Leftist Presidential Endorsements

[RedDawn]

I am trying to create a list of presidential endorsements by revolutionary leftist organizations in the United States, please make additions or corrections in this thread and I will edit it. Apologies in advance if I get anything wrong. If possible, include links stating endorsements. Please discuss endorsements in a separate thread. Mods, could this be stickied? Thank you

Communist Party USA:
Obama (Democratic Party) [unofficially]

Socialist Party USA:
Moore / Alexander (Socialist Party)

International Socialist Organization:
N/A [Nader in 2004]

Socialist Alternative:
Nader / Gonzalez (Independent)

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fightback!):
Obama (Democratic Party)

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Freedom Road):
N/A

Party for Socialism and Liberation:
La Riva / Puryear (Party for Socialism and Liberation)

Socialist Workers Party:
Calero / Kennedy (Socialist Workers Party)

Freedom Socialist Party:
Moore / Alexander (Socialist Party USA)

Workers International League:
McKinney / Clemente (Green Party USA)

Solidarity:
McKinney / Clemente (Green Party USA)




7/5/08 added FSP endorsement of SPUSA using this link:
http://www.votesocialist2008.org/

7/8/08 added WIL endorsement of McKinney:
http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/583/91/

9/9/08 added Solidarity endorsement of McKinney
http://www.solidarity-us.org/ncmotion2008elections
Changed CPUSA's endorsement to unofficial
Also added McKinney's VP pick, Clemente
http://www.cantstopwontstop.com/blog/2008/07/green-party-taps-hip-hop-activist-rosa.cfm
Finally, here is FSP's endorsement of Moore
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/freedom-socialist-party-helps-petition-for-socialist-party/

[RHIZOMES]

They aren't that Socialist then are they, if they endorse Obama? :laugh:

[BIG BROTHER]

They aren't that Socialist then are they, if they endorse Obama? :laugh:
true

[RedDawn]

Arizona_Bay and josefrancisco"


Please discuss endorsements in a separate thread.

[raynai]

that seems ironic

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I'm sure that no IMT member is going to say this, but their American section, the WIL, is giving election-time support to... no other than the Green Party candidate! Well well, dear IMTers, all that hue and cry over the CWI's support for Nader really seems kind of hypocritical now, no?

[RedDawn]

New addition, late last month the US IMT section endorsed Cynthia McKinney.

[Red October]

Has the CPUSA officially endorsed Obama? I didn't think they made it an official policy to endorse Democratic candidates, but I'm not surprised.

[Dimentio]

I have officially endorsed Chris Crocker.

[Red October]

I have officially endorsed Chris Crocker.

Are you a superdelegate?

[Unicorn]

Communist Party USA:
Obama (Democratic Party)
Incorrect.

"While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism."

- CPUSA 2008 Electoral Policy

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

[bayano]

Incorrect.

"While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism."

- CPUSA 2008 Electoral Policy

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

no, some of these groups dont officially endorse candidates, either to not stigmatize the candidate for being support by alleged radicals, or to not make themselves sound liberal. but they really do put their all into supporting candidates nonetheless. every election, many cpusa and ycl folks work on DP campaigns. its gross. the cpusa may not officially endorse, but they do all but.

[Wanted Man]

Dumbass:
Pedobear (Ind.)

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/6c/Pedobear08.jpg

Seriously, I don't get this endorsement thing. People are right to rail against the CPUSA's 'lesser evillism'. But what's fundamentally different about trotskyist groups that endorse the Green Party, Ralph Nader or some other third candidate? Are they cynically keeping their members busy? Or do they genuinely believe that the working class will unite under a new workers' party led by Ralph Nader?

[Kami]

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d189/lanacan/Funny/300px-Cthulhu-elections.gif

[Yehuda Stern]

what's fundamentally different about trotskyist groups that endorse the Green Party, Ralph Nader or some other third candidate? Are they cynically keeping their members busy? Or do they genuinely believe that the working class will unite under a new workers' party led by Ralph Nader?

Nothing, and I don't think it's either of the things you said. The centrist groups you mention - which are not Trotskyist - have no confidence in the working class and have a fundamentally reformist outlook. They are not trying to build vanguard working class parties because they do not believe the working class can build such a party.

[YKTMX]

I'm surprised none of them are endorsing McCain. A victory for McCain would undoubtedly lead to the overthrow of capitalism sometime in the near future, I think.

[Decolonize The Left]

Seriously, I don't get this endorsement thing. People are right to rail against the CPUSA's 'lesser evillism'. But what's fundamentally different about trotskyist groups that endorse the Green Party, Ralph Nader or some other third candidate? Are they cynically keeping their members busy? Or do they genuinely believe that the working class will unite under a new workers' party led by Ralph Nader?

There's actually quite a large different between the Green Party and the DP - just as there is a large difference between the DP and RP... It's quite foolish to argue that they are the same.

Now, I will concede that they are similar in the sense that they will not support a radical revolution, fair enough. But I would take the Green Party any day over the DP, simply because of their sound stance on the environment. After all, a revolution still needs a functioning planet capable of supporting human life, no? :D

Am I going to vote? Lol, no. But I'm just pointing out the realities of the situation - they are very different parties, though none will aid in our cause for sure.

- August

[Dimentio]

Are you a superdelegate?

No, a hyperdelegate.

[RHIZOMES]

I'm surprised none of them are endorsing McCain. A victory for McCain would undoubtedly lead to the overthrow of capitalism sometime in the near future, I think.

I find it sad people actually believe this.

[YKTMX]

I find it sad people actually believe this.

Me too.

[RED DAVE]

Solidarity is supporting McKinney.

RED DAVE

[Decolonize The Left]

Solidarity is supporting McKinney.

RED DAVE

This is unclear, would you mind clarifying?

- August

[Saorsa]

It's a totally retarded policy to endorse centreist, liberal environmentalist candidates who represent the capitalist system, rather than standing you're own revolutionary candidates on a revolutionary platform with the intention of putting forward revolutionary ideas during one of the few times when large numbers of workers take a heightened interest in politics.

It reflects on the one hand, cowardice on the part of you and you're organisation. You don't have the guts to stand up and put forward you're politics, because you're scared that the in all likelihood small vote you'll get will embarrass you.

It reflects on the other hand, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards the workers. You assume that no workers are interested in revolutionary politics, and we should instead stick to holding our weekly club meetings on campus, while waiting for a "mass workers party" to spontaneously emerge.

It also reflects a protective, paternalistic attitude towards workers. The poor weak workers must be protected from the nasty National/Conservative/Republican/Liberal/Whatever party, and the economic attacks it will introduce! Never mind the fact that the Labour/Democratic/Whatever party did exactly the same thing when it was in power! The workers must be protected! You don't believe the workers are capable of fighting back against these attacks, and you don't intend to try and organise such a fight back, because you're lazy, cowardly liberals who use revolutionary phraseology.

It's sometimes justified by the argument that "we must stand with the workers. We must orientate ourselves and our line to where the workers are at." Read you're Lenin! Lenin said revolutionaries must always be one step ahead of the workers consciousness, and should act as a vanguard, trying to lead the workers forward. What you're doing is tail-ending the existing level of class consciousness, and orientating yourself towards the backward section of the class, not it's advanced section.

Such a policy will always end in failure and bourgeois-liberal deviation.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's a totally retarded policy to endorse centreist, liberal environmentalist candidates who represent the capitalist system, rather than standing you're own revolutionary candidates on a revolutionary platform with the intention of putting forward revolutionary ideas during one of the few times when large numbers of workers take a heightened interest in politics.

While I may agree with your sentiments, I should ask that you refrain from using discriminatory language such as the term "retarded" to refer to something which may be ill-thought through.


We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. Mao Zedong

Could there be any statement more self-contradictory? :lol:

- August

[Saorsa]

While I may agree with your sentiments, I should ask that you refrain from using discriminatory language such as the term "retarded" to refer to something which may be ill-thought through.

I meant it in the sense that it slows down the progress of our revolutionary movement...


Could there be any statement more self-contradictory? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Not at all. The only way to eliminate war is to move to a communist society, and that can only be achieved through armed revolutionary struggle and class war.

[Decolonize The Left]

I meant it in the sense that it slows down the progress of our revolutionary movement...

Very well, I'll take your word on it - just letting you know it didn't come off to me that way.


Not at all. The only way to eliminate war is to move to a communist society, and that can only be achieved through armed revolutionary struggle and class war.

War cannot bring peace - just look at history. :lol:

- August

[Saorsa]

War cannot bring peace - just look at history. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Weak argument. You mean the history which to which this point has not reached communism, thus making you're argument moot?

Are you arguing that we can achieve communism through peaceful means? Or that we can achieve a peaceful world without communism?

[Wanted Man]

There's actually quite a large different between the Green Party and the DP - just as there is a large difference between the DP and RP... It's quite foolish to argue that they are the same.

Now, I will concede that they are similar in the sense that they will not support a radical revolution, fair enough. But I would take the Green Party any day over the DP, simply because of their sound stance on the environment. After all, a revolution still needs a functioning planet capable of supporting human life, no? :D

Am I going to vote? Lol, no. But I'm just pointing out the realities of the situation - they are very different parties, though none will aid in our cause for sure.

- August

I'm not saying they are the same. The Republicans and the Democrats also aren't the same, although of course they sustain a two-party system where they don't differ from each other radically. But the Green Party (or just Nader running on his own) are a complete non-threat to that system, as they lack any real ability to mobilize anyone against it except for the more radical liberal anti-war activists, ecologists, etc. In practice, you could just as well support the Libertarian Party or whatever, and still not make a difference, because they're in the same boat.

Anyway, the 'third partyism' on an 'anti-war, anti-big business campaign' seems like just another form of reformism that's common among the left in the USA. You might as well support Obama 'against the extreme right' (CPUSA) run your own candidate (WWP and PSL?) or hold some kind of impeachment campaign (World Can't Wait, whatever happened to that?).


I find it sad people actually believe this.
It seems to be a descendant of the idea of 'entryism' at all costs. The idea that, once the right has been in power for a while and fucked things up, "the workers will turn to their traditional parties", and socialists have to be there to play at being the vanguard. And that's the only way to make a revolution But lacking such a thing in the USA, there needs to be a "new workers' party". The workers will turn to that instead, and it will "lead to the overthrow of capitalism"! If it's that easy, sign me up. But really, this idea is very vague and mostly based on blind faith.

Edit: Comrade Alastair wins this thread.

[Saorsa]

Comrade Alastair wins. :cool:

[Martin Blank]

Communist League:
"This is not our system, these are not our choices and they are not our candidates."
http://www.communistleague.us/wpa/2008/feb/editorial.html

[Decolonize The Left]

Comrade Alastair wins. :cool:

I wasn't aware this was a competition...

- August

[Saorsa]

It wasn't. It was an argument.

[RedAnarchist]

I wasn't aware this was a competition...

- August

No, when someone "wins the thread" it means that they've said something that someone considers to be better or funnier than anything else posted in the thread.

[Wanted Man]

Sorry, what I mean by that comment is that I strongly agree with something Alastair said. The long post, #23, to be precise.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But the Green Party (or just Nader running on his own) are a complete non-threat to that system, as they lack any real ability to mobilize anyone against it except for the more radical liberal anti-war activists, ecologists, etc. In practice, you could just as well support the Libertarian Party or whatever, and still not make a difference, because they're in the same boat.

I would mention that the Green Party is just a small-time capitalist party.

A lot of "leftists" in the U.S. have completely given up class analysis and as a part of that now work to build a "third party" instead of a workers party.

[KurtFF8]

The CPUSA is "de facto" supporting Obama. They hint at it every time the issue comes up. Sam Webb even suggested that people vote for him because it would provide a better framework for the working class to move forward with the movement.

And a side note, I visited the CPUSA HQ this summer and many of them were even wearing Obama pins.

I understand their stance and think that it is legitimately a Marxist perspective, I just disagree with it.

[YKTMX]

It's a totally retarded policy to endorse centreist, liberal environmentalist candidates who represent the capitalist system, rather than standing you're own revolutionary candidates on a revolutionary platform with the intention of putting forward revolutionary ideas during one of the few times when large numbers of workers take a heightened interest in politics.


American workers are not prepared for "revolutionary" voices - on the whole. There may be some, at the margins, who will be pulled to revolutionary ideas in a time of crisis, or near-crisis, like this one. The vast majority are still looking for major reform of the current system, and will vote for candidates on that basis. "Revolutionary" candidates may gain traction among very particular groups on a local basis, but on a national scale, the American working class is simply not prepared for a "revolutionary" (whatever people imagine this to be) message.

In this climate (is anyone going to deny it exists?) the questions, for a Marxist, for someone using the historical materialist method, are what is possible in the current conditions, what the balance of class forces are, and the which of the likely outcomes best serves our class interests?

That is, the question of whether to call for a vote for Obama is not posed in the abstract. For instance, some people say we can't call for a vote for Obama because he's a Democrat, and we never support Democrats. This is dogmatic and practically redundant. Rather we need to position the problem (support for Obama versus his shittiness) in its proper historical and political context. That context is one in which his candidacy has sparked genuine popular mobilization (much like we've seen in Brazil, or Nicaragua, or, dare I say, Bolivia) in opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the U.S ruling class. In this context, the content of the candidate becomes less important than what the candidate symbolizes to his supporters. Furthermore, we have to wonder what impact the defeat of this candidate will have on the people who have supported him? The answer must be quick and complete demoralization.

A victory for the candidate however would almost certainly be accompanied by a genuine feeling of popular power amongst the lower orders. In this context, not only would there be far greater willingness to countenance radical agendas (such as our own), but there would also be pressure on the candidate to ensure his promises were fulfilled.

A vote for Obama should be called for in spite of the candidate not because of him.

Imagine two circumstances, one in which you're having a discussion with a young black worker about Obama in which Obama won, and one in which he didn't. In one circumstance you can say "yeah, he won, but why isn't he doing this, he should be doing that, he should never have done this etc" and you get a positive response. In the other circumstance you say "isn't McCain a complete bastard" and the young worker says what, do you think?

"It would all have been different if Obama had been elected!"

To which your answer is...what? No, it wouldn't have. Not convincing.



It also reflects a protective, paternalistic attitude towards workers.

Perhaps. Although the view that all the revolutionary movement lacks is the proper "message" and "guts" is deranged and idealistic.


Lenin said revolutionaries must always be one step ahead of the workers consciousness, and should act as a vanguard, trying to lead the workers forward. What you're doing is tail-ending the existing level of class consciousness, and orientating yourself towards the backward section of the class, not it's advanced section.


Yes, absolutely. But wouldn't Lenin also warn against being ten steps ahead?

[professorchaos]

I think leftists can engage in both reformist and revolutionary politics without any harm to the movement, and therefore I'm voting whoever is closest to me politically on according to the Compass chart; currently Nader, although they don't have McKinney, La Riva, or Moore or any of those cats yet.

BTW: I just took the compass test again and I'm four points more libertarian/left since I joined this site. Thanks, RevLeft!

[Yes]

Well, the majority of workers are not ready to accept radical ideologies even if they openly admit to wanting radical changes. It is taboo in America to accept any system except the current American Economic one with slight modifications in the methods (Democrat / Republican).

For Democratic Socialists, they may see moderate-Left candidates as a way of "easing" into something. Most revolutionary Leftists will disregard it as nonsense, anyway. :laugh:

[chimx]

A lot of "leftists" in the U.S. have completely given up class analysis and as a part of that now work to build a "third party" instead of a workers party.

Isn't it ironic that we agree on so many things like this CDL? Incidentally this is the reason that I would pragmatically vote for Obama over any of these "third party" capitalist candidates.

[KurtFF8]

I think leftists can engage in both reformist and revolutionary politics without any harm to the movement, and therefore I'm voting whoever is closest to me politically on according to the Compass chart; currently Nader, although they don't have McKinney, La Riva, or Moore or any of those cats yet.

BTW: I just took the compass test again and I'm four points more libertarian/left since I joined this site. Thanks, RevLeft!

This is a point that often gets lost in leftist or revolutionary debate in my opinion.

It's a false dichotomy to have to choose between revolutionary activity and reformist activity. I think that the left needs to adopt a broader strategy that includes both revolutionary action and reformist (or "working within the system") action.

This is why I think that it isn't "stupid" to support Obama: While he is obviously center-right or so, his policies and even just rhetoric offer a lot to the overall political spectrum by having the potential to pull it to the left for a change.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Needs to? What are you talking about, they already do! Never read 'left-wing Communism'?

[KurtFF8]

Well I suppose I mean that many leftists (e.g. PSL) think that trying to take the apparatus of the state is simply a waste of time.

[Saorsa]

American workers are not prepared for "revolutionary" voices - on the whole. There may be some, at the margins, who will be pulled to revolutionary ideas in a time of crisis, or near-crisis, like this one. The vast majority are still looking for major reform of the current system, and will vote for candidates on that basis. "Revolutionary" candidates may gain traction among very particular groups on a local basis, but on a national scale, the American working class is simply not prepared for a "revolutionary" (whatever people imagine this to be) message.

Why is it that so many on the far left think it's pointless to engage in a given activity unless there's a near-perfect chance of a stunning victory coming out of it? Let's all just sit in the Political Studies building on campus until a revolutionary situation emerges, and gee whiz, imagine how many copies of our paper we could sell then!

I never claimed that running revolutionary socialist candidates in bourgeois elections would result in you getting a large number of votes, either in that electorate or on a "national scale". Of course you won't! But that's not the reason you do it. You run for the purpose of gaining exposure for you're socialist ideas and you're organisation, recruiting new people, and if you do manage to win you use you're seat as a platform to campaign from and a rallying point for progressive, working class and revolutionary struggles to base themselves around.

This has been done successfully in many First World countries by many different groups, such as the Socialist Party in Australia and their Councilor Stephen Jolly, (http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/jolly.html) and the Socialist Party in Ireland with their TD Joe Higgins. (http://www.socialistparty.net/election07/higgins.html)

Ultimately this achieves far more than endorsing imperialism and capitalism. That's opportunism (the term bullshit also applies).


In this climate (is anyone going to deny it exists?) the questions, for a Marxist, for someone using the historical materialist method, are what is possible in the current conditions, what the balance of class forces are, and the which of the likely outcomes best serves our class interests?

Obviously a mass revolutionary upsurge is not on the cards any time soon. However, I fail to see how that implies that we should back pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist, ANTI-WORKER candidates. If you fear the fight you may not win, you'll miss the fight you could have won.


That is, the question of whether to call for a vote for Obama is not posed in the abstract.

Well, on the one hand we should pose it in the abstract. It should be a basic principle of revolutionary Marxism that we do not endorse pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist and anti-worker candidates.

On the other hand, the sane people on this forum whose politics aren't made up of cowardly, sell-out dogshit aren't just posing this question in the abstract. We're ANSWERING this question by pointing out that Obama represents the capitalist class, our enemies, and will deliver nothing but misery of a different colour and style to the proletariat, our class. I and many others here have chosen the side of the proletariat in this equation - it's easy to see which side YOU'VE chosen.

Rather we need to position the problem (support for Obama versus his shittiness) in its proper historical and political context. That context is one in which his candidacy has sparked genuine popular mobilization (much like we've seen in Brazil, or Nicaragua, or, dare I say, Bolivia) in opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the U.S ruling class.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The situation here is in no way comparable to Bolivia, where the government is openly challenging THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM, as well as challenging imperialism, and is endorsing the idea of a transition to socialism. Obviously it is justifiable to offer critical support to that. Obama is not doing any of that. He represents nothing but an illusion, a false hope for the working class, and our task as revolutionary socialists is to expose him to the working class and win workers over to our politics, even though that's a much harder thing to than just lining up behind the current cool and trendy candidate. That's the difference between revolutionaries and opportunists.

And there is absolutely no basis to support Daniel Ortega today. He's a reactionary, centreist Catholic candidate who is opposed to abortion, and the real revolutionaries in the Sandinistas have since left the organisation to form the Sandinista Renovation Movement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_Renovation_Movement)

Obama does not represent any kind of opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the ruling class, he represents a different section of it, a section that is in no way our friend any more than the other sections are. He is bourgeois through and through, and we do not support the bourgeoisie. This is Marxism 101 for fuck's sake!


In this context, the content of the candidate becomes less important than what the candidate symbolizes to his supporters.

Rubbish. That's not a materialist position at all, but is rather an idealist one. We oppose Obama on the basis of his anti-proletarian content, we do not support him (critically or not) on the basis of many workers misguided and false illusions in him.


Furthermore, we have to wonder what impact the defeat of this candidate will have on the people who have supported him? The answer must be quick and complete demoralization.

For some, sure. For others, it will result in disillusionment with the Democrats and the bourgeois parliamentary system. We stand to gain a lot from that. And anyway, I find it highly doubtful that Obama will lose this election - he really has no excuses for not winning.


A victory for the candidate however would almost certainly be accompanied by a genuine feeling of popular power amongst the lower orders. In this context, not only would there be far greater willingness to countenance radical agendas (such as our own), but there would also be pressure on the candidate to ensure his promises were fulfilled.

That's total and utter crap. The feeling of "popular power" will not last long, and will soon be replaced by disillusionment with the fundamentally identical system they live under and life they have. We stand to gain from that.

And when an anti-worker, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist cnadidate is elected, it does not result in "far greater willingness to countenance radical agendas"! What are you tripping on? All it will result in is short-term strengthening of these people's illusions in the system and the Democrats, followed by long-term disillusionment. You're argument is not based on reality.

Obama hasn't exactly promised much, other than vague calls for "change". He'll provide that in style, but he won't provide it to any large degree with substance, and our task it to expose that painful reality to workers, and offer them an alternative. It's tough going that results in few rewards infrequently, but it's worth doing. Tail-ending the illusions people have in Obama is not worth doing.


A vote for Obama should be called for in spite of the candidate not because of him.

No it shouldn't. That is an awful political line.


Imagine two circumstances, one in which you're having a discussion with a young black worker about Obama in which Obama won, and one in which he didn't. In one circumstance you can say "yeah, he won, but why isn't he doing this, he should be doing that, he should never have done this etc" and you get a positive response. In the other circumstance you say "isn't McCain a complete bastard" and the young worker says what, do you think?

"It would all have been different if Obama had been elected!"

To which your answer is...what? No, it wouldn't have. Not convincing.

Of course we respond with "no it wouldn't have", but we back it up with evidence and a more powerful argument than the statement alone. We talk about how shitty the Clinton regime was, how the Democrats fundamentally aren't calling for anything especially different from the GOP, and we put forward a militant socialist line in juxtaposition to both those parties.

We then have two possible alternatives. One, the black worker is unconvinced, and we go back to work. Two, he is convinced, and we recruit a new comrade (or at the very least he expresses uncertain support for our ideas).

If we backed Obama on the other hand, the ONLY result will be... well, nothing much for us. The worker's illusions in the Democrats are maintained, and the cause is not advanced one iota. Nice going there YKTMX, you've really done a lot for our movement!

I think a fundamental mistake being made here is that people are saying on the one hand that revolutionary socialist groups don't have enough influence within the class to justify running on their own platform, as they won't make any noticeable impact. I don't deny that - it's obvious that there are no truly mass-based communist groups in the US today.

But with that in mind, our not calling for a vote for Obama is not going to sway the minds of huge numbers of workers. It will not lose Obama the election. So we do not endanger Obama's chances of election in the slightest by denouncing him as the capitalist puppet he is. Likewise, our endorsing him is not going to be the deciding factor in his succesful election!

Having recognized that for the basic fact that it is, we should think about this a bit more. If we call for a vote for a revolutionary candidate (from our own group or otherwise), we at the very least gain exposure for our ideas and may recruit a few people. If we call for a vote for Obama, we accomplish nothing whatsoever, apart from further compromising what revolutionary principles we may have left if we're the kind of "socialist" who considers endorsing a man like Obama.

Obama is the enemy of both our movement and the working class in general. It is our duty to be honest about that, and try to convince people who think otherwise that this is the case.

[Martin Blank]

Aside from Comrade Alastair's comments, many of which were spot-on, there are a few more points worth adding:...


American workers are not prepared for "revolutionary" voices - on the whole. There may be some, at the margins, who will be pulled to revolutionary ideas in a time of crisis, or near-crisis, like this one. The vast majority are still looking for major reform of the current system, and will vote for candidates on that basis. "Revolutionary" candidates may gain traction among very particular groups on a local basis, but on a national scale, the American working class is simply not prepared for a "revolutionary" (whatever people imagine this to be) message.

I find this analysis to be very much an "outsider's" view of the situation. It is immensely impressionistic, subjective and mechanical in its understanding of the working class in the U.S., as well as workers' attitudes toward elections.

To begin with, working people in the U.S. can handle hearing "revolutionary" voices ... on the whole or in specific circumstances. Whether or not they listen, however, depends on whose voice it is and how they sound. Working people in the U.S. will not just listen to anyone on these questions. Years of failure and betrayal have made workers less inclined to raise questions -- "revolutionary" or otherwise -- that run counter to the established political order in an environment devoid of trust. No trust, no listen.

This is where much of the left runs into their problems. They have not built a level of trust (either because of impatience, incompetence or imbecility) and therefore wonder why workers give them the cold shoulder so consistently. In the end, this experience leads to blaming working people for the left's failures -- we called it "bad periodism" in the 1990s (i.e., "this current period is so bad for revolutionaries that we cannot recruit...").

Trust is the key here, and no group has developed the level of trust needed to draw working people beyond the pragmatic "reformism" they've been taught by the ruling class and its ideology. So, the kabuki dance continues....


In this climate (is anyone going to deny it exists?) the questions, for a Marxist, for someone using the historical materialist method, are what is possible in the current conditions, what the balance of class forces are, and the which of the likely outcomes best serves our class interests?

I will deny your analysis of "this climate" ... because I am here.

Oh, wait! I already did.


That is, the question of whether to call for a vote for Obama is not posed in the abstract. For instance, some people say we can't call for a vote for Obama because he's a Democrat, and we never support Democrats. This is dogmatic and practically redundant. Rather we need to position the problem (support for Obama versus his shittiness) in its proper historical and political context. That context is one in which his candidacy has sparked genuine popular mobilization (much like we've seen in Brazil, or Nicaragua, or, dare I say, Bolivia) in opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the U.S ruling class. In this context, the content of the candidate becomes less important than what the candidate symbolizes to his supporters. Furthermore, we have to wonder what impact the defeat of this candidate will have on the people who have supported him? The answer must be quick and complete demoralization.

This sounds like you've bought into Obama's propaganda and spin that casts him as a "rock star candidate" building a "movement" that is far beyond his electoral campaign. If you believe that, I have some great deals on bridges you might want to hear about.

Yes, we should put Obama's candidacy and campaign in its proper historical and political contexts. However, this also means we need to go past the forms and get to the content that is fueling Obama's campaign. This means putting aside the saccharine-sweet speeches that make him sound like he is "in opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the U.S ruling class" -- when, in fact, he is not -- and concentrating on his policy actions, an analysis of his key advisers and his body of work in the U.S. Senate.


A victory for the candidate however would almost certainly be accompanied by a genuine feeling of popular power amongst the lower orders. In this context, not only would there be far greater willingness to countenance radical agendas (such as our own), but there would also be pressure on the candidate to ensure his promises were fulfilled.

Actually, this is wrong. I think I see what you're getting at, but it's simply wrong. Far from actually buying the whole "change" gimmick, many working people who are in and around the Democratic Party are looking at the situation and saying, "Here we go again, another 'lesser-of-two-evils' choice". The unbridled enthusiasm is more the property of the yuppie students, managers and professionals who make up the cadre of his "movement".

Now, yes, a large measure of the lack of enthusiasm for Obama's campaign is a result of racism among the middle and upper layers of the traditionally Democratic-voting working class, but that is not as much of an issue as his recent shifts in "emphasis" on Iraq, Iran, warrantless wiretapping, immunity for telecommunication corporations, etc.

Getting back to the point, though, under the current circumstances, if Obama was to be selected as chief executive of the United States, not only would there be no "genuine feeling of popular power" among poor and working people, there would be no "greater willingness to countenance radical agendas". In fact, quite the opposite would be the case. Obama's doctrine offers no quarter to politics like ours, no matter how "compromised" or watered-down they are made. One only needs to look at how Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright under the bus -- and then ran him over several times -- to see how he views dissent among friends.

There is another point to make here: Obama is a former community organizer, and has put together his share of protests, teach-ins and so on. This means that protests, demonstrations, etc., not only do not un-nerve Obama, but they are a "known quantity" to him and he knows how effective (or ineffective) such manifestations are. In other words, he can see a demonstration of over 500,000 on the Mall in Washington led by one of the main antiwar coalitions and be able to reassure his staff that the event is little more than a waste of shoe leather -- a feel-good exercise for lefties with low self-esteem.

To put this another way: If Obama becomes president, you may as well forget organizing the standard-fare pickets, protests and marches, since they will be ineffective as long as the same people are putting them together and leading them.


Imagine two circumstances, one in which you're having a discussion with a young black worker about Obama in which Obama won, and one in which he didn't. In one circumstance you can say "yeah, he won, but why isn't he doing this, he should be doing that, he should never have done this etc" and you get a positive response. In the other circumstance you say "isn't McCain a complete bastard" and the young worker says what, do you think?

"It would all have been different if Obama had been elected!"

To which your answer is...what? No, it wouldn't have. Not convincing.

We've been dealing with this argument for eight years, with the names "Bush" and "Gore" replacing "McCain" and "Obama". It's an old song and dance: the Lesser Evil Two-Step.

Would it have been different? Maybe. Maybe not. We can acknowledge there are differences between the candidates without automatically proceeding to take responsibility for them (via endorsement). For example, the Democrats in this state overhauled the unemployment insurance system, making it a lot easier for workers to qualify, and to receive benefits much longer. That's a definite difference, but it doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands of workers are being laid off, that those who remain at work are being forced (through the combined efforts of the capitalists and the labor union officials) to accept lower wages, and that the Democrats have stood mute while the capitalists have done all this.

And this is the way it is between Republican and Democratic politicians: there is plenty of tactical difference, but, in the end, there is common agreement on the fundamentals. And the Black worker who asked that question knows that instinctively. No one -- and I mean no one! -- except the most craven apologist for the Democrats thinks there exists some great, earth-shattering difference between the two parties. Most know it comes down to a few small differences here and there and that's all.

In the end, this is one of the main reasons why there wasn't some great revolt after the Bush faction stole the 2000 election: very few consciously recognized that anything substantive was lost. To put it another way: The loss of "democracy" in 2000 meant very little, since in practice it had been virtually non-existent for years. Yes, it was still important to raise the argument and political questions that stemmed from 2000, but it was also important to understand why no mass democratic movement emerged at that time.

Many workers watched the situation unfold and said, "Here comes the Okee-doke", and just looked at it like the fix was in, and it was already settled. And with no real alternative leadership that had gained any trust among working people, most were inclined to stay at home and prepare to weather the storm.

From my interactions with workers, I expect more of the same.

[YKTMX]

I thank both the comrades for their responses to my post. I realise this position of mine (like a few others) excites people. I'd hope the comrades can see I'm just trying to analyse situation with the ideas and facts I believe to be true, and that I'm trying to understand what strategy might lead towards progress (which is what we all want, I guess). I'd hope we could stay way from suggestions that I've "chosen" the capitalist class over workers. I won't respond completely to the two posts, just a couple of points from each.

Firstly, Alistair:


Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The situation here is in no way comparable to Bolivia, where the government is openly challenging THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM, as well as challenging imperialism, and is endorsing the idea of a transition to socialism. Obviously it is justifiable to offer critical support to that. Obama is not doing any of that. He represents nothing but an illusion, a false hope for the working class, and our task as revolutionary socialists is to expose him to the working class and win workers over to our politics

I didn't compare the goals of the Bolivian movement with the goals of Obama's "movement". I said that it has sparked a popular mobilization, like Bolivia. Now, of course there differences here, including the one you suggested. It's also true that Morales is a product of the movement, whereas Obama the roles are somewhat reversed, which is important. Nevertheless, I think the analogy has merit. It's clearly true that Obama at least has the chance of mobilizing previously apathetic and politically underrepresented groups. This is important because these are the precisely the kind of people "we" wish to reach. Playing a part in a "movement" that is ultimately victorious will give these people confidence to not only push Obama towards a more radical agenda, but to listen to genuinely radical ideas about changing American society altogether.

The election of McCain, on the other hand, would simply reinforce hopelessness and a sense of stasis that would be extraordinarily damaging to the prospect for any relief.


Obama does not represent any kind of opposition to the prevailing trends and ideological forms of the ruling class, he represents a different section of it, a section that is in no way our friend any more than the other sections are.

The problem for you, it seems to me, is that you lack the vision to see past your own nose. I said repeatedly in my post that I have NO ILLUSIONS about Obama. You are preaching to the converted when you criticize him. My point was that, and I repeat myself, what he symbolizes is more important than what he is. I disagree slightly that he just represents "a different" section of the capitalist class. As I said in another thread, someone who sees bourgeois politicians as "merely" reflecting bourgeois interests is falling some way short of a full analysis. His candidacy represents a conflict, a dialectic, between the sections of capitalist class and the political establishment to which he owes fidelity, and the sections of the poor and exploited from whom he wants support. His ideas, like our own, are a product of his social being. He's not simply a drone sent out by Goldman-Sachs, that's bollocks.


We oppose Obama on the basis of his anti-proletarian content

Interesting that you continually assert this. Again and again, without evidence. Now, the term "anti-worker" has a very particular meaning to me. It means who someone who wishes to attack the pay and living standards of the working class. I'd like to hear it, but I'd suggest that someone committed to, and I quote, "taking back the Department of Labor for Labor, because it has been the Department of Management under this administration" and passing trade union rights acts is not, automatically, "anti-worker". It's important we be careful that we use this properly because when we get a candidate who is truly "anti-worker" (umm, like McCain) we might not know what we're looking at.


That's total and utter crap. The feeling of "popular power" will not last long, and will soon be replaced by disillusionment with the fundamentally identical system they live under and life they have. We stand to gain from that.


This is satire, aye?

You don't win people to the idea of a better world by standing by and looking pleased as their hopes and dreams get pissed on. You just don't.

Demoralized people don't make revolution.

To Miles:


Trust is the key here, and no group has developed the level of trust needed to draw working people beyond the pragmatic "reformism" they've been taught by the ruling class and its ideology.

Absolutely, this is true. Socialists in the community and the workplace need to build a record of honesty and strength in order to gain a fair hearing. This was exactly the point I was making. That we should say to people who're for Obama and think he offers the chance of real change "great, we hope he does all those things. But, in the end, it's not about him, it's about ordinary people changing things themselves." The strategy being offered by you guys seems to be a mixture of

a) guffawing
b) waiting for the shit to hit the fan and wait for demoralized, crushed, bitter and let-down Obama supporters to listen to socialist ideas


One only needs to look at how Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright under the bus -- and then ran him over several times -- to see how he views dissent among friends

It's amazing to me how so many people on the Left completely misunderstood the Rev. Wright situation. Just like the liberal-left and the media, they thought that the most important thing was that, as you say, he "threw Jerry under the bus". That wasn't the important thing at all. In fact, the only people who understood the significance of Wright was the far-right!

Don't you think they're absolutely right when they say "what does it mean that Obama sat in that church all those years and listened to this guy"?

I mean, does anyone really believe that Obama didn't sit through and appreciate sermons where Wright was criticizing American imperialism? God knows that there are dozens of churches in Illinois he could have chosen if be objected.

And don't you think he knew what William Ayres stood for when he became "friends" with him.

Yes! Of course he did. The point is, and what the left has completely missed, is that the wingnuts are right! He is from a fairly leftist, possibly corrupt, section of Chicago Democratic politics, that does have radical ties, and he did consort with all these people.

The fact that he sat in front of Wright, and is friend with Ayres, makes me smile, not fret about how he "threw him under the bus" when he was running to be fucking President. That's hardly the point at all.


That's a definite difference, but it doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands of workers are being laid off, that those who remain at work are being forced (through the combined efforts of the capitalists and the labor union officials) to accept lower wages, and that the Democrats have stood mute while the capitalists have done all this.


Of course they have. And I'm not suggesting for one second, and I never did, that any socialist group should give up one percent to the Democratic Party. My position has been that socialists should vote for him, not campaign for him.


I will deny your analysis of "this climate" ... because I am here.

Fine, you have special knowledge there. I await the revolution with a full heart.

[KC]

Absolutely, this is true. Socialists in the community and the workplace need to build a record of honesty and strength in order to gain a fair hearing. This was exactly the point I was making. That we should say to people who're for Obama and think he offers the chance of real change "great, we hope he does all those things. But, in the end, it's not about him, it's about ordinary people changing things themselves." The strategy being offered by you guys seems to be a mixture of

a) guffawing
b) waiting for the shit to hit the fan and wait for demoralized, crushed, bitter and let-down Obama supporters to listen to socialist ideasThis seems to me to be little more than shifting the focus of the debate.


It's amazing to me how so many people on the Left completely misunderstood the Rev. Wright situation. Just like the liberal-left and the media, they thought that the most important thing was that, as you say, he "threw Jerry under the bus". That wasn't the important thing at all. In fact, the only people who understood the significance of Wright was the far-right!

Don't you think they're absolutely right when they say "what does it mean that Obama sat in that church all those years and listened to this guy"?

I mean, does anyone really believe that Obama didn't sit through and appreciate sermons where Wright was criticizing American imperialism? God knows that there are dozens of churches in Illinois he could have chosen if be objected.This seems to me to say that you think he's trying to "trick" all of his supporters into thinking he's more moderate, and that when he gets elected he'll reveal his secret plans. Is that what you're trying to tell us?

Or perhaps the truth came out when he ended up admitting that he's even more Zionist than McCain.


And don't you think he knew what William Ayres stood for when he became "friends" with him.I actually had a discussion with Bill about this earlier this year, and he told me this:

"Most people see Obama to be one of the most leftist and progressive presidential candidates, but after knowing the guy for a while and taking a look at his congressional voting record it's quite obvious to me that he's probably one of the most moderate democrats in office." [of course, I'm paraphrasing, but this was more or less exactly what he said]

So Bill even recognizes the fact that he's not even progressive, much less as radical as you consider him to be.

[YKTMX]

This seems to me to be little more than shifting the focus of the debate.

Not at all, it was Miles who brought the issue up. I was merely clarifying.


This seems to me to say that you think he's trying to "trick" all of his supporters into thinking he's more moderate, and that when he gets elected he'll reveal his secret plans. Is that what you're trying to tell us?


Not at all. I'm just warning against a particular interpretation of the Wright and Ayres affairs. Not to mention his association with a Palestinian academic who's name escapes me.

And I don't consider him to be a radical. And I've said as much explicitly on more than one occassion.

[KC]

Not at all, it was Miles who brought the issue up. I was merely clarifying.

Generally saying "well what are you offering?" is shifting the focus, which is what you did and in this case is what you were attempting to do.


Not at all. I'm just warning against a particular interpretation of the Wright and Ayres affairs.

I don't understand what you're getting at, then. To me it sounded like you were saying that the Wright Affair, for example, shows that the idea that he's right-wing or something like that because he "threw Wright under the bus" is wrong and that because he sat in church listening to anti-imperialist sermons for years that somehow makes him a progressive/anti-imperialist. It sounded to me that you were backing up this statement by saying he's friends with Ayers (i.e. he's also friends with Ayers, and Ayers is radical, so that makes Obama at least progressive).

Did I misinterpret what you were trying to say?


And I don't consider him to be a radical. And I've said as much explicitly on more than one occassion.

Well, either you consider him to be "progressive" (radical, progressive, leftist, whatever word you want to use I think you understand what I'm saying) and are therefore not making any sense with regards to your prior argument or I misinterpreted what you said above.

[YKTMX]

Generally saying "well what are you offering?" is shifting the focus

No, no. I spoke directly to the opportunities for socialists in America in my original post. I devoted a whole paragraph to it, in fact, if you check. Miles was disagreeing with me and I rebutted in turn. Neither of us "shifted the focus". The "focus" was there to begin with.


It sounded to me that you were backing up this statement by saying he's friends with Ayers (i.e. he's also friends with Ayers, and Ayers is radical, so that makes Obama at least progressive).

Did I misinterpret what you were trying to say?


It's too simplistic (which is how some comrades seem to like it, sadly) to say either that he's "anti-worker" like Alistair suggested, which is ludicrous, or he's an arch anti-imperialist who "secretly" wants radical change, which is equally daft. The far-left seems to have focussed on the fact of his disavowal of Wright. I mentioned that the fact of his association with Wright for years is certainly equally as important as the disavowal.

I never meant to insinuate he was a secret radical. It was merely an attempt to rebalance an issue that Miles raised. I'm sorry if you read that into my comments.


Well, either you consider him to be "progressive" (radical, progressive, leftist, whatever word you want to use I think you understand what I'm saying) and are therefore not making any sense with regards to your prior argument or I misinterpreted what you said above.

No, there's a difference between progressive and radical/leftist. A big difference, actually. I'm sure he'd admit to being a "progressive" (as would most centrist Democrats). He wouldn't admit to being a radical and certainly not a leftist. And he's not, and I don't consider him to be these things.

I consider his candidacy a chance to disrupt a certain dangerous trend in American life - namely the growth of ultra-hawkish neo-conservatism and anti-working class economics. I consider his "movement" to be a positive thing, on the whole.

I've never claimed anything above or beyond this at anytime, anywhere.

[Martin Blank]

Absolutely, this is true. Socialists in the community and the workplace need to build a record of honesty and strength in order to gain a fair hearing. This was exactly the point I was making. That we should say to people who're for Obama and think he offers the chance of real change "great, we hope he does all those things. But, in the end, it's not about him, it's about ordinary people changing things themselves." The strategy being offered by you guys seems to be a mixture of

a) guffawing
b) waiting for the shit to hit the fan and wait for demoralized, crushed, bitter and let-down Obama supporters to listen to socialist ideas

Our strategy has been to continue on with our organizing and educational work as before, to answer any questions about the presidential sweepstakes going on from a communist perspective, and to continue to work toward working people "changing things themselves". When someone asks us, "What do you think about Obama?", we answer them honestly: He talks a good game and has really good speech writers, but it's all talk; when it comes to doing something, he acts just like Clinton or any other right-wing Democrat.


It's amazing to me how so many people on the Left completely misunderstood the Rev. Wright situation. Just like the liberal-left and the media, they thought that the most important thing was that, as you say, he "threw Jerry under the bus". That wasn't the important thing at all. In fact, the only people who understood the significance of Wright was the far-right!

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making here. I raised the issue of Obama and Wright to demonstrate how little the former is when it comes to tolerating disagreements among friends and allies. This is something the left hasn't come to quite understand. They see Obama as some liberal champion, when in fact he is very narrow-minded and rigid in his views. This was my point.


Don't you think they're absolutely right when they say "what does it mean that Obama sat in that church all those years and listened to this guy"?

I mean, does anyone really believe that Obama didn't sit through and appreciate sermons where Wright was criticizing American imperialism? God knows that there are dozens of churches in Illinois he could have chosen if be objected.

Look, I am rather familiar with Trinity United Church of Christ; I've been there a couple of times for political activities, and I've talked to congregants about the church and its members. Based on that, no, I don't think Obama sat through Wright's sermons. I think he knew more about them than he let on, but he did not sit through them. Why? Two words: plausible deniability.

Trinity United is one of those churches in Chicago that you have to be a member of in order to succeed in local politics. It is for African-American politicians what certain Catholic churches are for Irish and Polish politicians in Chicago. Its membership boasts dozens of aldermen, state representatives and senators, members of Congress, high court judges, etc. If you are anyone in Chicago politics, you're a member of Trinity; if you want to be someone in Chicago politics, you become a member of Trinity.

But, yes, they had this firebrand preacher who spoke his mind ... when his patrons were not in attendance. Virtually every one of those sermons like that he gave after 9/11 was done in the complete absence of people like Obama, Jesse Jackson III, Danny Davis, etc. And when these pols did trek back to Trinity to make an appearance, either Wright was shelved and another preacher brought in, or he was put on a leash for the duration of the visit.

And, no, there were not "dozens of churches in Illinois he could have chosen if he objected". What made Trinity important was its ability to mobilize its congregants to come out and vote. The church has the power to swing elections that are relatively close. This is how Obama got into the State Senate, and then the U.S. Senate. And I expect that, sometime between now and November, Obama will make peace with Trinity again, in order to get their support on election day.


And don't you think he knew what William Ayres stood for when he became "friends" with him.

I think Ayers was a political gamble that went south on Obama. He'll not make that mistake again.


Of course they have. And I'm not suggesting for one second, and I never did, that any socialist group should give up one percent to the Democratic Party. My position has been that socialists should vote for him, not campaign for him.

The thing is that, by voting for Obama, you are taking a measure of responsibility for him. That act, in and of itself, proceeds to "give up" political ground to the Democrats, since you tacitly acknowledge his role as "leader" in the election and "representative" of your interests -- albeit in a strictly pragmatic manner.


Fine, you have special knowledge there. I await the revolution with a full heart.

It's not "special knowledge", it's knowledge.

And, next time, keep the sarcasm to yourself.

[YKTMX]

That act, in and of itself, proceeds to "give up" political ground to the Democrats, since you tacitly acknowledge his role as "leader" in the election and "representative" of your interests -- albeit in a strictly pragmatic manner.


Really? Why is that? It's still a secret ballot in the U.S isn't it? No one even has to know how you voted. Someone asks you, tell them whatever you like. I really get worried about all these comrades who tell themselves that the electoral system is a joke and a fraud and then proceed to act as if voting was something that carried great moral weight. It doesn't. Go in, vote for the guy and go back to doing whatever you're doing. What's the problem? I promise you, you won't have to answer for it during the last days.


It's not "special knowledge", it's knowledge.


No, it's special knowledge, because it's knowledge you implied that I can't have access to, because, as you said, "you live there" and I don't. I have some knowledge of America, but it's only second hand, through books, TV, films and American friends. Your presence there clearly makes you far more qualified to speak to the desire for socialism amongst American toilers. I'm happy your assessment is more optimistic than mine, I'll have to amend my knowledge.

[Martin Blank]

At first, I was going to let this go. But, as I thought about it, I realized that there is something worth responding to here:


Really? Why is that? It's still a secret ballot in the U.S isn't it? No one even has to know how you voted. Someone asks you, tell them whatever you like. I really get worried about all these comrades who tell themselves that the electoral system is a joke and a fraud and then proceed to act as if voting was something that carried great moral weight. It doesn't. Go in, vote for the guy and go back to doing whatever you're doing. What's the problem? I promise you, you won't have to answer for it during the last days.

It's not your vote that carries (or should carry) the moral weight. It's your word that does (or should). What happened to honesty? What happened to standing by the statements you make? How can you build trust with the class if you cannot even be honest with them around an issue like this? I know there's no honor among thieves, but sheesh!

More to the matter at hand, though, your position here is doubly dishonest. On the one hand, you began your contribution to this thread saying "vote for Obama", and now you're passing off your position as that of "vote for whomever you want, it doesn't matter". There are fundamental differences between these two positions -- and they not only point to the issue of honesty, but also to the issue of taking responsibility and "giving ground".

Taking a position of "vote for whomever you want, it doesn't matter" allows for the opportunity to explain that this is not our system or our candidates in this "election", and that if you go to the polls on election day, no matter who wins, working people lose. While the individual act in this case might be seen as "giving ground" to the bourgeois candidates, it in fact establishes a contradiction that a communist organization can intervene in, making it possible to win the working-class voter to a stronger, more politically independent position on the electoral system.

On the other hand, taking a position of "vote for Obama" means you are taking a measure of responsibility for him. A half-hearted endorsement is still an endorsement, and a half-assed show of support is still a show of support. You said before you didn't want to "campaign" for him, only vote for him. The problem is that, in the process of publicizing your own position, you would end up campaigning for him. You would have to justify your own position to workers who were skeptical of voting for him, which is as much campaigning as organizing rallies or fundraisers.

[Decolonize The Left]

Really? Why is that? It's still a secret ballot in the U.S isn't it? No one even has to know how you voted. Someone asks you, tell them whatever you like. I really get worried about all these comrades who tell themselves that the electoral system is a joke and a fraud and then proceed to act as if voting was something that carried great moral weight. It doesn't. Go in, vote for the guy and go back to doing whatever you're doing. What's the problem? I promise you, you won't have to answer for it during the last days.

The United States is a governed by a representative democracy, a republic in fact. Hence a vote for a candidate is tacit approval/support for that candidate. By voting you are saying: "I endorse this person to govern over this nation." Given that our government is oppressive and exploitative, a vote for Obama (or whoever) is tacit approval/support for oppression and exploitation. As revolutionary leftists, this action is incompatible with our moral stance on said issues. Hence to vote, and to be a revolutionary, is an incoherent position to hold.

- August

[YKTMX]

As revolutionary leftists, this action is incompatible with our moral stance on said issues.
My opposition to exploitation is not based on a "moral stance". Morality is bourgeois sophistry.

To Miles:



More to the matter at hand, though, your position here is doubly dishonest. On the one hand, you began your contribution to this thread saying "vote for Obama", and now you're passing off your position as that of "vote for whomever you want, it doesn't matter".

Clearly I do think it "matters", for the reasons I've explained in this thread, in other threads and on my blog. My point was that comrades here, like the one above, who think that voting violates some kind of ethical code we sign up to as revolutionaries have got it all wrong. I reject any notion that we have any obligations beyond doing what we reasonably believe to be in the interests of our class.

You suggest that honesty is an obligation, and perhaps it is - in fact, it definetly is. My question would then be, do the comrades who say that the election of McCain over Obama would have no negative impact at all really believe this? Are they really being honest with themselves?

And, yes, it would be honest of people to say how they voted. Perhaps saying you voted for Obama would complicate matters and explaining yourself would be problematic.

It may also turn out to be problematic when you say you didn't, and McCain invades Iran, privatises social security and runs all over workers' rights.

I'm not sure it's a good strategy to avoid tough choices.

[chimx]

My question would then be, do the comrades who say that the election of McCain over Obama would have no negative impact at all really believe this? Are they really being honest with themselves?

I've always wondered this too. It strikes me that leftists to often act far too idealistically and refuse to weigh the political realities of the time. Do what you believe is pragmatically better for working peoples in the long run, baring in mind that change is processive and not going to happen with a presidential election.

I would like to here CL's rebuttal to my reason for voting for Obama: it will ease labor organizing, something I believe to be essential towards building a labor party in the United States.

[Decolonize The Left]

My opposition to exploitation is not based on a "moral stance". Morality is bourgeois sophistry.

Clearly you either can't be serious, or you have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You make moral claims daily, if not hourly. Claims that stem from an "ought" or "should" are moral claims - also called normative claims. If you are a communist, you believe that communism is better than capitalism, and ought to be realized. Period - normative position.

Folks who claim not to hold "moral" positions are deluding themselves. It is fundamentally impossible to make only empirical claims - morals and norms are part of what it means to be a human being. It's called taking a stand on issues.

All I was trying to do was point out that it is morally inconsistent to oppose exploitation and oppression, and then tacitly validate a system which encourages and allows such offenses to occur through voting.

- August

[chimx]

and then tacitly validate a system

Again, I think this is an idealistic way of viewing the electoral process. Why does voting have to be validation rather than pragmatic in assisting one's goals?

[YKTMX]

Clearly you either can't be serious, or you have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You make moral claims daily, if not hourly. Claims that stem from an "ought" or "should" are moral claims - also called normative claims. If you are a communist, you believe that communism is better than capitalism, and ought to be realized. Period - normative position.

Folks who claim not to hold "moral" positions are deluding themselves. It is fundamentally impossible to make only empirical claims - morals and norms are part of what it means to be a human being. It's called taking a stand on issues.

All I was trying to do was point out that it is morally inconsistent to oppose exploitation and oppression, and then tacitly validate a system which encourages and allows such offenses to occur through voting.

- August

You suggested that "opposition" to exploitation and oppression was a "moral" stance. This is not a Marxist position. Marx would reject, actually, the notion that the capitalist system is "unjust". At least he would be ambivalent on the matter. The basis for overthrowing capitalism is not "moral authority" but concrete reality. The working class have objective interests that can only be realized with the overthrow of international capitalism and their self-emancipation.

That is the basis of my Marxism, not ludicrous "moral stances".

But, accepting your account for a moment, if one was truly opposed to exploitation and oppression for "moral" reasons (let's assume that a morality beyond pure emotional response is possible, which it's not), your concern should surely be for trying to reduce the amount of oppression and exploitation in the world.

It seems perfectly possible then, indeed almost seems like an obligation, for you to support outcomes likely to reduce to the sum of oppression and exploitation. I can gurantee that your suggestion (not voting) will completely fail to do this.

[Decolonize The Left]

Again, I think this is an idealistic way of viewing the electoral process. Why does voting have to be validation rather than pragmatic in assisting one's goals?

It does not have to be either, for it is most certainly both at the same time. Allow me some clarification.
Tacitly (adj): understood without being openly expressed; implied; tacit approval. (dictionary.com)
Idealism (n): the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc. (dictionary.com)

Now, how is making a simple logical argument being idealistic? Here's the argument in point form:
Premise 1: One disagrees with exploitation and oppression, and finds these to be undesirable. (One believes these ought not to occur.) Moral/normative claim.
Premise 2: The President is responsible for the validation and perpetuation of the exploitation and oppression of millions of people. Empirical claim.
Claim 1: To vote is to tacitly approve of the system in which one is voting. Empirical claim.
Conclusion: It is incoherent to hold premise 1 and 2, and to vote. Logical conclusion.

If you're going to dispute my conclusion, you will need to disprove my claim (the premises are pretty solid). And given the definition of "tacitly," that seems difficult.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

You suggested that "opposition" to exploitation and oppression was a "moral" stance. This is not a Marxist position. Marx would reject, actually, the notion that the capitalist system is "unjust". At least he would be ambivalent on the matter. The basis for overthrowing capitalism is not "moral authority" but concrete reality. The working class have objective interests that can only be realized with the overthrow of international capitalism and their self-emancipation.

That is the basis of my Marxism, not ludicrous "moral stances".

This is fine, I accept empirical arguments against capitalism as much as moral ones. In fact, you may have just improved my argument. You may now substitute a normative argument for an empirical one in the first premise (see my post above in response to chimx).


But, accepting your account for a moment, if one was truly opposed to exploitation and oppression for "moral" reasons (let's assume that a morality beyond pure emotional response is possible, which it's not), your concern should surely be for trying to reduce the amount of oppression and exploitation in the world.You would be wise to review your moral theory before making absolutist claims that all morality is pure emotional response. For example, Kant developed one moral theory called the 'categorical imperative' which exists completely independently of emotions - that is to say that it was derived from what he called "pure reason." It can be applied by any individual, at any time, regardless of context. I personally don't agree with it as a moral theory, but none-the-less it is context independent (and hence emotionally independent).

Morals may have their deepest root in emotion, but it is a logical consequence to say that they are "pure emotional response." In fact, a simple example will disprove this claim (if the Kant example didn't already):

Person A pushes person B. Person B does not wish to engage in conflict/violence, for it is not morally coherent for them. Person A hits person B, pushing them beyond their ability to control their emotions - they hit back. Person B has then acted against their moral stance (which you claim is derived from "pure emotion") precisely due to emotion. Should you be correct in your claim, this emotion the person felt from being hit should bring about their morals, when in fact it contradicted them.


It seems perfectly possible then, indeed almost seems like an obligation, for you to support outcomes likely to reduce to the sum of oppression and exploitation. I can gurantee that your suggestion (not voting) will completely fail to do this.Clever argument. But if you wish to adopt a utilitarian/consequentialist position, you would have to account for the exploitation and oppression brought about by the government, and then factor in the exploitation and oppression alleviated by said government. My bet is that it doesn't win out.

- August

[YKTMX]

It can be applied by any individual, at any time, regardless of context. I personally don't agree with it as a moral theory, but none-the-less it is context independent (and hence emotionally independent).


I'm familiar with Kantian ethics. I find them unconvicing. The ideas of Kant are proof that moral philosophers often claim some kind of "objective" basis for their moral system, it's not proof of the validity of such claims. I find them completely unconvincing and riddled with self-contradiction and tautology.


Person A pushes person B. Person B does not wish to engage in conflict/violence, for it is not morally coherent for them. Person A hits person B, pushing them beyond their ability to control their emotions - they hit back. Person B has then acted against their moral stance (which you claim is derived from "pure emotion") precisely due to emotion. Should you be correct in your claim, this emotion the person felt from being hit should bring about their morals, when in fact it contradicted them.


But you see, for me, I would start at the end. Person B hits person A, and then try and find a reason. The violence from both A and B is the only empirical fact in your example and so should be examined first and foremost. Only later can we add what the "ideals" of both individuals are, and we can only add this as a supplement to the facts, a way of interpreting them. In this case, I would claim that B in fact does believe violence is justified and could prove this by pointing to the empirical fact that he uses it to defend himself. B's claim that he doesn't believe violence is right would involve either

a) a descent into sophistry (moral philosophy)
b) hypocrisy
c) both


But if you wish to adopt a utilitarian/consequentialist position, you would have to account for the exploitation and oppression brought about by the government, and then factor in the exploitation and oppression alleviated by said government. My bet is that it doesn't win out.


The state is the basis for the defence of exploitation (of the domination of one class by another) it is not its origin. Its origin lies in the alienation of the proletariat from the means of production.

The U.S. President, whilst an important figurehead, only impacts very slightly on the system of exploitation and oppression.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm familiar with Kantian ethics. I find them unconvicing. The ideas of Kant are proof that moral philosophers often claim some kind of "objective" basis for their moral system, it's not proof of the validity of such claims. I find them completely unconvincing and riddled with self-contradiction and tautology.

I am not endorsing Kantian ethics, merely sighting them as an example of an ethical theory which is not, as you had previously claimed, "pure emotional response."


But you see, for me, I would start at the end. Person B hits person A, and then try and find a reason. The violence from both A and B is the only empirical fact in your example and so should be examined first and foremost. Only later can we add what the "ideals" of both individuals are, and we can only add this as a supplement to the facts, a way of interpreting them. In this case, I would claim that B in fact does believe violence is justified and could prove this by pointing to the empirical fact that he uses it to defend himself. B's claim that he doesn't believe violence is right would involve either

a) a descent into sophistry (moral philosophy)
b) hypocrisy
c) both

Interesting, yet you have made an error in your 'approach.'

You claim that to look at ideals is a "supplement to the facts, a way of interpreting them."
You then claim that the only facts are "the violence from both A and B."
Yet you then claim that you wish to "find a reason" for said violence - in other words, you wish to interpret the facts, supplement them with reasons.

You see that your approach is no different from mine, or any other. We all must interpret what we see and discover reasons. What you have failed to acknowledge is that reasons can take the form of moral convictions, among many other things.


The state is the basis for the defence of exploitation (of the domination of one class by another) it is not its origin. Its origin lies in the alienation of the proletariat from the means of production.

The U.S. President, whilst an important figurehead, only impacts very slightly on the system of exploitation and oppression.

I agree with your first claim, it is well-noted. But I am skeptical of your second claim about the ability of a President to shape the form and progression of exploitation and oppression in a capitalist society.

However, in the spirit of debate let's assume that you are correct and the President only slightly impacts the system. Then why vote for McCain or Obama? If neither of them will make any sort of substantial "difference," then arguments suggesting we vote for one over the other are pointless from the perspective of a revolutionary.

And if you are not correct, and the President does play a significant role in the oppression and exploitation of millions, then to tacitly validate such a role through the act of voting is hypocritical.

Hence the only logical conclusion is to consciously withhold one's vote.

- August

[chimx]

Claim 1: To vote is to tacitly approve of the system in which one is voting. Empirical claim.

This is where I disagree. Nobody votes to approve a system. That is to view the process idealistically. We vote to elect a politician. That is the function of voting.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is where I disagree. Nobody votes to approve a system. That is to view the process idealistically. We vote to elect a politician. That is the function of voting.

You misunderstand. I don't care why you are voting. I am not talking about your purpose of voting. I am talking about what voting means. I am making an empirical claim about the action of voting.

Here's the argument again for clarity:
The US is a republic. The US government is composed of representatives, whose purpose it is to represent their constituents - the people.

This government is responsible for the exploitation and oppression of millions of individuals. This exploitation and oppression is inextricably tied with the capitalist economic system, which the government supports and defends. Hence, unless a candidate is a leftist revolutionary, they will continue this trend.

Now, when you vote for a candidate (such as Obama) who is not a revolutionary, your vote is saying "I endorse this candidate as a proper representative of my interests." Remember, I don't care why you're voting - this is what your vote means.

Hence you are tacitly endorsing the exploitation and oppression of millions. This tacit endorsement is incompatible with communist/anarchist values and therefore is an incoherent position to hold.

- August

[YKTMX]

Then why vote for McCain or Obama? If neither of them will make any sort of substantial "difference," then arguments suggesting we vote for one over the other are pointless from the perspective of a revolutionary.


Because I think the "insubstantial" is still enough to justify the very slight sacrifice involved in voting. And as we've discussed, I reject the idea totally that there is some "tacit endorsement" involved in taking part in the electoral system. Or the idea that there are "moral codes" for revolutionaries.

Are you "tacitly endorsing" the exploitation of the working class by using a computer that was created by alienated wage labour?

Life in capitalist society is based around a variety of neccessary evils and compromises that we all concede every hour of every day. This (voting for Obama) is only slightly different.

[chimx]

this is what your vote means.

But this is not based on empirical evidence like you claim, it is just a subjective opinion. Nowhere in any constitution does voting suggest an endorsement of a system. In fact, I would argue the majority of people don't view it in such idealistic terms, but vote for pragmatic reasons.

[Saorsa]

Argh, I just lost a massive reply to this thread... I hate it when that happens!

[Decolonize The Left]

But this is not based on empirical evidence like you claim, it is just a subjective opinion. Nowhere in any constitution does voting suggest an endorsement of a system. In fact, I would argue the majority of people don't view it in such idealistic terms, but vote for pragmatic reasons.

If a vote is not an endorsement of a candidate, and by extension, a system, then "republic" and "democracy" have lost their meaning. What you are claiming is that terms which refer to distinct organizations of government, and which have distinct logical consequences, can be bastardized into pragmatic "well this is how I feel about it" definitions. This isn't true and is highly nihilistic.

A government of elected officials, known as representatives, are in office to represent the citizens. When you vote for them you are giving them the authority to make decisions in your name - we call it "government."

I don't see how this is difficult...


Because I think the "insubstantial" is still enough to justify the very slight sacrifice involved in voting.

If you are referring to the "slight sacrifice" of walking/driving to the polling station and waiting line to punch a whole, you're correct. But this is not the sacrifice I was talking about.


And as we've discussed, I reject the idea totally that there is some "tacit endorsement" involved in taking part in the electoral system. Or the idea that there are "moral codes" for revolutionaries.

And similarly, I do not accept your rejection. I dealt with another rejection in my response above (within this post). Furthermore, I have never claimed a "moral code" for anyone. What I have claimed is that you cannot live without morals intuitions, beliefs, and articulated statements - as you seem to believe.


Are you "tacitly endorsing" the exploitation of the working class by using a computer that was created by alienated wage labour?

I am furthering it, yes. But I am not endorsing it. There is a difference between giving an elected official the authority to rule over you through a vote, and buying a computer.


Life in capitalist society is based around a variety of neccessary evils and compromises that we all concede every hour of every day. This (voting for Obama) is only slightly different.

You are correct in your first claim. I wish to argue that voting for a candidate may be, practically speaking, just a "compromise;" But philosophically, theoretically, and rationally speaking it is entirely contradictory.

- August

[YKTMX]

If you are referring to the "slight sacrifice" of walking/driving to the polling station and waiting line to punch a whole, you're correct. But this is not the sacrifice I was talking about.


Yes. I can't see any other sacrifice involved at all, clearly.


And similarly, I do not accept your rejection. I dealt with another rejection in my response above (within this post). Furthermore, I have never claimed a "moral code" for anyone. What I have claimed is that you cannot live without morals intuitions, beliefs, and articulated statements - as you seem to believe.


Actually, what I claimed was that an "objective" morality - that is, a context-liberated, impersonal, universal morality - is impossible. I claimed that morality was purely intuitional, based on an series of emotional responses. I say this not neccessarily to denigrate those who live or claim the live the "moral life" - just to point out that the morals they live by are their own, and are not passed down by God or the metaphysical. Therefore, it's clearly ludicrous for anyone to speak of a "moral" injuction against voting, since that implies that morality has jurisdiction beyond the subject, which it doesn't. Only I can decide what's moral for me.


I am furthering it, yes. But I am not endorsing it.

I'm not convinced that's a meaningful distinction at all.


I wish to argue that voting for a candidate may be, practically speaking, just a "compromise;" But philosophically, theoretically, and rationally speaking it is entirely contradictory.


And you've done it admirably. I think we've reached one of those points in a debate that frequently occurs when speaking the language of morality. At the end we're both left making normative claims that lack any empirical foundation and so it's just a circular back and forth.

[Martin Blank]

I would like to here CL's rebuttal to my reason for voting for Obama: it will ease labor organizing, something I believe to be essential towards building a labor party in the United States.

I would say that there is little evidence, apart from his paper platform, that Obama would be better for labor organizing. In fact, quite the opposite.

The most pertinent example of why an Obama regime would not be better for this kind of work is found in the recent closeness, politically speaking, between Obama and the Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia (RATS) wing of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS). This recent closeness has not been over dime-a-dozen property issues or textbook stare decisis decisions, but over civil liberties and democratic rights questions that have reaching implications for labor organizing, both in the short and long terms.

This means that, while he may indeed sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law, he will also let the SCOTUS overturn it and declare it "unconstitutional" ... leading to an even greater rollback in labor rights (recent SCOTUS decisions have reached beyond the narrow confines of the laws they are allegedly written about, and have affected long-standing law and policy going back decades).

[Unicorn]

I would say that there is little evidence, apart from his paper platform, that Obama would be better for labor organizing. In fact, quite the opposite.

The most pertinent example of why an Obama regime would not be better for this kind of work is found in the recent closeness, politically speaking, between Obama and the Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia (RATS) wing of the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS). This recent closeness has not been over dime-a-dozen property issues or textbook stare decisis decisions, but over civil liberties and democratic rights questions that have reaching implications for labor organizing, both in the short and long terms.

This means that, while he may indeed sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law, he will also let the SCOTUS overturn it and declare it "unconstitutional" ... leading to an even greater rollback in labor rights (recent SCOTUS decisions have reached beyond the narrow confines of the laws they are allegedly written about, and have affected long-standing law and policy going back decades).
I don't agree. McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist", i.e. ultra-conservative, judges in the mold of Roberts or Alito who want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/mccain.judges/

Obama will probably appoint liberal judges like Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually, what I claimed was that an "objective" morality - that is, a context-liberated, impersonal, universal morality - is impossible. I claimed that morality was purely intuitional, based on an series of emotional responses. I say this not neccessarily to denigrate those who live or claim the live the "moral life" - just to point out that the morals they live by are their own, and are not passed down by God or the metaphysical. Therefore, it's clearly ludicrous for anyone to speak of a "moral" injuction against voting, since that implies that morality has jurisdiction beyond the subject, which it doesn't. Only I can decide what's moral for me.

You are correct that morals are not handed down by God or the metaphysical. That is not what I am claiming.

I am claiming that morals are inter-subjective; they are constructed (by individuals) in the social world - that is to say they regulate social behavior. Social behavior is, by definition, inter-subjective. Hence all morals can be questioned/argued by anyone.

We are not all little islands of morality, whereby I can declare killing a certain group of people "right", and you say: "that's cool - it's your morality and you decide what's moral for you." Is that really what you're arguing?

For if I'm right, and morals are inter-subjective, then I am justified in claiming that voting for a capitalist, bourgeois, presidential candidate is morally incoherent.


And you've done it admirably. I think we've reached one of those points in a debate that frequently occurs when speaking the language of morality. At the end we're both left making normative claims that lack any empirical foundation and so it's just a circular back and forth.

You may be right, but I'm not ready to concede this point yet. I believe my above-stated argument is important.

- August

[YKTMX]

I am claiming that morals are inter-subjective; they are constructed (by individuals) in the social world - that is to say they regulate social behavior. Social behavior is, by definition, inter-subjective. Hence all morals can be questioned/argued by anyone.


Oh, I absolutely think this is true. I should have been more clear, perhaps. I believe that all the ideas we have are a product our social being, albeit we all process the social whole differently, dependent on class/sex/race/age and a million other things. This clearly goes for our "morality" as well. It is entirely socially constructed.


We are not all little islands of morality, whereby I can declare killing a certain group of people "right", and you say: "that's cool - it's your morality and you decide what's moral for you." Is that really what you're arguing?


Well, I might claim that killing that certain group of people is "morally wrong", but what purpose would such a claim serve? As a historical materialist, I can't believe that certain groups of people are killed because their assailants were morally aberrant. Rather, I think conflict between people and classes is a reflection of historical forces, largely independent of our ideals.

In this case, it would be entirely ersatz and hypocritical for me to insert the language of morality into the analysis. Now, I'm sure you could search this forum and find me declaring things "right" or "unjustified". As you noted, it's impossible to live without making moral claims. But I certainly avoid forming political solutions on the basis of moral claims.


For if I'm right, and morals are inter-subjective, then I am justified in claiming that voting for a capitalist, bourgeois, presidential candidate is morally incoherent.


I think you've made a leap here I don't quite agree with. While I've agreed that "morality" is socially constructed, you seem to think that this implies that we are somehow bound to obey it. I do not.

I think we have obligations to each other. I think people should be sanctioned for breaking society's rules (i.e killing innocent people without a good purpose). I see no need for "morality" to regulate social existence, certainly not the extent that it would stop us from taking a particular course in regard in politics.

My behaviour is regulated by my emotions, my intuitions as to what is right and wrong, context, self-interest and my belief in socialism.

[Martin Blank]

I don't agree. McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist", i.e. ultra-conservative, judges in the mold of Roberts or Alito who want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/mccain.judges/

Obama will probably appoint liberal judges like Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Actually, Obama is pledging to appoint "centrist" judges to the courts. The meaning "centrist" is somewhat unclear. However, given that Obama sees the far-right "constructionist" judges as people he can work with (and side with), we can figure that his definition of "centrist" is not too far from that of the RATS wing. I expect his "centrists" will be Anthony Kennedy types.

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh, I absolutely think this is true. I should have been more clear, perhaps. I believe that all the ideas we have are a product our social being, albeit we all process the social whole differently, dependent on class/sex/race/age and a million other things. This clearly goes for our "morality" as well. It is entirely socially constructed.

Agreed. You see? Had we quit this discussion earlier on the grounds that we had irreconcilable differences, we never would have reached this conclusion. Part of this is due to our respectful manner of debate, but another is due to our willingness to take the time to explore each others arguments. Cheers.


Well, I might claim that killing that certain group of people is "morally wrong", but what purpose would such a claim serve? As a historical materialist, I can't believe that certain groups of people are killed because their assailants were morally aberrant. Rather, I think conflict between people and classes is a reflection of historical forces, largely independent of our ideals.

In this case, it would be entirely ersatz and hypocritical for me to insert the language of morality into the analysis. Now, I'm sure you could search this forum and find me declaring things "right" or "unjustified". As you noted, it's impossible to live without making moral claims. But I certainly avoid forming political solutions on the basis of moral claims.

Your position is very interesting. I see your point. I really have no objection to the way in which you have formulated it here.


I think you've made a leap here I don't quite agree with. While I've agreed that "morality" is socially constructed, you seem to think that this implies that we are somehow bound to obey it. I do not.

I think we have obligations to each other. I think people should be sanctioned for breaking society's rules (i.e killing innocent people without a good purpose). I see no need for "morality" to regulate social existence, certainly not the extent that it would stop us from taking a particular course in regard in politics.

My behaviour is regulated by my emotions, my intuitions as to what is right and wrong, context, self-interest and my belief in socialism.

Ah, I believe I have not been clear.
There are empirical claims - which historical materialism can address.
There are normative claims - which theories or morality must address.

I am claiming that the latter can be addressed rationally, in the same fashion as empirical claims. It is only a matter of being a different sort of claim.

In terms of voting, I was addressing the issue of voting for Obama from a normative viewpoint. Why? Because people were making normative claims. I was arguing that within the context of normativity, the positions being advocated were incoherent. From a historical materialist position, other conclusions most certainly can be reached, but when one makes an "ought to vote for..." claim, they have placed their claim within the context of our inter-subjective world and I am free to critique it rationally - which I have done.

- August

[chimx]

If a vote is not an endorsement of a candidate, and by extension, a system, then "republic" and "democracy" have lost their meaning. What you are claiming is that terms which refer to distinct organizations of government, and which have distinct logical consequences, can be bastardized into pragmatic "well this is how I feel about it" definitions. This isn't true and is highly nihilistic.

A government of elected officials, known as representatives, are in office to represent the citizens. When you vote for them you are giving them the authority to make decisions in your name - we call it "government."

I don't see how this is difficult...

Communists have long used the strategy of a popular front as being a pragmatic way of seizing political power democratically. This doesn't mean they endorse ever social democrat or christian democrat that rides on the ticket, but that they are willing to work pragmatically to do what will better the needs of working peoples. Similarly, communists have always participated in bourgeois government if it helps working people's. The Bolsheviks were heavily involved with the Czarist Duma and voted for countless liberal laws. This was not an endorsement of Czarist government, but a pragmatic outlook that has a long-standing history with Marxist praxis, in my opinion.

[chimx]

he will also let the SCOTUS overturn it and declare it "unconstitutional"

Where is the evidence for this? Have these people made comments that would lead you to believe it would be voted unconstitutional, and on what premise would it be voted unconstitutional?

[YKTMX]

Where is the evidence for this? Have these people made comments that would lead you to believe it would be voted unconstitutional, and on what premise would it be voted unconstitutional?

When was the last time SCOTUS struck down a piece of federal legislation?

[Martin Blank]

Where is the evidence for this? Have these people made comments that would lead you to believe it would be voted unconstitutional, and on what premise would it be voted unconstitutional?

I would suggest looking through unionfacts.com and the website of the National Right-to-Work Committee for how the corporatists plan to challenge EFCA in federal court.


When was the last time SCOTUS struck down a piece of federal legislation?

Here is a link to the Opinions page for SCOTUS.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

I suggest going through the "Latest Slip Opinions" to see what they have decided lately, and which federal laws they have recently overturned.

[YKTMX]

Here is a link to the Opinions page for SCOTUS.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

I suggest going through the "Latest Slip Opinions" to see what they have decided lately, and which federal laws they have recently overturned.

They very rarely strike down laws passed by the Congress. There are no recent cases of it. The last one I can find is the RFRA - an act pertaining to the "free excercise of religion". Can you think of any after this?

[Martin Blank]

They very rarely strike down laws passed by the Congress. There are no recent cases of it. The last one I can find is the RFRA - an act pertaining to the "free excercise of religion". Can you think of any after this?

Actually, the case at the top of the list, Davis v. Federal Election Commission, pertains to a federal law: the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.


In sum, we hold that §§319(a) and (b) violate the First Amendment. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I'd go through more of these opinions, but I don't have the time at the moment.

[YKTMX]

Actually, the case at the top of the list, Davis v. Federal Election Commission, pertains to a federal law: the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.



I'd go through more of these opinions, but I don't have the time at the moment.


From a brief look at that, it seems one clause is being disputed (the right of people to donate however much they like to congressman, or would-be congressman, I think). The act itself is not being struck down.

As I said, the EFCA, if it's passed, would be challenged. And I don't think the SCOTUS routinely strikes down whole pieces of federal legislation related to the regulation of commerce (in constituonal language), not since the 1930's anyway, when good ol' FDR threatened to put 30 of his lackeys on the Court.

[Martin Blank]

From a brief look at that, it seems one clause is being disputed (the right of people to donate however much they like to congressman, or would-be congressman, I think). The act itself is not being struck down.

As I said, the EFCA, if it's passed, would be challenged. And I don't think the SCOTUS routinely strikes down whole pieces of federal legislation related to the regulation of commerce (in constitutional language), not since the 1930's anyway, when good ol' FDR threatened to put 30 of his lackeys on the Court.

What you're missing here is that, often times, SCOTUS issues opinions that, technically speaking, only affect one or two clauses of a federal law, but those clauses are the ones that are pivotal to the law itself.

For example, a few years ago, they issued and opinion that only overturned one provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, that provision was the one that had to do with enforcement of the Act by federal agencies. This effectively overturned the entire Act since it was no longer "constitutional" to enforce the provisions of the ADA, even though, technically speaking, the bulk of the ADA itself was left intact.

A law that cannot be enforced is little more than wishful thinking or a suggestion. It certainly is not a law in any reasonable sense of the term -- even if, formally, it remains on the books.

[chimx]

I would suggest looking through unionfacts.com and the website of the National Right-to-Work Committee for how the corporatists plan to challenge EFCA in federal court.

It's not surprising that anti-union goons like unionfacts.com are lashing out against EFCA, but what makes you think that SCotUS would agree with them?

[Luís Henrique]

While I may agree with your sentiments, I should ask that you refrain from using discriminatory language such as the term "retarded" to refer to something which may be ill-thought through.

Yes, use the word "****", which has officially been recognised as non-discriminatory, instead.

Neurotypical supremacism is a no-no.

Luís Henrique