November 7th, 2006 - Drive out the Bush Regime!

[AlwaysAnarchy]

The November elections in the US are a critical time for revolutionaries and those on the progressive Left. They will be held next Tuesday on November 7th. What needs to happen here is a vote against the Bush regime, against the Republican Party and against the most reactionary, the most right-wing and the most anti-revolutionary segment of the political parties in this country.

We must Drive OUT the Bush regime!! And vote strategically for anti-war candidates and the lesser of the two evils.

Why?

Because if a pseudo fascist like Bush remains in power all is lost. All will be much more difficult in terms of making revolutionary change in society. New wars will be launched, possibly a draft, the poor people and dudes in the third world and beyond might get attacked and the prospect for revolution will be nill.

Let us work together, strategically and pragmatically to DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME and usher in a new politics where revolutionary change where progressive change is much more possible!

This is not a vote for the Democrats but a vote to put us in a relatively better situation for America and for the entire world that is where revoltionary change is more possible!!

[lvleph]

I would go vote if I could, but I cannot. I moved from the state that I use to live 2 months ago and tried to get an absentee ballot, but they said I had to get it a year ago.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

OK , that's fine, but maybe you can tell other people who can?? I think it's very important for us revolutionaries to remove what could possibly be the WORST administration and the worst regime in US history.

[Severian]

And here we see it explicitly stated: "Drive Out the Bush Regime" means "Vote Democratic."

The so-called Revolutionary Communist Party has never been willing to openly admit the objective logic of their slogan, but that's it.

So what's wrong with this perspective?


Because if a pseudo fascist like Bush remains in power all is lost.

One, he's not, in fact, a fascist. This is capitalist democracy we're living in. This is the best capitalism has to offer us.

(By pseudo-fascist maybe you mean crypto-fascist, that is secretly fascist? 'Cause pseudo-fascist actually means falsely pretending to be a fascist.)

"All is not lost" regardless of which capitalist politician is in office. Mindless liberals claimed "all was lost" if the "fascist" Nixon remained in office, or the "fascist" Reagan. Guess what? All wasn't. Heck, Nixon had to get out of Vietnam, and make some other concessions under pressure.

It's not mostly who's in office - it's what working people do, in the streets, workplaces, etc.


New wars will be launched, possibly a draft, the poor people and dudes in the third world and beyond might get attacked

That will happen whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected. Heck, a lot of Democrats are criticizing Bush for not being tougher on Iran and north Korea. Both parties have supported his anti-democratic laws.

Can you even remember all the wars Clinton launched? A lot of Ashcroft's persecutions have actually been conducted under Clinton's 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act....it was Clinton who "ended welfare as we know it", abolishing AFDC, one of the 4 pillars of the 1935 Social Security Act.


the prospect for revolution will be nill.

You've given no reason why this would be the case. It is not in the power of any capitalist politician to do that. If it was - they'd all do it.


This is not a vote for the Democrats

A vote for the Democrats is, in fact, a vote for the Democrats.

In other news, water is wet. I hate to have to point it out, but it seems I do.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Just for the record, I take the same position as anarchist revolutionary Noam Chomsky on this issue: to vote strategically to drive out the Bush regime in order to put revolutionaries , and the world in a better place.

Just about anything is better than Bush right now.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Why do you even call yourself an anarchist? Anarchists don't vote. We realize that the state is a repressive organization. No matter who you elect (only certain kinds of people can be elected anyways) they will act in a repressive manner. The state must repress in order to function.

By calling people out to vote, you are legitimizing the electoral system as something that works. It's clearly not in the working class's interest to vote because the representative system does not work. We must rule through direct democracy.

If we want to end the war we must take part in and encourage direct action against those who advocate and perpetuate the war. By taking and teaching direct action, we are also helping to realize our larger goals of spreading radical ideas throughout our society.


This is not a vote for the Democrats but a vote to put us in a relatively better situation for America and for the entire world that is where revoltionary change is more possible!!

Voting does not create an atmosphere for revolution. In fact, during the second republic of Spain, the anarchists found out that elected officials can be just as oppressive as dictators. Professionals (politicians) work in their own interests, not the working class's.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 10:51 pm
Just for the record, I take the same position as anarchist revolutionary Noam Chomsky on this issue: to vote strategically to drive out the Bush regime in order to put revolutionaries , and the world in a better place.

Just about anything is better than Bush right now.
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.

BTW, do you honestly think if the democrats were in power they would pull out of iraq? :lol: Don't be so naive.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

See sig below.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 am
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.


From wiki:


Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).


Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [31] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".

So there you have it: Chomsky is "generally respected among anarchists". As for John Zerzan and his criticisms, I am glad that Chomsky does not share the same views as Zerzan, as he is a anti-civilization primitivist. So while real revolutionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky are involved with groups like the IWW organizing and unionizing workers, John Zerzan is dreaming of roaming with the buffalo.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

As for voting - Look everyone, no one is saying that voting is the ends to what we want to accomplish but only a strategic tactic to use in profoundly NON-revolutionary situations, like in these times.

We are faced with a situation similar to what German workers faced in the 1930s with the Weimar Republic, sure the Weimar Republic didn't give everything revolutionaries wanted, but it was far better than the alternative: Hitler.

Abstaining is not an option, or not a very good one at least. It does absolutely nothing, while removing Bush and the reactionaries would send a powerful message all over the world that America rejects their policies. It may not be much granted, but as Chomsky says, that little difference between Democrats and Republicans could literally mean life and death to those poor people and those in the third world.

Remember, This is not a vote for the Democrats only a vote to PUSH OUT and DRIVE OUT the most reactionary, the most right wing, the most vicious layers of American politics.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 10:39 pm
We are faced with a situation similar to what German workers faced in the 1930s with the Weimar Republic, sure the Weimar Republic didn't give everything revolutionaries wanted, but it was far better than the alternative: Hitler.
No, we are not faced with an immediate fascist takeover. And if Bush was comparable to Hitler, obviously voting would not remove him.

In a way, I'm almost hoping the Democrats will win - because it'll shut up all the idiots who have pretended the "Bush regime" is fascist. Who ever heard of a fascist regime voted out of power?

Now, if a fascist was about to take over, would voting for a lesser evil stop him? History says no.

In Hitler's last election campaign (for president), Social Democrats voted for Hindenburg, a right-wing nationalist general, as a lesser evil. They succeeded - Hitler lost the election.

Then Hindenburg turned around and named Hitler chancellor!

You can't stop fascism by supporting capitalism. Working people have to beat them in the streets relying on our own strength.

Oh, and your "argument from authority" relying on Chomsky is tedious. Argue your views on their merits - if they have any.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 01, 2006 10:35 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 01, 2006 10:35 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 am
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.


From wiki:


Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).


Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [31] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".

So there you have it: Chomsky is "generally respected among anarchists". As for John Zerzan and his criticisms, I am glad that Chomsky does not share the same views as Zerzan, as he is a anti-civilization primitivist. So while real revolutionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky are involved with groups like the IWW organizing and unionizing workers, John Zerzan is dreaming of roaming with the buffalo. [/b]
being a member of the IWW doesnt explicitly make you an anarchist, and most of the anarchists i know think that chomsky is a reformist liberal, and think that he has lost his wits since he started adovcating parecon. voting changes nothing but the leaders, what we want is more freedom, not more leaders, dont forget that.

[Delta]

Voting is important. It's not revolutionary, but it can help secure basic freedoms without which it is very difficult to educate and spread leftist ideas. Furthermore, actual change can happen through elections (especially local). It also sends a message that the people don't approve. The ruling classes will not allow change through the elections, but once our electoral activity has forced them to either cheat or overthrow the results of the election, then there will be much less argument among the people as to the necessity of armed revolution.

Sure, the primary focus should be on activity outside of voting, and if we were on the verge of revolution it would be completely pointless to vote, but we're not.

Having said that, I think if you are planning on voting Democrat then it's probably not worth voting. The Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans, and are very right-wing themselves. If you're going to vote, vote for a real left-winger (like Peace and Freedom candidates), or the Greens. But don't vote for the lesser of two evils, because you're still choosing evil.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

FYI, P&F and the Greens are both alternative parties of capitalism.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 01, 2006 11:52 pm
FYI, P&F and the Greens are both alternative parties of capitalism.
Part of Peace and Freedom's platform:

Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources

But anyway, you can't get a revolution through political parties, but you can shift the political spectrum to the left in preparation for it.

[LoneRed]

you do know Bush Is NOT up for re-election, he's in his last term.

so unless some crazy shit happens, he wont get voted in, its not gonna happen

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 02, 2006 12:35 am--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 02, 2006 12:35 am)
[email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 am
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.


From wiki:


Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).


Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [31] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".

So there you have it: Chomsky is "generally respected among anarchists". As for John Zerzan and his criticisms, I am glad that Chomsky does not share the same views as Zerzan, as he is a anti-civilization primitivist. So while real revolutionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky are involved with groups like the IWW organizing and unionizing workers, John Zerzan is dreaming of roaming with the buffalo. [/b]
First of all the IWW is not anarchist syndicalist. Being in the IWW does not mean your an anarchist.

Secondly that is a wikipedia page. Just because wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone!) says he is respected doesn't mean he is. Chomsky is talked about on the left a lot. But he has no real involvement in the anarchist movement or in the class war.

Chomsky IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY! He advocates voting and reformism!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 02, 2006 04:35 am--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 02, 2006 04:35 am)
[email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 am
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.


From wiki:


Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).


Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [31] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".

So there you have it: Chomsky is "generally respected among anarchists". As for John Zerzan and his criticisms, I am glad that Chomsky does not share the same views as Zerzan, as he is a anti-civilization primitivist. So while real revolutionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky are involved with groups like the IWW organizing and unionizing workers, John Zerzan is dreaming of roaming with the buffalo. [/b]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!~~~~~~!!!!! OMFG HOW FUNNY!!!! A REFORMIST ANARCHIST!!!! LOL :lol:

Don't use wikipedia as a source. It can be edited extremely easy. I've done parts on the socialist and Luxemburgist entries which anyone could see. I have a friend who went on the Wal-Mart entry and spammed it. Any one can edit it. Look I just edited it, thus I am god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#...ky.27s_politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Criticism_of_Chomsky.27s_politics)



Chomsky has acquired many critics from both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of "anti-semitism" for his views on Israel's foreign policy and his involvement in the Faurisson affair, among other issues. Chomsky has argued that his actions in the Faurisson affair were limited to a defense of the rights of free expression of someone he disagrees with, and that critics subsequently subjected this limited defence to various interpretations. [8] His critics contend that Chomsky went further than a defence of free speech, effectively protecting the character of a holocaust denier as well as supporting the legitimacy of his research.
In the late 1970s he was accused of apologism for the Khmer Rouge, after he and Edward S. Herman charged that publicized accounts of the Cambodian genocide, also known as the Killing Fields, in the Western media were anti-communist propaganda. [9]
Chomsky has also recieved criticism from many revolutionary anarchists who claim he is too much of a reformist, in that he encourages some level of participation in the electoral system.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

can we ban this guy to OI

please

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+November 02, 2006 08:50 pm--> (violencia.Proletariat @ November 02, 2006 08:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 12:35 am

[email protected] 02, 2006 02:57 am
Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist revolutionary. He is a reformist hack. Anarchists advocate for the immediate apolitical seizure of the means of production by the working class while running society without hierarchy. Noam Chomsky proposes we vote for democrats and have our revolution in the future. This is a common opinion in the past, that we should wait and wait. Well guess what? When we wait we lose. When we vote in a system that works against our class, we lose.


From wiki:


Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).


Generally, Chomsky is respected among anarchists. He wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject. Yet both the individualist anarchist Fred Woodworth and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan have criticized Chomsky. Zerzan has occasionally characterized Chomsky as being too reformist and failing to articulate a fully anarchist (in Zerzan's case this specifically means anti-civilization) critique of society. He states that "[t]he real answer, painfully obvious, is that he is not an anarchist at all." [31] Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)".

So there you have it: Chomsky is "generally respected among anarchists". As for John Zerzan and his criticisms, I am glad that Chomsky does not share the same views as Zerzan, as he is a anti-civilization primitivist. So while real revolutionary anarchists like Noam Chomsky are involved with groups like the IWW organizing and unionizing workers, John Zerzan is dreaming of roaming with the buffalo.
First of all the IWW is not anarchist syndicalist. Being in the IWW does not mean your an anarchist.

Secondly that is a wikipedia page. Just because wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone!) says he is respected doesn't mean he is. Chomsky is talked about on the left a lot. But he has no real involvement in the anarchist movement or in the class war.

Chomsky IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY! He advocates voting and reformism! [/b]
I never said just being in the IWW is making you an anarchist just by itself, but it is evidence of at least being left wing and pro worker and being involved with an organization with a strong anarcho syndicalist history.

Look, that Chomsky is an anarchist is not really controversial. He says he is an anarchist, he's written books and articles promoting and advocating anarchism, he's involved with an organization that is historically anarcho-syndicalist...what more do you want? Chomsky to rip open his shirt and see the letter A painted across his chest??

If you want to disagree with his tactics of voting in elections, fine. If you want to say you are more of an anarchist or more of a revolutionary than he is, fine. But to say he's not an anarchist at all for some disagreement over tactics is very sectarian.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

And for the Last time - this is NOT a call to vote for the Democrats!!!

It's a call to DRIVE OUT the Bush regime and the MOST right layer of the political groups in the US. We have elections and we live in a non revolutionary time , why not use elections to our advantage by voting in the lesser of the two evils??

That doesn't mean we stop our revolutionary work or lose sight of our goal, it just means we make due with what we can.

My end goal is revolution, but it's not on the horizon now , so let's do something to make change! Even if it's only a little!

The defeat of Bush and the Republicans would be a big psychological blow to reactionaries and a moral boost for progressives all over the world. I want revolution, but let's be realistic dudes, it's not happening tomorrow.

Let's work to make at least some small change now.

[Tekun]

And for the Last time - this is NOT a call to vote for the Democrats!!!

It's a call to DRIVE OUT the Bush regime and the MOST right layer of the political groups in the US. We have elections and we live in a non revolutionary time , why not use elections to our advantage by voting in the lesser of the two evils??

Alright, let's see if I understand
Its not a call to vote for Democrats, yet if u drive out the Bush regime, considering the 2 party dictatorship that goes on in this country, you're gonna either get another conservative republican in office or a democrat
So basically, u contradict yourself unless u want a republican to replace Bush, do ya? :lol:
I highlighted another instance of your contradiction in the post above



My end goal is revolution, but it's not on the horizon now , so let's do something to make change! Even if it's only a little!

And Democrats or another Republican are gonna be better? In what way, Kerry's only gonna send more US troops or leave Iraq in shambles
The Republicans are even worse
U do realize that the War on Terror was created and adopted by both parties
Change?
Picketing businesses and companies do more for working ppl than what voting has and will ever do



The defeat of Bush and the Republicans would be a big psychological blow to reactionaries and a moral boost for progressives all over the world. I want revolution, but let's be realistic dudes, it's not happening tomorrow.

A complete contradiction!
You my friend, are delusional

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 10:57 pm
And for the Last time - this is NOT a call to vote for the Democrats!!!

It's a call to DRIVE OUT the Bush regime and the MOST right layer of the political groups in the US. We have elections and we live in a non revolutionary time , why not use elections to our advantage by voting in the lesser of the two evils??
And by "the lesser of the two evils" you obviously mean, the Democrats.

So this is not a call to vote for the Democrats, instead it's a call to vote for the Democrats.

[violencia.Proletariat]

but it is evidence of at least being left wing and pro worker and being involved with an organization with a strong anarcho syndicalist history.

Why would it have an anarchist syndicalist history if its not an anarchist union?


Look, that Chomsky is an anarchist is not really controversial. He says he is an anarchist, he's written books and articles promoting and advocating anarchism, he's involved with an organization that is historically anarcho-syndicalist...what more do you want? Chomsky to rip open his shirt and see the letter A painted across his chest??

I want him to actually preach and practice his anarchism then. Right now he is not actively involved in implementing anarchist ideals in society. He is openly advocating reformism. I don't care if he calls himself an anarchist, he is activley liberal.


If you want to say you are more of an anarchist or more of a revolutionary than he is, fine.

Stop trying to counter my arguements with stuff I never said. This isn't a popularity contest although your trying to make it one.


But to say he's not an anarchist at all for some disagreement over tactics is very sectarian.

BULLSHIT. Do you even know what sectarianism is kid? It's not sectarianism to call someone out who calls themself an anarchist and then advocates something completely opposed to anarchist theory and history (voting). Why be an anarchist if you want to participate in the state and perpetuate it? Maybe because your activley liberal although you claim radical idealogy.

[Jesusstick]

Revolution November 7th!

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Tommorrow is also the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution :) Very Symbolic Date

[Forward Union]

Vote for nobody

If you vote for the democrats, you consent to their rule. You admit that you want leaders, and not only "leaders" in some abstract from, but the democrats. A party with an appalling record, including defending the rights of slave owners in the civil war, and the signings of NAFTA with the government of mexio. A pro-corporate neo-liberal organisation, that supports the opression of the working class. It's a phrase I use often in these discussions, but the choice between republicans and democrats, is a choice between a kick in the stomach or a punch in the teeth. Say no to both.

It's not Bush or the Republicans that are the problem. It's capitalism.

"if voting changed anything it would be illegal"

[Janus]

Crucial? Sure but then one will get tired of hearing that about every single election within their life. As revolutionaries, we accept that there is an alternative to this bureaucratic crap rather than wrapping ourselves in this reformist stank.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 08:48 pm
Tommorrow is also the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution :) Very Symbolic Date
Then why is it in November?? :huh: :huh:

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Anyhoo, tomorrow will be a very, very important day for working people. I am convinced that the majority of American people want and need change. Tomorrow must be declared a day of ACTION. If you want to make some change while the revolutionary change we all want is being worked for, then don't just sit around the computer and chatting away, take part in ACTION and change this country for the better!

Drive out the BUSH REGIME begins at dawn! ;)

[which doctor]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 06, 2006 09:58 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 06, 2006 09:58 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2006 08:48 pm
Tommorrow is also the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution :) Very Symbolic Date
Then why is it in November?? :huh: :huh: [/b]
Russia used a different calender back then.

[anti-authoritarian]

But the democrats are exactly that - a lesser evil.

Because everyone votes tactically we will always have an evil to some degree. Now in America it may be that the people will never have a socialist party representing them (from what I've heard the US gov. has done much to silence them) but if people voted with their hearts then we wouldn't have a two-horse race in the first place.

Having said that, I'm from the UK so I'll shut up.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 07, 2006 08:28 am--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 07, 2006 08:28 am)
[email protected] 06, 2006 08:48 pm
Tommorrow is also the 89th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution :) Very Symbolic Date
Then why is it in November?? :huh: :huh: [/b]
You don't even know an important event in Socialist history and you claim to be a socialist. Perhaps you should read some history books and spend more time in history section.

Any how as for as voting goes here in India we have a hell a lot of choices . but it sucks a lot. even we have a dozen communist parties and even voting them is just fooling yourself as they never run in a election with out a caste based party's alliance. in 2004 general elections i voted for their alliance they support bourgeoisie and zamindar based congress government but still their partner is bringing much more burden on the working class. There are a hell a lot of millionaires in India in 10 years and it is growing at the expense of millions of workers and some 1/2 a billion peasants who are below dangerously below poverty line. funny stuff here though those milllionaires never vote . :angry:

and a funny hypocrisy here is it is estimated by 2019 India will be the home of most millionaires in the asian conutries.

i agree with most in this board democracy under capitalism SUCKS .

[The Grey Blur]

If you totally ignore the election, which for working-class people is what represents 'politics' to them then you ignore the chance to educate and agitate.

Yes, ultra-leftism makes for brilliant slogans, but some realism would help.

[Lenin's Law]

I don't think anyone is saying to totally ignore the elections (and if they are, they are wrong) what happens in these elections do matter to some extent, but the main point is that for working people, for the vast majority of the population, both parties are actively working towards reactionary goals that are against their interest.

The bourgeois parties represent the right foot and left foot of the US ruling class. I'm not saying ignore the elections however; just as I would not say ignore the evangelical movement, the neo-Nazi movement, etc. But just because I'm not ignoring the evangelical or neo-Nazi movement, doesn't mean I need to take part in it.

Most working people either don't vote at all in these elections or do so half-heartedly knowing that real change (for the benefit of working people at least) is non-existent as far as these two parties are concerned and quite frankly, the way the whole false "democratic" system is set up.

[Tekun]

Its November 8th, Bush is still in office, wha? :rolleyes:

Rumsfeld is out, not bad..., though this decision was made awhile ago