Che I suppose. He gives several examples of conditions that CAN be created, but certainly not every possible condition that can be created. He's actually rather vague on the specific conditions that can be created, but he very clearly states some can.

Incidentally, this is a marvelous example of how reformism and ultraleftism are two sides of one coin. One one side, we have Huey P. Newton; on the other, "vote Nader".

I might agree if the Black Panthers were focused on classism over racism, but they weren't. Furthermore, it still seems strange to me that you consider my ideas to be "reformist" -- it is no more reformist than saying we need a unions to organize so that companies change the way they treat workers. In fact, what I say is LESS reformist than that, because my ultimate goal is not change through reform, but change through revolution brought on by failed reform.

Nor, apparently, are you going to explain what the relevant difference is, that would make the U.S. ruling class uniquely unable to accept or contain a Nader presidency, as you earlier argued.

What makes the U.S. ruling class uniquely able to accept or contain a Nader Presidency ... because the President doesn't call all the shots. You still have to worry about the Senate, House of Reps, aswell as another of organizations who have strong influence in all those sectors, including government bureaus. But a Nader presidency would imply that the people are willing to vote progressive candidates, 3rd party or even a 3rd party turned major, given time these positions could be filled with a progressive majority aswell... it is THEN when IF reform still fails, you have proof.

Like I said, this isn't a single term change... the failure of a single progressive candidate as president with the lack of any other progressive political power is hardly proof.

Let me ask you this, if both legislative and executive branches were filled with a progressive majority, would reform work? That is, say you had green/socialist party/progressive independent candidates as President, Vice President, AJ, Senate Majority, and HoR Majority, would reform succeed or fail? If it fails, why?

Not exactly what you set out to argue. You seemed to be arguing that they would have to stop Nader, not just the reform.

Nader is the source of reform, they will get rid of him one way or another.... even if it means holding out till the end of his term and replacing him with someone else. Which is why we have REPEAT, which is why I said it could take 16 years, possibly more. Nader remains an example I use because I'm voting for him personally, but as I've said repeatedly and will say again, it could be any candidate, and for that matter would be every progressive candidate. What you seem to be arguing is that the bourgeoisie would find it acceptable to admit positions of political power to progressive candidates for the rest of their days... and strangely, that somehow this political power would never give way to change, and the people would never wake up and realize that it's not working.

I'm going to do a little gallery of quotes from you on this in another post.

As long as their not out of context I have no gripe. Although I'm not sure how necessary this is, people can read everything I have to say right here already. So if your intent is to form a propaganda machine of sorts against me, just remember that the truth lies throughout these forums.

Well, he's not going to get 34% of the votes. Even Nader knows that - last time he was hoping for 5%. He's running as an independent, so it's not building any organization for the long term. Who knows if he's even going to run again?

The only thing the Nader campaign is going to do possibly push the Democrats a little left, as they try not to lose too many votes to Nader. And promote some of his ideas.

No, he's not going to get 34%, he won't even get 10%, I suspect he won't even get the 5% he hopes for. Why does it have to build an organization for the long term? Why can't it just build peoples realization of alternative candidates and raise awarness of the possible social reforms? Is that not building support for future candidates who support the same types of reform?

You're still making this out as if I'm saying it HAS to be Nader. And you're going to keep making useless point against Nader specifically as if it's some sort of argument against my ideology. My Ideology doesn't say "Nader is our savior, he will be the only social reformist who can press revolution through failure!"... It's open to however long it takes, but I do believe it's the only way we will see revolution in the U.S. with the condition that the US does not become imperialized.

Well, gee, all those people not voting seem to think it doesn't work, and all those "get out the vote" ads are trying to convince 'em different. And that's a lot of people. As I was saying earlier, the larger problem is they're not convinced that anything else, like say revolution, would work either.

Are you purposely trying to prolong this debate, or have you seriously not picked up on what I'm saying yet. If by "it not working" you mean reform, I agree... it doesn't work.

Your second statement is a blanket statement. You assume everyone who doesn't vote fails to because they think the system doesn't work. This simply isn't true, some of them believe the system does work, they just don't feel any candidate supports their ideas. Others believe the system works but their vote simply won't matter... for example, they might say "What's the point of voting Nader... or even Bush in Massachusetts when you KNOW Kerry is going to win it." In fact, I would say it's a very small minority who don't vote because they truly believe the system doesn't work. And for that small minority, they should be doing everything they can to prove to others that the system doesn't work. So again, how do you expect them to prove to others that the system doesn't work?.... words alone will not be enough.

The unions are weaker than in the 30s...but bigger and stronger than before the 30s, when mass production was almost all unorganized.

Before I address this line directly, I'd like to just explain something on a more general scale. Let me start by saying that the size of the army means nothing if the army never goes to war or has to defend it's people. Union's can grow in size as much as they want and in fact, the taft-hartley act can do little about that. However, it limits what the unions can do when they move. It also limits some of the rights people have to form new unions. I have no doubt that union membership peaked post taft-hartley act, the idea of a union was still relatively new when you look at the history of industrialization. But membership peaks don't mean unions were really doing what they were designed to do.

This brings me to my point... you say "unions are weaker than in the 30s" and the "bigger and stronger". Well if Unions are weaker then they are not stronger, as that's a direct contradiction, and you are left with only "bigger." So you can take these unions and say "yeah, it's great these unions exist," but the minute they try to truly utilize their power you're going to see organizers taking the fall.

Y'know I've never seen that happen, or heard of anyone being arrested for being a union organizer nowadays either. They do come down and outlaw strikes and especially mass picketing that stops scabs of course.

No, and you never will see it happen, because nowadays such organizers are OK with going back to work cause "the man" says they have to.

It doesn't promote organization or solidarity or confidence in our collective power.

Is this some kind of joke?

How is that a contradiction, to say one thing works and another doesn't? And experience shows it's true. Politicians routinely refuse to carry out their promises, whether due to insincerity or bourgeois control of the economy and permanent state machinery.

Not every politician refuses to carry out promises, some simply cannot do them. You think Kerry could get universal healthcare even if he tried? But that's only a single point, hardly proof that the system wouldn't work for other things. You need someone who tries to make progressive action on all fronts, and does not bow to the bourgeoisie resistence, but instead continues to fight against it with truly progressive reform. When all of that reform goes no where, you have proof.

Mass action, on the other hand, can force even reactionary politicians to give a little ground.

Kinda like how a bunch of people voting for Nader can push democrats to take on some of his ideas?

It's the same scenario, you just refuse to see voting as action. As I believe I pointed out a long time ago on this thread, this "little ground" fades with time. It is the temporary cure for the people. Furthermore, this mass action, as I described even recently is more often for the "hot issues" then for actual social changes. The generation who had this "successful mass action" dies off and their children watch the rights they fought for slip away again, only so that they can fight for those very same rights years later. It's a cycle. What are these wonderful changes which have happened through mass action? I concede that they exist, but they do not, or will not last.

< to be continued later when I'm not on my laptop with crappy resolution >

NovelGentry

12th October 2004, 01:47

Beginning position: "And while I"m aware Nader or any other progressive candidate can never make REAL change, they can at least make some."

Then later: "If you think Nader would be a pawn of the bourgeoisie I suggest you take another look at his entire life's work No matter how immobile he may be from a new legislative sense, he would still hold executive power which would allow him a lot more flexibility to exact more change." -

And then: "The fact is candidates like Nader WANT to change the system. That doesn't mean they can, but they want to, and whether you believe it or not, they are a threat to the bourgeoisie. So much so that I'm quite confident they'd have him assassinated if he were elected."

And in your next post: "In case you're not aware we've never had a true 3rd party candidate in office. And they wouldn't, once again, I firmly believe he would be assassinated."

The first quote reveals such a candidate can make change, just not real change.

The second quote continues to say that such a candidate can make change, still no mention of making real change.

The third quote says candidates like Nader want to change the system, what I would consider real change, once again, I say the same thing. Real change is not possible.

I'm not sure what you're trying with the 4th quote, other than that I say for a second time that I believe Nader would be assasinated. (which I do) I'm not saying he would be for sure, just something I believe.

So where is it exactly that I "changed my mind" ?

NovelGentry

12th October 2004, 02:00

NovelGentry's next post: "You can certainly assassinate them, hell, look at JFK..." or maybe "look at how much he tried, look at all the bills he supported and proposed, and look how we have gotten no where. Look how our represenatives have been bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder."

Here's the propaganda machine hard at work.

Notice how he takes two separate things out of context to make it look like something else completely. Something I specifically asked him NOT to do when he mentioned that he was going to start a post on this.

He pairs them so that by the time you're done reading that you think that I was saying "look how much JFK tried" "look at all the bills JFK supported and proposed". This is actually a very common tactic among people who resort to propaganda to try and belittle their opponents argument. The first cut off quote defines a subject, in this case JFK.... the second quote has no subject other than he/she or another pronoun, and by putting them side by side it appears as though I've said those things about JFK. Simply not the case... the full context of the second part is actually:

"It's this simple... when someone asks you "How do you know the system doesn't work?" Do you want some general vague answer like "It's never worked!!!" without any proof, or do you want to be able to say "Look... LOOK WHAT WE TRIED TO DO! Look at how much the world supported this man, look at how much he tried, look at all the bills he supported and proposed, and look how we have gotten no where. Look how our represenatives have been bought out and cast their vote for the highest bidder. LOOK HOW REFORM HAS FAILED US!" ?

As you can clearly see from the full context, I'm not referring to JFK at all. I'm referring to the theoretical candidate in my ideology who will try to make reform but in essence become a martyr for the necessity of revolution.

Very sincerely, I tried to argue this thread seriously... I tried to make my point and keep to the argument at hand and not subvert to battling this type of bullshit, but alas it has gotten way out of hand. At this point Severian I lost what little respect I had for you as a debater. You've resorted to open propaganda to try and make me look like I said something I didn't. For someone so desperately opposed to taking part in bourgeoisie politics you seem to be able to resort to their tactics.

I'm done here.... no more talking to you PERIOD.