Who's Voting?

[cop an Attitude]

I was just wondering who is voting in november, you stance (if any) and why.

I myself have not made a decision yet. McCain is an obivious conservative caniadate which I really have little agreance with. Obama is a cult of peronality and really is just masking problems and has no real "change". I agree with Obama more then McCain but I fear that if he was to win the people would be blinded by his promises and charisma. Something in the back of my mind is telling me to vote McCain only because there is the chance that people will etheir grow sick of the same bullshit as bush or that he would die, making Palin step into office. If she was to rule our country there would be a major outcry and some people might start to look at diffrent avenues of poltics (thats all just wishful thinking and speculation though). The again, i doubt any actual change towards socialism/communism would come from a presidential election but anything to make people more aware would help, hence the mccain agrument. Really what it boils down to is the same shit or somewhat diffrent shit :(. I might just write in Bill Murray, who knows. I would like to hear your opinion, thanks for reading.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spoil your ballot / cast a blank ballot / reject your ballot. Do NOT legitimize the system by abstaining or voting for a protest party.

[#FF0000]

Most people you ask here probably won't be voting. I won't be. I might work as a poll worker, though. $14 an hour for 10 hours just to stand there? Oh hell yes.

[cop an Attitude]

i expected that much. I just turned 18 and always said i was going to vote in 08 because I finaly had the ability to, so i feel like sticking to my guns. I am defently voting from the questions on the ballots (income tax removal, marajuna decriminlization and banning of greyhound racing) but i will most likly not take the presidentail race seriously or i will just leave it blank.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My post above did not imply at all that you should do the same thing towards referendum questions. BTW, I would suggest that you extend your spoilage or whatever to Congressional elections.

[Devrim]

Spoil your ballot / cast a blank ballot / reject your ballot. Do NOT legitimize the system by abstaining or voting for a protest party.

Don't you have a hobby? Really what on earth is the point in telling people to go to the polls in order not to vote?

Devrim

[chimx]

I plan on voting for Obama.

[GPDP]

Even if I could vote (and I cannot, since I am not a legal citizen), I wouldn't.

[Incendiarism]

Write in Bill Murray, he's my favorite actor.

[Pogue]

If I was over there and could vote, I would, probably for the most left wing candidate out there. Or maybe Obama, depending on how bad I thought McCain would be, but really, Obama will just be a sell out, theres two things about him that I like, one, that he is black, which is obviously significant in terms of having a black president in the USA, and two, he has the support of some Unions after he made some pro-union delcarations. Aside from that he's another false hope capitalist mug. It's sad seeing the liberal-leftists who adore him so much over here, I can't imagine what it must be like in the USA. Do the working class, or more specifically, the black working class have much hope for him over there?

[F9]

Of curse and i am not voting,as i am not in US.
But if i could have the ""freedom"" to vote i would just wont pay fucking attention to this.I dont know the system there if you are forced to go and vote(in cyprus is illegal not voting i think)but if you can just no go,dont waste your times for arseholes capitalists,who oppress working class.If you must go just go there and draw a beautiful big :blackA: on the paper.
Thats the way i like it!:)
But seriously votes from revolutionary leftists to those arseholes capitalists exploiters,are against our movement!No vote to our enemies!

Fuserg9:star:

[Devrim]

I dont know the system there if you are forced to go and vote(in cyprus is illegal not voting i think)but if you can just no go,dont waste your times for arseholes capitalists,who oppress working class.If you must go just go there and draw a beautiful big :blackA: on the paper.


In Turkey, it is illegal not to vote. I am quite sure that nobody in our organisation does though, and many people I know don't vote either.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

I'm not sure if I will vote in 2010 (or earlier, if the government falls...). I don't want to support the system, so probably not. But maybe if the Socialist Party list has a candidate with a background of marxism, activism, students' work or something like that. But I won't count on it.

[Black Sheep]

No vote to our enemies!What about a communist party? Are they your enemies?

The :blackA: ballot was pure rock though.

[revolution inaction]

What about a communist party? Are they your enemies?

The :blackA: ballot was pure rock though.

yes

[Raúl Duke]

Spoil your ballot / cast a blank ballot / reject your ballot. Do NOT legitimize the system by abstaining or voting for a protest party.

I'm going to try that (put a nice circle A, or "communism", "anarchism", "no gods no masters" in all the spots referring to candidates) once I get my voter card, if I ever do since it seems in limbo in the snail mail process. (these people in my campus kept pestering me about not having one...then there are florida amendments to vote NO on.)


I might work as a poll worker, though. $14 an hour for 10 hours just to stand there? Oh hell yes.Hey...the people who registered me didn't tell me about this...

dammit

[F9]

What about a communist party? Are they your enemies?

The :blackA: ballot was pure rock though.

A party participating in this system and trying to obtain the authority,es is my enemy.
Though notice that i might consider the party enemy,but i may not consider the members, enemies.

Fuserg9:star:

[FreeFocus]

If you're voting Obama, and he wins, congrats on enabling the revitalization and improved longevity of American imperialism. This man is dangerous; I read an article back in April about Palestinians in Gaza organizing on message boards to encourage Americans to vote for Obama in the primaries. This, when Obama has turned his back on the Palestinian community AND said that what Israel is doing in Gaza is "justified." If people know this, and still support him because of his vague calls for "change" (which is simply political pragmatism, if you look at his political background in Chicago), well, good lord.

[Charles Xavier]

I'm voting in the Canadian elections.

[Wladek Flakin]

I could vote in the US elections, but I would never cast a ballot for a candidate not coming out of the workers' movement. (That's why I'm not going to vote for Nader or the Greens either.)

It's funny how many left-wing people are getting their hopes up about Obama - I guess after eight years they'll settle for "anyone but Bush". But Obama hasn't even promised any important changes in US policies - he even promised to keep Paulson on board as Treasury Secretary! I can see only one positive thing about an Obama victory in November, and that's the tens of thousands of college students who have gotten all hyped up about "Change!" seeing with their own eyes that voting for a new leader of US imperialism won't change anything. Most of them will resign and withdraw from politics, but if even 10% draw more radical conclusions that will be a huge boost for the US left.

[The Douche]

Did anybody see the debate last night? Isn't Obama supposed to be cast as an anti-war candidate? The asshole wants a troop surge of his own, in Afghanistan, and then he's threatening war with Pakistan?! He actually said, that if we have "Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda, or some of thier top lieutenits in our sights then we should be able to strike", referring to attacking within Pakistani territory. Sweet, fucking terrific, awesome. How does nobody find this to be a big deal? He also acknowledges a "nuclear Iran to be a great threat to US security", where did this hawkishness come from? I have a friend who was home all summer and was a massive Obama supporter and continually tried to convince me that if I didn't want to go to war again that I should vote for him. It's bullshit that he can say things like that above and still be painted as being "anti-war".

Don't vote for Obama, he's got nothing good to offer us.

[OI OI OI]

i live in Canada and I'll be voting for the NDP.

Not that I have illusions in reformism or anything.

If i was in the US I would be voting for Obama.

It is a good tactic in what way. In that of getting him into power , him not making the change he promised and the american proletariat drawing more radical ideas and hopefully one of them is the creation of a labour party.

Of course I would never agitate for people voting for Obama.

Instead I would write lenghty articles proving he is a liar he believes in no change etc(just like the IMT does)

[Pawn Power]

If i was in the US I would be voting for Obama.

It is a good tactic in what way. In that of getting him into power , him not making the change he promised and the american proletariat drawing more radical ideas and hopefully one of them is the creation of a labour party.


Why do people keep saying this?

How many more times does the American proletariat have to have their promises smashed?

Isn't a century of elections and broken promises enough? Why will this election be any different?

People keep saying that this is a good tactic... it has proven not to be.

[OI OI OI]

Because these are different material conditions than they were 10 years ago.

Of course in the US the IMTers will be abstaining or voting for a socialist candidate.

Me voting for Obama does not represent the IMT.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm going to vote for Obama, just for shits and giggles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't you have a hobby? Really what on earth is the point in telling people to go to the polls in order not to vote?

Devrim

You obviously didn't read the discussions in my old spoilage thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html


Abstention is too easily interpreted as not caring. An organized spoilage of ballots cannot be interpreted as being stupid or going "Oh crap, the elections were today?".

While spoiling ballots isn't something that will necessarily make a large difference on it's own, it does show that people think something is wrong and is something that could catch on. No one sees a protest that doesn't bother to show up.


I will agree with Jacob in that mass, co-ordinated spoilage is a far more effective technique than abstention. I think the only reason why we haven't seen mass spoilage campaigns is that the two have been falsely equated.

Such a seemingly little and trivial gesture can go a very long way in efforts of agitation. When polling results showing large numbers of informal votes come in, the media and the politicians, I believe will be more likely to take notice as opposed to turning the other cheek to voter apathy in the form of abstention.

...

The point is to send a message, not matter how small or trivial. It is an act of defiance, that despite a refusal to participate in bourgeois elections, we have made the effort in showing up and "wasting" our vote.


What we should be doing is protesting, and if you care to combine either spoilage or abstention *with* protests against the sham elections, great! The ruling class and its government certainly don’t care that people aren’t participating or spoiling their ballots. If you protested against the elections during election time, due to the considerable media coverage elections receive, you are more likely to get your message out to the people who it is intended for.

[JimmyJazz]

Currently planning to vote Green as a protest. If the Greens ever had a chance at winning, I would start voting socialist. If I voted socialist now, no one would even notice.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course in the US the IMTers will be abstaining or voting for a socialist candidate.

Uh, no they won't - as announced on the American section's site a while ago, you will be voting for Cynthia McKinney (http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/583/91/), which is now the Green Party candidate, which is, as you wrote a while back, a bourgeois party. Indeed different conditions - without any real change, a bourgeois party turned socialist. You are truly pathetic.

[Comrade B]

Why do people keep saying this?

How many more times does the American proletariat have to have their promises smashed?

Isn't a century of elections and broken promises enough? Why will this election be any different?

People keep saying that this is a good tactic... it has proven not to be.

The alternative is far worse. Nothing will change for the workers, but at least he supports gay rights and doesn't want to invade Iran.

McCain is a fucking lunatic who loves the idea of killing Iranians, and his running mate is worse. In the United States the average male life expectancy is somewhere around 75. It would not be shocking for McCain to die in office. Go check out Sarah Palin, she believes in witches, thinks that God wants us to kill Iraqis, who are apparently "The people who attacked us on September the eleventh" and is strongly opposed to abortion.

Obama may not really offer many solutions, but he isn't going to make things that much worse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Uh, no they won't - as announced on the American section's site a while ago, you will be voting for Cynthia McKinney (http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/583/91/), which is now the Green Party candidate, which is, as you wrote a while back, a bourgeois party. Indeed different conditions - without any real change, a bourgeois party turned socialist. You are truly pathetic.

Did the IMT hold any sort of substantive discussion before the "announcement"?

[FreeFocus]

I don't think the Greens are bourgeois. If you look at their platform, they're very close to us, they just go about it the wrong way (some of it is far too reformist).

Socialists and Greens should open up a dialogue, IMO, and perhaps consider moving closer together in terms of joint activities.

[Devrim]

You obviously didn't read the discussions in my old spoilage thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html

Well, no I didn't. Nor do I see any reason whatsoever why I should.

If you want to make an argument to convince workers who have decided that the electoral system has no real change to offer them to vote, please do it here.

Devrim

[The Douche]

The alternative is far worse. Nothing will change for the workers, but at least he supports gay rights and doesn't want to invade Iran.

McCain is a fucking lunatic who loves the idea of killing Iranians, and his running mate is worse. In the United States the average male life expectancy is somewhere around 75. It would not be shocking for McCain to die in office. Go check out Sarah Palin, she believes in witches, thinks that God wants us to kill Iraqis, who are apparently "The people who attacked us on September the eleventh" and is strongly opposed to abortion.

Obama may not really offer many solutions, but he isn't going to make things that much worse.

But he (Obama) does approve of, and encourages a new troop "surge" in Afghanistan, and encourages illegal intrusions of US forces into Pakistani territory, and the engagement of the "enemy" on said territory.

Obama is just as hawkish as McCain, but he has managed to avoid being painted as such because he "opposes" the war in Iraq.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'll be voting Party for Socialism and Liberation.

[Yehuda Stern]

Did the IMT hold any sort of substantive discussion before the "announcement"?

Alan Woods, Alan Woods, Alan Woods and Alan Woods held a meeting. Being a meeting of the most important elements of leadership in the IMT, the American section of course had to accept the decision (or else be expelled for supporting "blackest reaction").


I don't think the Greens are bourgeois. If you look at their platform, they're very close to us

Speak for yourself, please. They're not an inch closer to me than the Democrats.

[FreeFocus]

Speak for yourself, please. They're not an inch closer to me than the Democrats.

Read their platform. (http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#313976)

I didn't say they were perfect, I said they're close to us in terms of goals, but their approach is misguided, which is why a dialogue should be opened. Of course the party apparatus throws in American exceptionalist bullshit, even in the platform, but grassroots democracy, neighborhood assemblies, environmentalism, etc, these are things we also believe in and fight for.

In short, they're too reformist, and are in need of some ideological refining. Social democracy does not solve problems.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Read their platform. (http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#313976)

I didn't say they were perfect, I said they're close to us in terms of goals, but their approach is misguided, which is why a dialogue should be opened. Of course the party apparatus throws in American exceptionalist bullshit, even in the platform, but grassroots democracy, neighborhood assemblies, environmentalism, etc, these are things we also believe in and fight for.

In short, they're too reformist, and are in need of some ideological refining. Social democracy does not solve problems.

Indeed. I would emphasize the "grassroots democracy" and "neighbourhood assemblies" part, since that goes against the narrow economism of modern "social-democrats" (parliamentarism and welfare-capitalism-with-select-nationalizations as the limit) and the broad economism of many revolutionary leftists (parliamentarism or mass-strike "revolution").

[Dean]

I plan on voting for Obama.

Oh, chimx, but I really did like you...

[Yehuda Stern]

I didn't say they were perfect, I said they're close to us in terms of goals

Oh really? Do they want to build a worldwide communist society? Do they want an end to capitalism at all? Do they want Israel to cease to exist? If not then I'm afraid no, they're not close to me at all in terms of goals.

[Lenin's Law]

The alternative is far worse. Nothing will change for the workers, but at least he supports gay rights and doesn't want to invade Iran.

Obama may not really offer many solutions, but he isn't going to make things that much worse.

Of course Obama offers solutions... Unfortunately, however those solutions will be change for the worse.

Obama takes the "splendid" tradition of pro-war dems Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson by openly stating how he would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, a nuclear powered nation. He is as firm as McCain is that Iran should "not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, it's unacceptable" and explicitly does not rule out military force as an option, he has called for sanctions against Venezuela, repeats the ruling class propaganda about "free markets" and the virtues of "privitazation" even with this recent Wall Street crisis and government bailout which proved the absurdity and gross hypocrisy of the claims of the free marketeers. On Russia, again his attitude is national-chauvanist, blames Russia solely for being the aggressor and favors NATO membership for Georgia, Poland and the other former Eastern bloc countries that Russia (correctly) interprets as a highly provactive act. On the Middle East, he repeats the same conventional politican mantras of "defending Israel at all costs" offers nothing for the Palestineans, nothing for real peace in the region.

In short, is just another corporate-packaged, big business politician being salivated upon by liberal members of the media who call his campaign about "change". In reality, he has received more campaign contributions from Wall Street than John McCain, the GOP candidate! Not easy to do! On foreign policy he is just as militant and aggressive as McCain is, and in some areas arguably more so.

Obama speaks for that section of the ruling class which regards Iraq as a strategic and tactical error and support sending US troops elsewhere. To show he is just as vicious and just as prepared to spread (working class) blood for US geo-political interests he matches if not exceeds McCain's militarist rhetoric and aggressive position with regards to Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan and elsewhere.

He is no alternative for the working class and for revolutionary socialists, especially those in the US, it is vitally important that as many people as possible hear this message.

[The Douche]

Of course Obama offers solutions... Unfortunately, however those solutions will be change for the worse.

Obama takes the "splendid" tradition of pro-war dems Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson by openly stating how he would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, a nuclear powered nation. He is as firm as McCain is that Iran should "not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, it's unacceptable" and explicitly does not rule out military force as an option, he has called for sanctions against Venezuela, repeats the ruling class propaganda about "free markets" and the virtues of "privitazation" even with this recent Wall Street crisis and government bailout which proved the absurdity and gross hypocrisy of the claims of the free marketeers. On Russia, again his attitude is national-chauvanist, blames Russia solely for being the aggressor and favors NATO membership for Georgia, Poland and the other former Eastern bloc countries that Russia (correctly) interprets as a highly provactive act. On the Middle East, he repeats the same conventional politican mantras of "defending Israel at all costs" offers nothing for the Palestineans, nothing for real peace in the region.

In short, is just another corporate-packaged, big business politician being salivated upon by liberal members of the media who call his campaign about "change". In reality, he has received more campaign contributions from Wall Street than John McCain, the GOP candidate! Not easy to do! On foreign policy he is just as militant and aggressive as McCain is, and in some areas arguably more so.

Obama speaks for that section of the ruling class which regards Iraq as a strategic and tactical error and support sending US troops elsewhere. To show he is just as vicious and just as prepared to spread (working class) blood for US geo-political interests he matches if not exceeds McCain's militarist rhetoric and aggressive position with regards to Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan and elsewhere.

He is no alternative for the working class and for revolutionary socialists, especially those in the US, it is vitally important that as many people as possible hear this message.

Word up! I have said this twice in the thread so far and it has been ignored. Obama is not better than McCain.

[MarxSchmarx]

Obama is the lesser of two evils. Period.

If you are an American voter and don't live in a solid red/blue state (e.g. http://www.electoral-vote.com), there is no good reason not to vote for Obama.

There are at least 4 reasons why Barack Obama is better than John McCain.

1. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary.
2. Card-check unionization.
3. Access to affordable health care.
4. Tax cuts.

Yes all these are piecemeal reforms. Yes the Democrats need a filibuster proof majority in the senate to enact them. Yes Obama's foreign policy is atrocious, yes he is a capitalist shrill, no he won't reverse all the damages done in the last eight years.

Of course we should have no illusions about how bad Obama will be. But let's face the facts. If McCain wins NONE of these issues that affect the American working class will be on the political agenda. And while incrementalism shouldn't be celebrated for its own sake, there is nothing "unleftist" about working to prevent the alternative of even more socially regressive policies.

Don't be lulled into thinking Obama is going to win anyway. People lie to pollsters and the "Bradley effect" suggests Obama is really at best dead even if not slightly behind.

Of course, if you are in a solidly Obama or McCain state, do whatever you want including drawing a hammer and sickle on the ballot. But otherwise, your vote might very well matter, and the assertion that it makes no difference whether Obama or McCain wins is silly.

[Small Geezer]

I read somewhere that Obama scored 100% on voting for pro-union legislation. That's not bad. Might give the organised working class the chance to strengthen and thus improve class consciousness.

[FreeFocus]

Let's be frank, an Obama victory would set the left back at least ten or fifteen years. The left has failed all these years because the logic is "oh, if we can't win, let's put in the person who can best co-opt us and kill our momentum."

[The Douche]

I cannot, in good conscious, vote for a person who is going to send me back on another tour of one of imperialist wars, or, for fucks sake, start one or two more of them.

And anybody who is willing to vote for (and by that action, endorse) a candidate who will do that should seriously reevaluate thier position as a "revolutionary" much less a "communist".

[Red Flag Rising]

I'm going to vote for Obama and hope the Viet Cong will get another shot at McCain.:thumbup:

[chegitz guevara]

I'm voting for me!

http://www.luzietti.com

[Prisoner#69]

Thinking about voting McBush just for shit and giggles. If he were to become elected, passed the gas in office and died, and his sage running mate were to become the most powerful human on earth, I'd kinda chuckle & be amused I helped cause mass chaos. :thumbup1:

[Plagueround]

Thinking about voting McBush just for shit and giggles. If he were to become elected, passed the gas in office and died, and his sage running mate were to become the most powerful human on earth, I'd kinda chuckle & be amused I helped cause mass chaos. :thumbup1:

The mass chaos will hurt the working class and the third world more than anyone. If you believe voting for McCain is an effective strategy for inciting revolution, I'll politely disagree...but if you want to vote for McCain "for teh lulz" in hopes Palin fucks things up, you are a piece of shit.

As for me, I'll likely go with the spoilage option as many of the people I know take the "if you didn't vote you have no say" road. It will allow me to get past that hurdle in their minds and continue conversations and actions instead of them thinking they've shut me down on that basis.

[Chapaev]

I do not vote in American elections because that would be inconsistent with my rejection of its rotten and corrupt political system. If I were living in another country, perhaps I would vote for a viable leftist party.

[Prisoner#69]

The mass chaos will hurt the working class and the third world more than anyone. If you believe voting for McCain is an effective strategy for inciting revolution, I'll politely disagree...but if you want to vote for McCain "for teh lulz" in hopes Palin fucks things up, you are a piece of shit.

I admit, both of those are reasons why I'm leaning towards voting McBush:wub:

The benefit of McBush/Palin in office for the Worker will pay off in the end much quicker than if Obama were to be elected. There will be sadness :crying: there will be war, there will be a bigger police state but honestly now, do you think the average worker will side with the revolution if these things don't happen sooner? Obama is just a weak dam for the inevitable and hence it's better to get it over with STAT. :thumbup1:

[Spartacist]

Obama.

[Comrade B]

A few people have said in response to my post that Obama supports continuation of patrols in Pakistan and is aggressively against the Russian leadership. Also it was mentioned that he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan.

To the Afghanistan post:
The troops to be sent to Afghanistan would be a portion of those from Iraq, no new soldiers. Afghanistan is already a mess, but the fighting is mostly between the US and Taliban, unlike in Iraq where ordinary people are taking up arms against the US. The Taliban is not a good group. I do not support the invasion of Afghanistan, but it would not be a victory for the workers or the people of Afghanistan if the religious extremist former leadership regained power. They have already shown what they will do to those who went out against their old rules a little while ago by killing the highest ranking female police officer in Afghanistan.

To Pakistan:
McCain wants to continue patrols in Pakistan too, he just wants to tell the Pakistani government to shut the fuck up before he continues them.
Obama wants to continue the patrols in Pakistan and ignore the Pakistani government, they are both absolutely horrible and evil ideas.

On Russia:
McCain has threatened Russia quite regularly and previously said that he would have given military support to Georgia. He is more aggressive than Obama on this one because Obama at least says that he wants to negotiate with Russia.

And now to some other issues

Cuba:
Obama has spoken of negotiations with Cuba and easing up on restrictions.
McCain has turned the claim by Fidel Castro that Obama was the most progressive candidate in the primaries into a negative statement and created advertising against Obama saying that he has Fidel's support.
From this I think we can assume that McCain is no big fan of Fidel.

Iran:
McCain regularly speaks of killing Iranians, not necessarily the Iranian government or military always either. In one speech it was mentioned that Iran was the #1 importer of US tobacco. McCain responded with "Maybe thats a way of killing them." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/mccains-latest-iran-dud-m_n_111553.html)
Obama has said nothing really of killing Iranians, and when you don't mention a country at all, you typically don't intend on bombing it.

[Lenin's Law]

I cannot, in good conscious, vote for a person who is going to send me back on another tour of one of imperialist wars, or, for fucks sake, start one or two more of them.

And anybody who is willing to vote for (and by that action, endorse) a candidate who will do that should seriously reevaluate thier position as a "revolutionary" much less a "communist".

Hear Hear.

It seems some people missed the last 40 years of US politics..voting for the "lesser evil" has brought us nowhere! If anything the Democrats have moved closer and closer to the right, to the Republicans where the difference is virtually indistinguable. Some people would have the working class analyze the technicalities of bourgeois electoral politics like they should give a shit. The focus should be on class consciousness and breaking with the two big business parties to build a mass party of labor. This will never, ever happen if leftists and so called "revolutionaries" shake in fear of the evil Republican and urge everyone to vote for the Democrat.

It hasn't worked in the last 40 years and it won't work in the next. The rulilng class must be laughing very hard when it comes to a site like this and hears people advocate voting for Obama.

[Lenin's Law]

A few people have said in response to my post that Obama supports continuation of patrols in Pakistan .

No. Obama has actually said that he would "take out targets" in Pakistan with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. That's a clear violation of Pakistan's sovreignty and thus risking a war with a nuclear powered nation. In this respect, he may have gone even further than McCain.




To the Afghanistan post:
The troops to be sent to Afghanistan would be a portion of those from Iraq, no new soldiers.


Not so.



Democrat Barack Obama writes in an opinion piece Monday in The New York Times that he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan.
Obama says there's a need for "more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."
He says the additional troops for Afghanistan would come in part by redeploying combat brigades out of Iraq by the summer of 2010.





The Taliban is not a good group. I do not support the invasion of Afghanistan, but it would not be a victory for the workers or the people of Afghanistan if the religious extremist former leadership regained power.


A victory for imperialism and the installation of an American puppet government would in no way be a victory for the workers. It is precisely American policies , American occupations and American militarism that is increasing support for Islamic fundamentalism and cause "ordinary people" to fight against it.


McCain wants to continue patrols in Pakistan too, .

No shit. McCain/Obama want to do a lot of the same things "too." Obama himself said he agreed with McCain 11 times in their recent debate.




McCain has threatened Russia quite regularly and previously said that he would have given military support to Georgia. He is more aggressive than Obama on this one because Obama at least says that he wants to negotiate with Russia.


Semantics. Both have blamed Russia for the conflict, both have called it the aggressor, both have called for NATO membership of Georgia.
And now to some other issues


Cuba

Yes, Cuba. Let's talk about the Democratic Party record on Cuba shall we?

- Who is the party that launched the Bay of Pigs?
- That imposed sanctions on Cuba?
- That started Operation Mongoose?
- Which President signed the "Cuban Readjustment Act?"
- Which President signed the "Helms Burton Law?"




Obama has said nothing really of killing Iranians, and when you don't mention a country at all, you typically don't intend on bombing it


Obama has said that it is "unacceptable" that Iran have nuclear weapons and that a military option is "on the table." He concurred with McCain in the debates when it came to Iran and did offer a shred, not even a token, of resistance to McCain policy. In fact, he embraced it.

More important fact: Obama has received more money from Wall Street than John McCain. He's stated that Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson has done a "great job" that he confers with him everyday on economic matters and that he would consider keeping him. I hope you're still not naive enough to think he's going to stand up and fight for working people.

Obama has to be one of the biggest frauds in US Presidential history with his "agent of change" BS. Never has someone spoke more about "change" entirely in the abstract but yet remained so thoroughly conventional and reactionary in his political thinking. He doesn't even try to be a populist. For any socialist much less a "revolutionary" to give any kind of support to this corporate-created entity to fool the working class into thinking his tired liberal policies could be anything but "real change" would be atrocious.

[Mindtoaster]

The mass chaos will hurt the working class and the third world more than anyone. If you believe voting for McCain is an effective strategy for inciting revolution, I'll politely disagree...but if you want to vote for McCain "for teh lulz" in hopes Palin fucks things up, you are a piece of shit.

As for me, I'll likely go with the spoilage option as many of the people I know take the "if you didn't vote you have no say" road. It will allow me to get past that hurdle in their minds and continue conversations and actions instead of them thinking they've shut me down on that basis.

Hmmm. Well, it could be worth voting for McCain because if the economy implodes it will be at the beginning of the next canidates presidency.

It would be nice to have the public angry at the right wing instead of what they perceive as the "left" (Obama)

[Comrade B]

No. Obama has actually said that he would "take out targets" in Pakistan with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. That's a clear violation of Pakistan's sovreignty and thus risking a war with a nuclear powered nation. In this respect, he may have gone even further than McCain.
By targets they mean Al Quida members. In other words, continue going into Pakistan and killing people - nothing new.
Bush has already been doing this without Pakistan's approval.
McCain has supported Bush on 90% of issues, only really disagreeing on torture. If you really buy his bull shit about working with the Pakistani government you are a fool.


send at least two more combat brigades
I am not exactly familiar with military terminology, how many brigades are in Iraq presently?


He says the additional troops for Afghanistan would come in part by redeploying combat brigades out of Iraq by the summer of 2010.
The full US military isn't deployed at this moment in Iraq, not even 50%.


A victory for imperialism and the installation of an American puppet government would in no way be a victory for the workers. It is precisely American policies , American occupations and American militarism that is increasing support for Islamic fundamentalism and cause "ordinary people" to fight against it.

I have to tell you on this one, I would prefer to live under shitty American capitalist oppression rather than shitty religious fundamentalist oppression.


No shit. McCain/Obama want to do a lot of the same things "too." Obama himself said he agreed with McCain 11 times in their recent debate.
The majority of the times he was agreeing with McCain were on the Economy. They are capitalists. Of course they will agree on this. My point is that even if Obama is bad, McCain is still worse. Even if Obama gets worse in our eyes daily, it is because, at least I, had higher expectations of him and am becoming increasingly disappointed in him, while I already expected McCain to be a pig.


Semantics. Both have blamed Russia for the conflict, both have called it the aggressor, both have called for NATO membership of Georgia.
McCain pledged troops to the region. That is not changed. Obama stated that he would negotiate with the country.


Yes, Cuba. Let's talk about the Democratic Party record on Cuba shall we?

- Who is the party that launched the Bay of Pigs?
- That imposed sanctions on Cuba?
- That started Operation Mongoose?
- Which President signed the "Cuban Readjustment Act?"
- Which President signed the "Helms Burton Law?"

Would you like me to list the things the Republican party has done in history against Cuba? I believe under Reagan alone over 150 assassination attempts were planned on Fidel Castro.


Obama has said that it is "unacceptable" that Iran have nuclear weapons and that a military option is "on the table."
American politicians are supposed to say this about anything or they will be called "soft."


He concurred with McCain in the debates when it came to Iran and did offer a shred, not even a token, of resistance to McCain policy. In fact, he embraced it.
I don't know what debate you were watching, Obama said that he would meet with the leadership. Typically you don't meet with leadership and say, "afternoon, fuck you and listen to me."


More important fact: Obama has received more money from Wall Street than John McCain. He's stated that Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson has done a "great job" that he confers with him everyday on economic matters and that he would consider keeping him. I hope you're still not naive enough to think he's going to stand up and fight for working people.
McCain recently blamed the democrats for the fail of the idiotic bailout plan.

[spice756]

But he (Obama) does approve of, and encourages a new troop "surge" in Afghanistan, and encourages illegal intrusions of US forces into Pakistani territory, and the engagement of the "enemy" on said territory.


No way would the US people allow other war.May be the government but not the people.Even some conservative web sites are anti-Iraq war now.And are sorry they support the war.

Obama is more left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ9Io6Qe-k0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMW_48tZ2rM&feature=related

[MarxSchmarx]

Let's be frank, an Obama victory would set the left back at least ten or fifteen years. The left has failed all these years because the logic is "oh, if we can't win, let's put in the person who can best co-opt us and kill our momentum."

The serious American left has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING left to lose. All the IMF and Iraq War protests and alternative media projects have at best stagnated and at worst fizzled. Setting them back 10 to 15 years might actually improve their condition!! :laugh:


I cannot, in good conscious, vote for a person who is going to send me back on another tour of one of imperialist wars, or, for fucks sake, start one or two more of them.

Where do you live? Because in a close state, if you don't vote for Obama, you are effectively helping ("endorsing"?) McCain. If you think your deployment will be onerous under Obama, wait until that other nutjob and his war-criminal advisors are calling the shots.

[BraneMatter]

It seems some people missed the last 40 years of US politics..voting for the "lesser evil" has brought us nowhere! If anything the Democrats have moved closer and closer to the right, to the Republicans where the difference is virtually indistinguable. Some people would have the working class analyze the technicalities of bourgeois electoral politics like they should give a shit. The focus should be on class consciousness and breaking with the two big business parties to build a mass party of labor. This will never, ever happen if leftists and so called "revolutionaries" shake in fear of the evil Republican and urge everyone to vote for the Democrat.

It hasn't worked in the last 40 years and it won't work in the next. The rulilng class must be laughing very hard when it comes to a site like this and hears people advocate voting for Obama.

I agree with you that voting for the supposed lesser of two evils has not proved a successful tactic in promoting a revolutionary consciousness in the United States.

But what has? Sometimes I think we were more successful in the Sixties in moving people towards revolution, at least we got them into the streets, but in the end it all fell apart and we ended up with thirty plus years of rule by the right wing.

Our own disunity proved our worst enemy. I also think we were naive in our estimations of the enemy, and of what we were up against. Revolutions just don't fall in your lap, and we failed to organize a united front in significant enough numbers.

Why has a revolutionary consciousness not developed among the U.S. working class?

We have had socialist and communist candidates, but yet there is still the two party stranglehold. Why no success of any of these candidates?

[spice756]

Why has a revolutionary consciousness not developed among the U.S. working class?


Just look at those bs video clips I posted above.And I would have no problem finding more.It is your country that is anti-socialism to the excessive degree along with a severe phobia of socialism .

You just do not have mass base support for socialism even in your degenerate country .It looks like your country has to hit rock bottom.And even than your mass base will probably support fascism has it closer to the ultra conservative views you have now.

And for the people who tell me fascism is not posable all it takes is 5 or 10 people to brainwash the mass in long lines buying bread with a suitcase full of money do to your hyperinflation to buy bread.

Note social democrats in there eyes are evile and socialism is hell for them.Hak even liberals party to them are evile communits.


Just look at your 60's red scare.They did this in schools!! Well sure they do not do this now but still..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs&feature=related)

[JorgeLobo]

Degenerate? No - that would describe the effete, socialist wanta be's of the EU. Degenerating? Granted, effeminate weenie's like Obama will certainly accelerate that.

But at this point, the US is still the world's leader.

[Sprinkles]

Degenerate? No - that would describe the effete, socialist wanta be's of the EU. Degenerating? Granted, effeminate weenie's like Obama will certainly accelerate that.

But at this point, the US is still the world's leader.


You're an idiot if you think the European Union is socialist and your sexist comment about Obama being effeminate probably indicates you shouldn't be posting here at all.

As for the OP, voting and parliamentarism means resorting to the means used by the bourgeoisie in its class struggle, the working class should resort to their own methods of proletarian class struggle.

There's a reason more than 40 percent of the American electorate isn't registred and doesn't vote.

[The Douche]

No way would the US people allow other war.May be the government but not the people.Even some conservative web sites are anti-Iraq war now.And are sorry they support the war.

Obama is more left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ9Io6Qe-k0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMW_48tZ2rM&feature=related

The people wouldn't allow it? Just what do you think "the people" would do to stop it? You think that if Bush sent cruise missles into Iran tonight that there would be mobs of people storming the white house? get real:laugh:

Not to mention the fact that a lot of people really "believe" in Obama, he almost has a cult of personality. I honestly believe that if he went to war with Pakistan or Iran (neither suggestions are to outrageous) that the majority of the population would support it, because they honestly believe the Obama can do no wrong.


Where do you live? Because in a close state, if you don't vote for Obama, you are effectively helping ("endorsing"?) McCain. If you think your deployment will be onerous under Obama, wait until that other nutjob and his war-criminal advisors are calling the shots.

Both of them want to continue the war in Afghanistan, both of them have spoken quite frankly about military force used (in violation of international law) in Pakistan. As a soldier who does not want to go to war again I cannot give my support to either candidate. As a revolutionary who seeks the overthrow of the very system the both of them seek to perpetuate I cannot give them my support.

[spice756]

The people wouldn't allow it? Just what do you think "the people" would do to stop it? You think that if Bush sent cruise missles into Iran tonight that there would be mobs of people storming the white house? get real:laugh:



Alot of US people are getting fed up with wars and world conflicts that do not go any where.There would have to be other 911 attack or some legit threat to go to war.

[Mecha_Shiva]

I don't know if I'm going to vote yet or not. I kinda feel as if it's not even worth the gas it'll take to get there. I live in New York, which is alwaaaayyys a blue state, so it doesn't matter if I vote. Our electoral votes are going to Obama. Not that theres anyone else I'd rather see them go to. But it would be the first presidential election I could vote in, so I would be a little sad if I missed it...
I guess I would rather see Obama win, not because I like him better then McCain or anyhting. To me they are all just politicians looking out first for themselves, secondly their party, then about 8349874983473298 places down the actual citizens. Just because I'm scared to hell that if McCain wins, he'll croak right away and Palin will be in charge and I HATE that crazy *****. And him croaking right away is a huge possibiltity, I mean he's had like 2 strokes and skin cancer I believe? And he's already like what, 80?
I do vote in local elections, though sometimes that is even more frustrating, if anyone knows the ridiculousness that is the government in Erie County. The politicians here are the worst, and people keep voting for the same bastards over and over. Western New York is pretty much gone to hell. I think recently Buffalo was voted the 2nd poorest city in the nation, only beat out by Detroit. I'm not sure exactly what the cepcifications to be the poorest city were though.

[Ultra-Violence]

Im voting but not for any canidates but for the props and laws that they wanna pass here in the state of California thats about it

[The Douche]

Alot of US people are getting fed up with wars and world conflicts that do not go any where.There would have to be other 911 attack or some legit threat to go to war.

You are out of your element comrade. I am an american, I have served in the military, worked full time, and am currently a student, I have seen people from all walks of life in this country and there is nobody, outside of a vast minority of radicals who are interested in stopping the war. (except for the one in Iraq)

If the government wants another war then they will get it, I'm sure every US citizen on this forum will agree.

[Plagueround]

You are out of your element comrade. I am an american, I have served in the military, worked full time, and am currently a student, I have seen people from all walks of life in this country and there is nobody, outside of a vast minority of radicals who are interested in stopping the war. (except for the one in Iraq)

If the government wants another war then they will get it, I'm sure every US citizen on this forum will agree.

Agreed.

Most people are against the war in Iraq, but if you listen to what they say about it, it's because we're spending too much money there and we aren't getting quick results. A lot of mention about the 4,000+ soldiers that died (which sucks, don't get me wrong), but hardly anyone ever talks about the 2 million and counting Iraqi civilians that have died and the millions more that have been displaced. Most Americans hate the Iraq war because it goes along with hating Bush...not many of them see how similar Afghanistan is and will continue to be.

I've considered moving, but I don't even know where I would go. It's not as if I can truly escape even if I did.

[MarxSchmarx]

Both of them want to continue the war in Afghanistan, both of them have spoken quite frankly about military force used (in violation of international law) in Pakistan. As a soldier who does not want to go to war again I cannot give my support to either candidate. As a revolutionary who seeks the overthrow of the very system the both of them seek to perpetuate I cannot give them my support.Unless you are in the covert special forces (in which case for the sake of your job you should stop posting here), almost certainly you won't be sent to Pakistan under either. As for Afghanistan, well, Obama is no better but if the Americans pull out of Iraq you won't have to go to Afghanistan as often.

Moreover, only McCain sings of "bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran", claims "we are all Georgians" and gives a nod nod wink wink at crossing Panmunjon.

I don't doubt your life as a soldier sucks ass. But it will suck even more under a McCain administration. If McCain gets elected an you're based in a "swing state", do kindly send us a postcard from Tehran or Cochabamba.

[The Douche]

Unless you are in the covert special forces (in which case for the sake of your job you should stop posting here), almost certainly you won't be sent to Pakistan under either. As for Afghanistan, well, Obama is no better but if the Americans pull out of Iraq you won't have to go to Afghanistan as often.

Moreover, only McCain sings of "bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran", claims "we are all Georgians" and gives a nod nod wink wink at crossing Panmunjon.

I don't doubt your life as a soldier sucks ass. But it will suck even more under a McCain administration. If McCain gets elected an you're based in a "swing state", do kindly send us a postcard from Tehran or Cochabamba.

No I'm no super-soldier ala chuck norris...but itd probably be pretty cool if I was. I am in a long range survielance unit though, so these type of missions could potentially effect me.

Either way, crossing into Pakistan violates international law, and if we send a team over there to go raid some village, and a pakistani patrol happens to be in the area they have the right to engage the Americans, this would quite possible trigger a war.

Honestly, as a soldier life would probably be better under McCain as I could forsee a higher national defense budget which would provide better living conditions, better food, better equipment, and maybe better pay. But I don't really identify as a "soldier". (obviously if I'm on this website I am not identifying with that tradition) You really are buying the bourgeois bullshit about Obama. He detests Iran just as much as McCain, and Biden said last week that he is "Israel's best friend in congress" or something to that efect. A vote for Obama is a vote for me to do another tour, and a very serious possibility of a vote for another war.

Can't be justified.

[spice756]

I know conservatives and been to conservatives web sites they support war ,but not now it going no where and cost too much money.And US army troops are getting killed.

The only way the going go to Iran if they pump fear into US people he has nukes.

[progressive_lefty]

I am Australian so can't. Obama's is not at all perfect, but I can't bare to see McCain in office.

[The Douche]

I know conservatives and been to conservatives web sites they support war ,but not now it going no where and cost too much money.And US army troops are getting killed.

The only way the going go to Iran if they pump fear into US people he has nukes.

No all we need to do to go into Iran is walk across the damn border.

I would still like you to make it clear just how "the people" would stop another war?

[spice756]

No all we need to do to go into Iran is walk across the damn border.

I would still like you to make it clear just how "the people" would stop another war?


By protesting and calling the congressman.And there will be conservatives there not just some minority hippies and green-peace.

[The Douche]

By protesting and calling the congressman.And there will be conservatives there not just some minority hippies and green-peace.

Hundreds of thousands protested the war in Iraq all over the country, millions all over the world, and not just from the radical left, it included the liberal left and the traditional conservatives from the beginning.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Hundreds of thousand protested the vietnam war, including organized labor on a massive scale, the protests were a hundred times more militant than the ones we have today, and they were much more common. It still didn't stop the vietnam war.

You are wrong, you will find nobody to agree with you on this site because you are displaying clearly bourgeois tendencies.

You really think protests and phone calls will stop a war? That doesn't sound absurd to you? Obviously you don't understand the basis for wars, and why they are fought in capitalism.

[Kassad]

About 10 months before my 18th birthday. If I could, I would vote for Ralph Nader. The revolution won't just happen overnight, thus why a slow fluctuation towards worker's advocates like Nader is a glimmer of hope for the future.

[Yehuda Stern]

How is Nader a worker's advocate?

[The Douche]

How is Nader a worker's advocate?

Cause he's like, y'know, totally, for the like, the environment and not the corporations, maaaaaaaaan.

Honestly if you absolutely must vote, then at least vote for a socialist candidate.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Voting is political morphine, it deadens the pain every four years.

[JimmyJazz]

Cause he's like, y'know, totally, for the like, the environment and not the corporations, maaaaaaaaan.

Are you really this dumb? Nader can't force workers to want workers' control.

Also why are you being a jerk to a new poster?

[The Douche]

Are you really this dumb? Nader can't force workers to want workers' control.

Is this directed at me? What are you even saying in that statement?


Also why are you being a jerk to a new poster?

Some people are just jerks in general.

[JimmyJazz]

Some people are just jerks in general.

Ok. Well maybe you should make an exception for people with 11 posts. Especially when they have already advanced beyond lots of people who have hundreds of posts and still think voting Obama is a great idea.

[The Douche]

Ok. Well maybe you should make an exception for people with 11 posts. Especially when they have already advanced beyond lots of people who have hundreds of posts and still think voting Obama is a great idea.

Because voting Nader is a better one?

[spice756]

Hundreds of thousands protested the war in Iraq all over the country, millions all over the world, and not just from the radical left, it included the liberal left and the traditional conservatives from the beginning

They are now !! But that was not the case before.

And the US are on a time line of slowing moving out every month.At least that is what they say.And the war is not really helping the capitalists.

Bush wanted to go to Iran and North Korea long ago.But politically they can't.So he is going to allow the next administration deal with it.

[The Douche]

They are now !! But that was not the case before.

And the US are on a time line of slowing moving out every month.At least that is what they say.And the war is not really helping the capitalists.

Bush wanted to go to Iran and North Korea long ago.But politically they can't.So he is going to allow the next administration deal with it.

Actually the anti-war movement is largely dead, it reached its height in 2005, two years after the start of the war, nonetheless hundreds of thousands still spoke out against it before it started. All of which is irrelevant because all liberals still seek a continuation of, and escalation of, the war in Afghanistan, which is no less imperialist than the war in Iraq.

The US is not slowly moving out, nor have I heard that claim. The surge forces have just about finished up thier tours, hence the lower numbers. But there is no actual pull out going on. I have been there, I have seen the installations, they are building bases which bear a striking resemblence to permanent military installations. In some areas they allow the Iraqis to take more control, in others they shut down the Iraqi programs.

The war does benefit the capitalists, first of all, all of the war (logistically) is run by a company by the name of KBR, Kellogg, Brown & Root, which was, until recently a subsidy of the Haliburton corporation. They run the bases, the movement of troops, and the movement of supplies. They essentially coordinate everything in the war that is not strategic or tactical. Ask any veteran who KBR is, and they will tell you. The second reason why the war is good for the capitalists is that we are able to install a pro-american government in that country which is capable of threatening Iran, and ensures that we have a US friendly government in control of a large supply of oil. How dare you say this war doesn't benefit the capitalists? Do you think that because the war has caused a down turn in the US economy that it hurts capitalists? That hurts the American worker a million times more than the American capitalist.

You're right, the next administration will deal with Iran, thank you for proving my point.

I challenge you to make it clear that you are in fact a revolutionary! You seem more like a left wing liberal to me.

[spice756]

Yes I should have said the military industrial complex will profit on the wars.But every day they are in the war the US government is more and more in debt and not really helping the US economy.

Than why did Bush not go to Iran and North Korea ? What is he holding them back on that? I know he talked about going there but the US people where protesting big time and he back away.

[The Douche]

Yes I should have said the military industrial complex will profit on the wars.But every day they are in the war the US government is more and more in debt and not really helping the US economy.

The military industrial complex... please define that, oil companies do not fit the traditional definition of it. It would usually refer to the military itself and defense contractors, which the oil companies are not, and KBR, well the arguement could be made, but they are not what is traditionally defines as a "defense contractor".


Than why did Bush not go to Iran and North Korea ? What is he holding them back on that?

The US military is not capable of it.


I know he talked about going there but the US people where protesting big time and he back away.

Untrue. He never announced that he had any concrete plans to attack either country, only that he considered them "enemies" of some sort.

You have serious delusion about protest. It doesn't mean shit. Protest won't stop a war, get rid of that illusion.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You have serious delusion about protest. It doesn't mean shit. Protest won't stop a war, get rid of that illusion.
It all depends on the protest; Washington and New York have seen thousand of them and so it doesnt mean much.

In my sophomore and junior years, I was the sole protester against the war in my school (mind you, I go to school in Justin, TX and though I love it you've gotta have balls to be radical in this area). I picketed during my lunch block and actually got people asking me what was going on and why I was against the war. I know that I stopped people from enlisting and in that way, threw a monkey-wrench into the machine.

[spice756]

The military industrial complex... please define that, oil companies do not fit the traditional definition of it. It would usually refer to the military itself and defense contractors, which the oil companies are not, and KBR, well the arguement could be made, but they are not what is traditionally defines as a "defense contractor".


Well from reading I have been doing they use collateral damage to profit off of..Like blowing up bridge,house ,power station,road ,factory ,store so on.Get US businesses there to fix the damage and send them the bill to pay for it.

Than is just one way they profit.The problem with the oil is it was state-run and the US did not like that:lol::lol: They wanted a US private businesses than state-run.




The US military is not capable of it.


What? The US military not big enough??



Untrue. He never announced that he had any concrete plans to attack either country, only that he considered them "enemies" of some sort.


He lost public support so he was careful what he was saying and that is why he did not say it out fully.But the left know what he really was like.

Hak if Bush had his way he would be gone to Cuba now.And we would have a Cuba war.

[The Douche]

Well from reading I have been doing they use collateral damage to profit off of..Like blowing up bridge,house ,power station,road ,factory ,store so on.Get US businesses there to fix the damage and send them the bill to pay for it.

Than is just one way they profit.The problem with the oil is it was state-run and the US did not like that:lol::lol: They wanted a US private businesses than state-run.


So you see how the war benefits the capitalists now?


What? The US military not big enough??

No, it is not. It takes a whoooole lot of soldiers to fight a war, and even more to kick off an invasion.


He lost public support so he was careful what he was saying and that is why he did not say it out fully.But the left know what he really was like.

Hak if Bush had his way he would be gone to Cuba now.And we would have a Cuba war.

But that isn't just Bush, that is the bourgeoise as a class, which includes Obama. You think Obama doesn't oppose Cuba? He's talked about Venezuela being a rogue nation in both presidentital debates, and he's mentioned Cuba as well.

[spice756]

No, it is not. It takes a whoooole lot of soldiers to fight a war, and even more to kick off an invasion.



Well because they are in Iraq and Afghanistan and short on troops.They (A) put the draft in or (B) pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and go to Iran or North Korea.

Most likely in 5 or 10 years from now they will go to Iran or North Korea.




But that isn't just Bush, that is the bourgeoise as a class, which includes Obama. You think Obama doesn't oppose Cuba?


I don't think Obama is war happy like Bush.And he may be more left than he is saying to just not sound like a socialist.

I love the quote her saying I never felt patriot to now.He may be more left than he is saying to get in.

People in the US paint him has being a socialist:lol: I gusss to them that is socialism.

[mikelepore]

Another option is to vote in some local elections that are held at the same time, perhaps school board or dog catcher or something, and leave "President of the United States" blank.

[The Douche]

Well because they are in Iraq and Afghanistan and short on troops.They (A) put the draft in or (B) pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and go to Iran or North Korea.

Most likely in 5 or 10 years from now they will go to Iran or North Korea.

They won't institute a draft, that very well could cause extremely high levels of violence in the US in resistence to the war. Possibly even create a revolutionary situation. Pull out of Iraq and go to war somewhere else? Thank you! That is what Obama wants to do, he wants to pull troops out of Iraq, reinforce Afghanistan, then violate the national sovreignty of Pakistan, which, odds are, will create a war. So the war would probably be there, regardless, freeing those troops up from Iraq opens up the possibility for another war.

I won't make predeictions like you have. I think North Korea is pretty unlikely, and that Iran is more likely to succumb to the CIA than the army.


I don't think Obama is war happy like Bush.And he may be more left than he is saying to just not sound like a socialist.

I love the quote her saying I never felt patriot to now.He may be more left than he is saying to get in.

People in the US paint him has being a socialist:lol: I gusss to them that is socialism

This approach is fundamentally liberal. It is not either Bush nor Obama who is "war happy", it is the capitalists who require a war in order to secure the oil in the region, and they will get their way, whether it is a democrat or a republican in office.

Its not the man, its the system of control. Obama will not put an end to the system which creates these wars, he won't even try, he has a vested interest in that system. He is a member of the bourgeoise and will act accordingly.

[Kassad]

How is Nader a worker's advocate?

He's not the kind of worker's advocate that a Communist/Socialist would hope for, but he advocated benefits for workers, a living wage and a crack-down on corporate crime. All of these, along with Nader's other policies for a revolutionary healthcare system, would support workers. Nader would be a short-term transition towards the radical change we hope for. Honestly, I'm stunned at the hostility towards Nader. It's disappointing that people seem to think that we're going to get a Socialist elected with the current state of affairs. We need to show people that leftist policies are positive things and then the movement will grow much larger.

[Kukulofori]

Both candidates seem pretty shit to me. McCain has obvious issues, but I kinda sorta approve of his plan on schooling but not really. Obama likes health care, which is goodk, but with him and Biden having such extensive anti-workers' state leanings and records...

Writing in Moore.

[The Douche]

He's not the kind of worker's advocate that a Communist/Socialist would hope for, but he advocated benefits for workers, a living wage and a crack-down on corporate crime. All of these, along with Nader's other policies for a revolutionary healthcare system, would support workers. Nader would be a short-term transition towards the radical change we hope for. Honestly, I'm stunned at the hostility towards Nader. It's disappointing that people seem to think that we're going to get a Socialist elected with the current state of affairs. We need to show people that leftist policies are positive things and then the movement will grow much larger.

Do you think Nader will ever be elected?

Wouldn't it be just as likely to elect the SPUSA candidate? So why not focus your energy towards a revolutionary program instead of a reformist one? (but better still, why waste time with electoral campaigns when we could be the new society on our own)

[Kassad]

Do you think Nader will ever be elected?

Wouldn't it be just as likely to elect the SPUSA candidate? So why not focus your energy towards a revolutionary program instead of a reformist one? (but better still, why waste time with electoral campaigns when we could be the new society on our own)

Well, no, but do you think Moore will be elected? Or any proper candidates this time around? No, but unless we begin to start voting principles instead of based on who will win, we will continue to elect candidates who will harm us.

And in all honesty, electing a reformer like Nader would serve as a short term move to the left. For a socialist to get elected to the presidency in the blink of an eye, we would see a radical separation of ideologies and desruction. This revolution in American will not be fast, in my opinion. With the current state of affairs, change cannot come the radically quick way we wish it could. Hopefully that state of affairs changes and maybe this economic turbulence will direct more people towards sound economics that we support.

[spice756]

They won't institute a draft, that very well could cause extremely high levels of violence in the US in resistence to the war. Possibly even create a revolutionary situation. Pull out of Iraq and go to war somewhere else? Thank you! That is what Obama wants to do, he wants to pull troops out of Iraq, reinforce Afghanistan, then violate the national sovreignty of Pakistan, which, odds are, will create a war. So the war would probably be there, regardless, freeing those troops up from Iraq opens up the possibility for another war.

I won't make predeictions like you have. I think North Korea is pretty unlikely, and that Iran is more likely to succumb to the CIA than the army.




What normally they do is use fear propadada to justify war.And get the mass base support.

They are using fear propadada that Iran has nukes and is danger to the world.Other fear propadada is North Korea has nuclear weapons and danger to the world.

The Cuba propadada is go and turn it to capitalism.

The government puts a war like frame of mind and use Patriotism and nationalism for goverment support.

[which doctor]

No way I'm voting. The way the electoral college works, my vote as an individual really doesn't matter. In fact, I kinda want to get a sticker that says "I didn't vote today", just to piss off all the people who will come and lecture me about how much my vote counts, blah, blah, blah. I can't wait for this election to get over with so I can stop hearing about it and when Obama fails to live up to his promises I can stop hearing about people praising him.

[Comrade Stern]

screw voting...i dont even make like 1/1000000 of a difference :thumbdown:

[spice756]

What is wrong with the electoral college ?

[Kukulofori]

It's not one person, one vote.

If you don't live in a large swing state and vote for one wing of America's capitalist empire party, your vote does not matter. Period.

[The Douche]

Well, no, but do you think Moore will be elected? Or any proper candidates this time around? No, but unless we begin to start voting principles instead of based on who will win, we will continue to elect candidates who will harm us.

And in all honesty, electing a reformer like Nader would serve as a short term move to the left. For a socialist to get elected to the presidency in the blink of an eye, we would see a radical separation of ideologies and desruction. This revolution in American will not be fast, in my opinion. With the current state of affairs, change cannot come the radically quick way we wish it could. Hopefully that state of affairs changes and maybe this economic turbulence will direct more people towards sound economics that we support.

No I don't think Moore will be elected because the bourgeoise will not allow thier system to be destroyed within itself. They won't let a radical candidate win, if one did and it was by a margin that they couldn't just lie about, then they'd just declare martial law or something.

So you advocate voting on principles, and then you advocate voting for Nader? You said those words yourself..."until we start voting on principles" and then you advocate voting for Nader. So you're not a revolutionary?


What normally they do is use fear propadada to justify war.And get the mass base support.

They are using fear propadada that Iran has nukes and is danger to the world.Other fear propadada is North Korea has nuclear weapons and danger to the world.

The Cuba propadada is go and turn it to capitalism.

The government puts a war like frame of mind and use Patriotism and nationalism for goverment support.

But you think Obama opposes this?

[Kassad]

I see Nader as a transitional candidate. I doubt seriously that this nation will just decide to warp their decision making process from authoritarian candidates to socialist ones. A slow transition, such as one through Ralph Nader, would show people how well left-wing policies work in our current system, thus opening the floodgates to even better candidates.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Instant run-off voting would be a good measure to kick third parties into the top. Unfortunately, the most popular options there are Ralph Nader, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party being very right-oriented; it's effectively cut out even its central base by nominating Bob Barr.

[Kassad]

Bob Barr, coming from the experience of talking to many on the Libertarian Right, has alienated most of his supporters due to his atrocious voting record, his not-so-right wing policies concerning free trade and his despicable attitude towards Ron Paul. He will not get much.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Another option is to vote in some local elections that are held at the same time, perhaps school board or dog catcher or something, and leave "President of the United States" blank.
Local elections are worth voting in; helps keep the local taxes down:)

[The Douche]

I see Nader as a transitional candidate. I doubt seriously that this nation will just decide to warp their decision making process from authoritarian candidates to socialist ones. A slow transition, such as one through Ralph Nader, would show people how well left-wing policies work in our current system, thus opening the floodgates to even better candidates.

So you think by saving capitalism people will come to realise the need for its destruction?

Thats what social democrats do, they regulate capitalism to a point where it is very tolerable. Social democrats and fascists are the opposite ends of the same movement, and that is bourgeois efforts to save thier system.

Its all or nothing, there can be no in between. Organize for revolution, you do realise that if you put time and energy into getting reform capitalists in power then that is less time and energy being spent on making revolution?

[Dust Bunnies]

I believe in revolution, yet, we probably can't do it for the next decade. (Unless there is a major event that would change this)

So, for the time being, while we gather up people to the cause, we can atleast try to improve the quality of life for people.

If I could vote I would vote Green to protest the so called "2 party system".

[spice756]

I see Nader as a transitional candidate. I doubt seriously that this nation will just decide to warp their decision making process from authoritarian candidates to socialist ones. A slow transition, such as one through Ralph Nader, would show people how well left-wing policies work in our current system, thus opening the floodgates to even better candidates


What I bold above is not true.A slow move to socialism or social democradic will not work in the US .There is almost culture personality in the US that big goverment is bad ,social programs,welfare money,tax money,state run stuff so on is bad.

They like small goverment,charity for the poor than goverment welfare ,private sector,low tax money, less government control , more free-market ,more police ,big army and more strick laws.

They blame all economic problems on the goverment not capitalism and that more free-market less problems.An that big goverment and government control of the free-market is bad .Again this is a almost a culture personality in the US and I don't know how to fix it than allow the US to falls apart.

You can say for sure if some thing goes bad they will blame it on socialists and most US people think that Obama is too radical.


The US has to play the capitalism game by capitalism rules than socialism and fall apart this will be the catalyst to revolution.People will see that small government and free-market does not work.And not having social programs,welfare money and state run stuff is bad.

Putting a band aid on the problem with just delay the revolution and just swing from social democradic to the right and black to social democradic to the right again and so on and so on.It will not work and do to the culture personality in the US just blame the problems on social democradic and socialism than capitalism and the free-market .


The revolution is the only way in the US and will only come from major economic crash do to the culture personality and counterrevolution.

The question It will go to socialism or do to the culture personality and counterrevolution it could go to fascism.And the US government is already paving the way for fascism like the UK.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So you think by saving capitalism people will come to realise the need for its destruction?

Thats what social democrats do, they regulate capitalism to a point where it is very tolerable. Social democrats and fascists are the opposite ends of the same movement, and that is bourgeois efforts to save thier system.

Its all or nothing, there can be no in between. Organize for revolution, you do realise that if you put time and energy into getting reform capitalists in power then that is less time and energy being spent on making revolution?

All or nothing has never gained any movement success.

[Comrade Stern]

I believe in revolution, yet, we probably can't do it for the next decade. (Unless there is a major event that would change this)

So, for the time being, while we gather up people to the cause, we can atleast try to improve the quality of life for people.

if the recent economic crisis isn't fixed maybe people will see it as the failure of capitalism...well i would at least assume so... people may flock to our cause if not then they are just stubborn capitalist in a failing system...

[Dust Bunnies]

But is the suffering of many worth it? People will be educated, but willingly allowing such a horrible time for the proletariat isn't very good.

[Kassad]

To be honest, I am not yet able to envision a wide-scale revolution in America. As time progresses, there is usually enough appeasement to keep the wage slave in line and to keep the capitalism system in place. Keep in mind, I'm viewing this for one of the first times, so a lot of this is new to me. I do apologize if I don't comprehend some of this stuff yet, but I've learned a lot and it's only been a few days.

So be honest. Do you think that this country could ever just elect a socialist candidate, slowly start to elect more and eventually get a president under that banner? Is that possible? Is that even something most people on here would hope for? If the revolution were to come, it seems like it would almost result in a complete breakdown of social order, at least for a little while, as the states and nation as a whole conform to the new ideology. So in this election, which is very short term, there isn't much we can do, is what I am getting. I think my problem is I'm failing to envision the transition phase.

[southernmissfan]

I can say without a doubt in my mind that this is the beginning of the end, not just of America's dominance as a political and economic power but of the entire global capitalist infrastructure. Things will never get better (until capitalism eventually capitulates of course). The credit card market hasn't even crashed yet, and that is almost certainly on the horizon.

Now of course this is both extremely exciting and extremely scary. It's exciting in the sense that this is the beginning of the end, that we might see the end of capitalism by the end of our lifetimes. The scary part is that human suffering will grow drastically in the times to come. I wouldn't feel as nervous right now if I was still a single kid with few worries and few responsibilities. But things are different for me now and I have a wife and 4 month old son. I struggle paycheck to paycheck to survive. By the end of each pay period, my car is running on empty and I have only a few dollar bills in wallet. I can only imagine the times to come.

How does this relate to the election? Before I say anything, I don't a lecture on the political system or the candidates themselves. I already know. The reality is that I am forced to think about self-preservation. There's no doubt that there is a lot of suffering ahead. But if McCain is elected, he will impose an economic shock therapy that will drastically increase the suffering of workers like me and in a much shorter time frame. The other issue is that the man is in his 70s and from what I've been hearing, has health problems the campaign is desperately trying to hide. There's at the very least a bet-worthy chance that he will die in office. And before his death, it's likely that whatever health issue causes him to die will probably cause a period of mental decline and eventually render him incapable. This is much more frightening when you realize who will take over the reigns. Palin is not only not knowledgable, she's not very intelligent. She belongs to a fundamentalist religion that is frankly scary. And this woman will have access to enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet many times over.

I'm not saying that Obama is anything to be hopeful of. I'm just being realistic in that most likely McCain will make my life much harder, much faster. The election of McCain would probably hasten the system's collapse though, if there is a bright spot.

[JimmyJazz]

Holy shit, how did a post that started with the imminent fall of America and capitalism end up as an endorsement for Obama.

[spice756]

So be honest. Do you think that this country could ever just elect a socialist candidate, slowly start to elect more and eventually get a president under that banner?


Well that just say 70% people wanted this than laws would have to be pass to allow other party than the 2 party system they have now.

[southernmissfan]

Holy shit, how did a post that started with the imminent fall of America and capitalism end up as an endorsement for Obama.

Because McCain's response to this crisis will in most likelyhood be similar to the way Bremer ran Iraq's economy. Forget all the theoretical convictions and all that. McCain winning would be worse for workers from a material standpoint, bottomline. Will it be significantly worse or even make a difference in the long run? No. But it will be worse, and even if its slightly worse, I have very little wiggle room to work with. So if my wife and child's Medicaid exists longer, if only for a couple months longer, under Obama than under McCain I am more likely to survive and so is my family. I'm not trying to rally support for Obama or anything of the sort. I am speaking honestly from situation. There is a strong chance, considering the times we live in, that there will come a time (probably sooner than later) that I cannot pay my bills. First my wife will have to sell her car probably, if we can even sell it. Then we'll have to sell our tiny little trailer, if we can even sell it. At that point we'll have to pack up and find whatever family member can take us in. Now I'm sad to say that this will probably happen, regardless of whatever capitalist takes over the White House. But if there's even a chance that Obama could delay this for even a month, I have to hope for that.

I know, I'm committing heresy and that I am not following orthodox thought. I'm sorry.

[cmbnd10]

I am voting for Obama. Obama is not a socialist, but the thing is, who else do you have an option to vote for? I apologise to anyone that I might offend by saying this (on my second post on the forum nonetheless:rolleyes:) but if you vote for a third party or don't vote you are not at all helping your cause.

For those who want to vote for a third party, have you ever heard of Duverger's law? I can't post links yet, so I will cite a bit from the wikipedia article on it. Please, if you choose to respond, take a second to look the page over and form an opinion on it before makeing a response.

Here is the text of part of it:

"A two-party system often develops from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with a plurality of the total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.
The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical. A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.
The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered less than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.
A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party.
In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party determines the number of seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of PR would make a two-party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote."





For those who plan not to vote for anyone, or to put in a useless write-in, what are you accomplishing? You are protesting? Believe me, no one really cares that you are protesting and you will make NO impact. You have to vote for one of the two major candidates that is closest to your ideology. Obama is the most left of center candidate that we have had in a very long time, if ever. Electing Obama does not solve the problem, but it does make a step in the right direction. There are many people, especially young people at work in the Democratic party that are leftists, social democrats etc. We need to band together and try to continually elect candidates that are left-leaning to get what we want.

Unless you plan on getting like three million people to militarize (its not possible) then go vote for Obama.

[cmbnd10]

What is wrong with the electoral college ?


Everything.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Because McCain's response to this crisis will in most likelyhood be similar to the way Bremer ran Iraq's economy. Forget all the theoretical convictions and all that. McCain winning would be worse for workers from a material standpoint, bottomline. Will it be significantly worse or even make a difference in the long run? No. But it will be worse, and even if its slightly worse, I have very little wiggle room to work with. So if my wife and child's Medicaid exists longer, if only for a couple months longer, under Obama than under McCain I am more likely to survive and so is my family. I'm not trying to rally support for Obama or anything of the sort. I am speaking honestly from situation. There is a strong chance, considering the times we live in, that there will come a time (probably sooner than later) that I cannot pay my bills. First my wife will have to sell her car probably, if we can even sell it. Then we'll have to sell our tiny little trailer, if we can even sell it. At that point we'll have to pack up and find whatever family member can take us in. Now I'm sad to say that this will probably happen, regardless of whatever capitalist takes over the White House. But if there's even a chance that Obama could delay this for even a month, I have to hope for that.

I know, I'm committing heresy and that I am not following orthodox thought. I'm sorry.

Heterodox opinions are a nice sight.

[spice756]

I am voting for Obama. Obama is not a socialist, but the thing is, who else do you have an option to vote for? I apologise to anyone that I might offend by saying this (on my second post on the forum nonetheless:rolleyes:) but if you vote for a third party or don't vote you are not at all helping your cause.

Hay cmbnd here is your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

I know Obama is not a socialist but people in the US think he is a socialist and too radical.That is the problem the people in the US are not left enough.

Here is your quote..


A two-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system) often develops from the single-member district plurality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature) are awarded to the candidate with a plurality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality) of the total votes within his or her constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituency), rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies.

This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(politics)) and reward the two major parties.

The most obvious inhibiting feature unique to the SMDP voting system is purely statistical.

A small third party cannot gain legislative power if it is based in a populous area. Similarly, a statistically significant third party can be too geographically scattered to muster enough votes to win seats, although technically its numbers would be sufficient to overtake a major party in an urban zone. Gerrymandering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering) is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics, but is impractical and controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.

The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official.

If two moderate candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered less than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.

A third party can only enter the arena if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) immediately preceding the Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War) allowed the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) to replace the Whig Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)) as the progressive half of the American political landscape.

Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_Line).

Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party.

In countries that use proportional representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party determines the number of seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger) identified that the use of PR would make a two-party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta) provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote).

[spice756]

Everything.

I'm In Canada so don't really understand how the US works.In Canada we have many we can vote for not just liberal or conservative.

We even have marijuana party and even communist party.The green party and NDP party are most secont in line.

Even if the NDP gets 35% votes they get lot more say in parliament than if they get 5% votes.

You system is not good all you got is the republican party or democratic party.You do not allow for any left party.

[Plagueround]

I'm In Canada so don't really understand how the US works.In Canada we have many we can vote for not just liberal or conservative.

We even have marijuana party and even communist party.The green party and NDP party are most secont in line.

Even if the NDP gets 35% votes they get lot more say in parliament than if they get 5% votes.

You system is not good all you got is the republican party or democratic party.You do not allow for any left party.

Yep. Our system is essentially a one party system with slight differences they put under different names. Anyone believing Obama is going to make much of a difference, if any, is fooling themselves (or has been fooled that because he says he'll bring hope and change it must be so). He is no different from every democrat we've had in the white house since Kennedy. What I'm kind of scared of is if Obama does become president, and the inevitable market crashes get worse and worse under his term, it will set off a reaction to the left that will make the hatred for "socialism" we're seeing now look tame.

[cmbnd10]

I'm In Canada so don't really understand how the US works.In Canada we have many we can vote for not just liberal or conservative.

We even have marijuana party and even communist party.The green party and NDP party are most secont in line.

Even if the NDP gets 35% votes they get lot more say in parliament than if they get 5% votes.

You system is not good all you got is the republican party or democratic party.You do not allow for any left party.

Thanks for putting the link to wiki in there.


I am quite familiar with Canadian politics, and I happen to be a big pro-independent Quebec as my family is from there, so I would be voting Bloc or Parti Quebecois depending on national or local levels, but the things I would do to have an electoral system like Canada....oh, the possibilities:).

The thing with the one or the other party selection is that you have to pick one that is closer to what you believe in. I would be lying if I said I agreed with everything that a person that I vote for represents, but it is a start. That is why Americans have to choose one or the other. While it is true that the two parties are similar, they do represent a center-right and center-left approach. The minor party I am affiliated with, the DSA, does not agree with everything that the Democratic Party does, but they do understand that in order to have change occur, you need to use the options open to you. We have the Democratic Party and if we really want something to happen, we have to use it. Get in there, talk to people about it, vote every year and progress will be made.

Something can happen, we just have to unite and want it.

[Plagueround]

Thanks for putting the link to wiki in there.


I am quite familiar with Canadian politics, and I happen to be a big pro-independent Quebec as my family is from there, so I would be voting Bloc or Parti Quebecois depending on national or local levels, but the things I would do to have an electoral system like Canada....oh, the possibilities:).

The thing with the one or the other party selection is that you have to pick one that is closer to what you believe in. I would be lying if I said I agreed with everything that a person that I vote for represents, but it is a start. That is why Americans have to choose one or the other. While it is true that the two parties are similar, they do represent a center-right and center-left approach. The minor party I am affiliated with, the DSA, does not agree with everything that the Democratic Party does, but they do understand that in order to have change occur, you need to use the options open to you. We have the Democratic Party and if we really want something to happen, we have to use it. Get in there, talk to people about it, vote every year and progress will be made.

Something can happen, we just have to unite and want it.

Until someone like Reagan manages to come along, play on the fear of "black welfare queens" and the horrors of "regulation" and sweeps any sort of progress made for almost 30 years. Reformism will not work.

[cmbnd10]

Until someone like Reagan manages to come along, play on the fear of "black welfare queens" and the horrors of "regulation" and sweeps any sort of progress made for almost 30 years. Reformism will not work.

So what is your solution? Armed revolution?


You won't get anywhere in this country politically if you don't take part in the system. That may bother a lot of people, but sadly it is the truth.

[Plagueround]

So what is your solution? Armed revolution?


You won't get anywhere in this country politically if you don't take part in the system. That may bother a lot of people, but sadly it is the truth.

...

What did you think the "Rev" in Revleft.com stood for?

[cmbnd10]

...

What did you think the "Rev" in Revleft.com stood for?


I understand what it means, but as you also know this is a place for all leftists, not just revolutionary communists. "Revolution" is a word that you can play around with and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I am not telling you to vote, I am telling you that nothing will be accomplished without voting. Believe me, I would love to wake up one day and see that it all worked out, but I just can't see it happening from an armed revolution. And I would much rather be practical and vote and see it happen with limited to no lives lost over it. We need all the people we can get.

[spice756]

I am quite familiar with Canadian politics, and I happen to be a big pro-independent Quebec as my family is from there, so I would be voting Bloc or Parti Quebecois depending on national or local levels, but the things I would do to have an electoral system like Canada....oh, the possibilities:).



I don't think Quebec should be independent .Look I hate Alberta they are conservative christians nuts allow them to be country on its own:)

No country no matter the conflict should be independent, it just makes divisions and divides the support you need from the other people and you suffer economically.Not to say you divide the country resource.

If Canda is having hard time now having 2 or 3 countries will make it worse.

We do not want to be splitting into other countries over conflicts it just divide the country resource and the support you need from other people.



but the things I would do to have an electoral system like Canada


I think you meen you will like to have the electoral system in the US like the one in Canada .So you like the electoral system in Canada better.

[Plagueround]

I understand what it means, but as you also know this is a place for all leftists, not just revolutionary communists. "Revolution" is a word that you can play around with and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I am not telling you to vote, I am telling you that nothing will be accomplished without voting. Believe me, I would love to wake up one day and see that it all worked out, but I just can't see it happening from an armed revolution. And I would much rather be practical and vote and see it happen with limited to no lives lost over it. We need all the people we can get.

By embracing a system set up by capitalism, run by big time capitalists, you will only be able to go so far. This country will not let you reform it into a socialist country. Anytime it sets itself even close to that path, they reel it back in. Look at how much big money influences these campaigns and tell me they'll let that happen. If you're content to embrace the right wing parties in this country, by all means, do so. I intend to align with the left wing, no matter how shattered it seems at times.

You can try and put any vague spin on "revolution" you want to fit your needs, but until you open up to the fact that to achieve our goals you will need to thinking outside the ballot box, you're about as "revolutionary" as Ron Paul and friends.

Also, forgive me if I find the idea that no lives are lost while you're busy "voting away capitalism" offensive.

[cmbnd10]

By embracing a system set up by capitalism, run by big time capitalists, you will only be able to go so far. This country will not let you reform it into a socialist country. Anytime it sets itself even close to that path, they reel it back in. Look at how much big money influences these campaigns and tell me they'll let that happen. If you're content to embrace the right wing parties in this country, by all means, do so. I intend to align with the left wing, no matter how shattered it seems at times.

So voting is a capitalist scheme that wont get us where we want it to go? You really don't get what a privilege it is to live in a country where one can vote. Even if you don't really have much faith in the system, why don't you make an effort in addition to whatever else you do? Believe me, voting for one of the splintered parties or not voting at all does more harm than good. There hasn't been a socialist force in elections since the 1920s because of this viewpoint. If everyone banded together and worked withing the system you would see progress. You are senile if you think that wouldn't happen.


You can try and put any vague spin on "revolution" you want to fit your needs, but until you open up to the fact that to achieve our goals you will need to thinking outside the ballot box, you're about as "revolutionary" as Ron Paul and friends.

Oh, lets pull out the cheap shots. Ron Paul? Come on. If you have some sort of brilliant plan other than voting, I am all ears. But believe me, I have read about it, I have watched it and I know the mindset. You won't have a successful violent revolution in this country. Revolutions need to be supported by the people and you would not get on the good side of the many people who love this country but don't like the administrations. The gun scares people.


Also, forgive me if I find the idea that no lives are lost while you're busy "voting away capitalism" offensive.

Forgive me if I think that you don't seem to have any understanding of our electoral system or Duverger's law or logic in general.

[cmbnd10]

I don't think Quebec should be independent .Look I hate Alberta they are conservative christians nuts allow them to be country on its own:)

Believe me, I understand the English-speaking Canadian viewpoint of it, and I have a lot of respect for Canada. I just don't believe that we should have ever been a part of Canada. And why don't you support it? Every leftist in Quebec does? And you are a communist if I am not mistaken?


No country no matter the conflict should be independent, it just makes divisions and divides the support you need from the other people and you suffer economically.Not to say you divide the country resource.

Well, most communists the world over support independence movements in general. Look up the Quebec sovereignty question, including Front de libération du Québec. Also look up the Basques, the PKK (Kurdistan) and that is just a few.



If Canda is having hard time now having 2 or 3 countries will make it worse.

We do not want to be splitting into other countries over conflicts it just divide the country resource and the support you need from other people.

That is the worry of the typical Anglophone Canadian. That is not the worry of the typical Francophone Quebecois. If you like your country so much, what do you think about the fact that the Queen of England is the head of state and has to approve all members of parliament before they can take their seats.




I think you meen you will like to have the electoral system in the US like the one in Canada .So you like the electoral system in Canada better.

I like the parliament idea. Canada is just an example.

[Plagueround]

So voting is a capitalist scheme that wont get us where we want it to go? You really don't get what a privilege it is to live in a country where one can vote. Even if you don't really have much faith in the system, why don't you make an effort in addition to whatever else you do? Believe me, voting for one of the splintered parties or not voting at all does more harm than good. There hasn't been a socialist force in elections since the 1920s because of this viewpoint. If everyone banded together and worked withing the system you would see progress. You are senile if you think that wouldn't happen.

So I'm privileged to have a choice, but doing anything other than voting for two right wingers is futile and ineffective? You have a rather twisted version of choice.


Oh, lets pull out the cheap shots. Ron Paul? Come on. If you have some sort of brilliant plan other than voting, I am all ears. But believe me, I have read about it, I have watched it and I know the mindset. You won't have a successful violent revolution in this country. Revolutions need to be supported by the people and you would not get on the good side of the many people who love this country but don't like the administrations. The gun scares people.You seem to be obsessed with the idea that I'm advocating running into the streets with AK-47s and shooting business men. Civil disobedience is what got us many of the major gains we've still managed to hold onto...even some of those have been crushed by neo-liberals. Your mindset is so black and white that it's either vote Obama or "violent revolution". People have fought and died for those gains and you spit on them by suggesting we should stick to the ballot box. Obviously we've got plans, stick around, participate, and stop telling everyone they're idiots for not playing into electoral politics or else leave and go to democracticunderground.com. Sure, this site is open to all leftists, but you're not going to be able to participate much if you're intent on telling revolutionary anarchists and communists how ineffective and wrong they are.

Oh, by the way: This is an international website, not strictly an American one.


Forgive me if I think that you don't seem to have any understanding of our electoral system or Duverger's law or logic in general.I understand perfectly what you wrote. I understand Duverger's Law (which seems utterly confined to electoral politics), and I understand our electoral system. That's why you thinking voting for Obama will do much good is hilarious.

Quick question for you: Are you ok with capitalism? Are you looking for a social democratic government that still participates in a capitalist economic system?

[cmbnd10]

So I'm privileged to have a choice, but doing anything other than voting for two right wingers is futile and ineffective? You have a rather twisted version of choice.

No. You didn't listen to anything I said. What is the danger of having people sympathetic to your movement in power? It is incrementalism. It is all we have in the United States.


You seem to be obsessed with the idea that I'm advocating running into the streets with AK-47s and shooting business men. Civil disobedience is what got us many of the major gains we've still managed to hold onto...even some of those have been crushed by neo-liberals. Your mindset is so black and white that it's either vote Obama or "violent revolution". People have fought and died for those gains and you spit on them by suggesting we should stick to the ballot box. Obviously we've got plans, stick around, participate, and stop telling everyone they're idiots for not playing into electoral politics or else leave and go to democracticunderground.com. Sure, this site is open to all leftists, but you're not going to be able to participate much if you're intent on telling revolutionary anarchists and communists how ineffective and wrong they are.

What are you advocating? What are your goals? Where will you get there? I love civil disobedience. But it doesn't overthrow governments by any means. Don't tell me to leave this site because I disagree with you. I can say whatever I want. Why are you afraid of voting? You can do both. Why not do your civil disobedience and vote at the same time? You would make more progress doing both. What does it take to vote for a more progressive, realistic candidate?


Oh, by the way: This is an international website, not strictly an American one.

Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks for reminding me.


I understand perfectly what you wrote. I understand Duverger's Law (which seems utterly confined to electoral politics), and I understand our electoral system. That's why you thinking voting for Obama will do much good is hilarious.

What? Please rewrite that.


Quick question for you: Are you ok with capitalism? Are you looking for a social democratic government that still participates in a capitalist economic system?

No. I am looking for a worker's state. Maybe you need to look up what a "Democratic Socialist" is. You obviously don't seem to have any handle on Democratic Socialism.

[Plagueround]

No. You didn't listen to anything I said. What is the danger of having people sympathetic to your movement in power? It is incrementalism. It is all we have in the United States.

It is all we have because people like you make it so. If you think Obama is sympathetic to your movement you're dellusional.


What are you advocating? What are your goals? Where will you get there?

I've got over 500 posts on this site, go do some reading.


I love civil disobedience. But it doesn't overthrow governments by any means.

Got an address so I can send you some history books?


Don't tell me to leave this site because I disagree with you. I can say whatever I want.

You sure can. I'm just telling you it won't be a pleasant experience for you if you treat one of the primary purposes of this site as futile and a fantasy.


Why are you afraid of voting? You can do both. Why not do your civil disobedience and vote at the same time?

I never said I wasn't going to vote or that I was afraid of it, nice logic fallacy though. I said voting for either of the two right wing candidates is useless.


You would make more progress doing both. What does it take to vote for a more progressive, realistic candidate?

A progressive, realistic candidate.


Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks for reminding me.

You're welcome.


What? Please rewrite that.

I understand Duverger's law perfectly. It is a theory that is solely confined to electoral politics. Having analyzed electoral politics, I find the idea that Obama will be much different or bring any real progress to be untrue.


No. I am looking for a worker's state. Maybe you need to look up what a "Democratic Socialist" is. You obviously don't seem to have any handle on Democratic Socialism.

Well, I can safely say I oppose your worker's state on the grounds of it being a state, but that's something we debate quite often here. Obviously I understand what a democractic socialist is. We tend to call them social-fascists around here.

[ontheleftneil]

I'm there. For the process, for the heck of it. For the civic duty of voting.

[revolution inaction]

i'm there. For the process, for the heck of it. for the civic duty of voting.

wtf?

[Bronsky]

Spoil your ballot / cast a blank ballot / reject your ballot. Do NOT legitimize the system by abstaining or voting for a protest party.


I am English so won’t be eligible to vote, but I support the Socialist Equality Party who are asking for supporters to write their name into the ballot. The SEP is taking part not to be elected or legitimise the system, but a decent vote for the SEP will give a boost to socialist’s worldwide knowing there are many who identify with a real alternative can only inspire workers to take up the fight themselves. National elections are also important tools for the workers parties to get their message through to a large audience, enabling them to expose the fraud of the election process and the horse trading of the two main candidates. It also allows it members and supporters to campaign on issues that effect the whole population, giving them great experience in talking to workers on the street and at meetings.

The SEP candidate is over in Europe holding meetings this week I will be going to the Manchester one tomorrow 7pm, anyone interested in hearing about a real alternative is welcome.

Here are the details and a link for all the SEP meetings.


The Common Room St Peter’s House
University of Manchester Precinct centre
Oxford Road M13 9GH
Manchester, England
Speaker: Jerry White, SEP (US) 2008 Presidential Candidate

http://www.socialequality.com/meetings.html

[Bronsky]

So what is your solution? Armed revolution?


You won't get anywhere in this country politically if you don't take part in the system. That may bother a lot of people, but sadly it is the truth.

By standing in elections you do not take part in the system; you use the election tools within the system, as you would do in trade union work. To turn your back on this kind of work is to become nothing more than a critic, a Moaning Minnie with no real intention of changing anything except the mood you are in at any given moment.

My experience is that elections are great for educating inexperienced workers, the consciousness of the people are raised during elections and it becomes easier to engage them in a dialog, many people who are new to real communists politics are nervous about being rebuffed when dealing with people on the street, but during an election they gain an enormous amount of confidence, they might get the odd rebuff but that is countered by the desire of many to engage in real discussions, especially during times like these where the questions of capitalism versus socialism is raised openly..

[Black Sheep]

Whatever your choice may be, you should primarily focus on informing the workers, everything else is trivial and secondary IMO.

[Charles Xavier]

The electoral process is something that should be used while we still legally can use it. It is not the most important part of political struggle but its value should not be underrated. Voting alone will do nothing. The people need to get empowered to elect progressive people. Under socialism we still need people empowered to vote.

[WrittenInTheStars]

I'm voting. Still waiting for my absentee ballot to come in the mail. Who I'm voting for is still up in the air. My roommate got her absentee ballot a few weeks ago. She read the list of candidates, and Brian Moore (the Socialist Party's candidate) is on the ballot. So, I'm probably going to end up just voting for him.

But if I were to go along with the crowd and vote for Obama or McCain, I'd go with Obama. I don't think I could survive through four years of McCain...and if he were to pass away in office....Canada here I come!:lol:

[spice756]

So what is your solution? Armed revolution?



You won't get anywhere in this country politically if you don't take part in the system. That may bother a lot of people, but sadly it is the truth.

You cannot take part in the system in the US.There will be no scialist party in the US.The republic and democradic are moving every year more to the right.

Only every x numbers years you get some one like JFK and Obama that are painted has a socialist but are not even 3% a socialist .

All you can do is protest or job walk outs.Or do not buy from store to get your messages across.

[spice756]

I am English so won’t be eligible to vote, but I support the Socialist Equality Party who are asking for supporters to write their name into the ballot. The SEP is taking part not to be elected or legitimise the system, but a decent vote for the SEP will give a boost to socialist’s worldwide knowing there are many who identify with a real alternative can only inspire workers to take up the fight themselves. National elections are also important tools for the workers parties to get their message through to a large audience, enabling them to expose the fraud of the election process and the horse trading of the two main candidates. It also allows it members and supporters to campaign on issues that effect the whole population, giving them great experience in talking to workers on the street and at meetings.

What is the point? Even if 90% of the people voted the Socialist Equality Party will never get in to run the country.

Do to the 2 party system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I call upon all Canadian comrades to do the right thing and refuse their ballots. :)

http://communities.canada.com/shareit/forums/66/249753/ShowThread.aspx


You can always reject your ballot, it will throw the poll people for a loop but Elections Canada will accept your refusal and it goes into a whole new tally sheet that does matter. That holds back funding next time. No party will get taxpayer money to campaign with attached to the refused ballots. Call your local returning officer and you can confirm this for yourself. The taxpayer/vote has the opportunity to be heard and harm the parties financially using this method.

[cmbnd10]

You cannot take part in the system in the US.There will be no scialist party in the US.The republic and democradic are moving every year more to the right.

Only every x numbers years you get some one like JFK and Obama that are painted has a socialist but are not even 3% a socialist .

All you can do is protest or job walk outs.Or do not buy from store to get your messages across.


You have completely missed my point. There are socialist parties in the United States. We have that already. My point is a third party will not suffice. Working in the Democratic Party pushing our beliefs is our best way to work the system as is.

That is fine if they are not socialist. The more we step in a leftist direction and get our points across and make progress, we will be able to eventually continue in a socialist direction. The Social Democrats and center lefties are closer to us than the Republican party. So the more that they get in, more progressive policies are imposed. It is not a quick process but definitely can help us make headway.

Believe me, civil disobedience can be done as well, but it is worthless to only depend on one when there is a possibility of progress on both sides.

[cmbnd10]

I call upon all Canadian comrades to do the right thing and refuse their ballots. :)

http://communities.canada.com/shareit/forums/66/249753/ShowThread.aspx

Why does this accomplish anything? If they go and refuse their ballots, the conservatives win. That's it. You forfeit your chance to make positive change and let the right win. I don't see how that is a good protest. The right wants you to not vote, it makes it easier for them to win. Not making an attempt does more harm than good.

[revolution inaction]

Why does this accomplish anything? If they go and refuse their ballots, the conservatives win. That's it. You forfeit your chance to make positive change and let the right win. I don't see how that is a good protest. The right wants you to not vote, it makes it easier for them to win. Not making an attempt does more harm than good.

You think theres a significant diffrence between the parties standing in the election? :laugh:

[cmbnd10]

You think theres a significant diffrence between the parties standing in the election? :laugh:

Probably not, but not voting doesn't solve anything. It actually solves less than voting for a less awful candidate.

[Charles Xavier]

The worse things get, the worse things get not better as ultra-leftists who have no connection to class struggle will have you believe. We the working class do not want a conservative majority government. So encouraging progressive people not to vote should be a tactic employed by the state or the corporate parties.

[ROM]

Normally our vote in the USA eletion process is futile but perhaps this election may make some kind of change towards the working class and away from Corporate domination. Perhaps? The first step towards freedom. What other choice do we have.

[Charles Xavier]

The US situation is tricky but progressive people are within the democratic party they may not be a majority though.

[Faux Real]

Normally our vote in the USA eletion process is futile but perhaps this election may make some kind of change towards the working class and away from Corporate domination. Perhaps? The first step towards freedom. What other choice do we have.
They still are worthless votes. This will be the fifty sixth American presidential election led by the same two-party system that has bi-party control of its own presidential debates. Both McCain and Obama voted in favor of the $700bn financial bailout. Just one example of how working class sentiment is irrelevant to either of them.

All they ever reference with regard to the American people is the middle class, usually in reference to how they need help with sending their kids to college, to stay in their homes, etc because they're the only people who matter to them being that they're the only undecided blocks. I can empathise with your hopes, but it will only lead to a sense of betrayal and hurt.

Obama will see his approval rating slide within the first six months of him taking office eventually leading to a Republican administration in 2016. You heard it here first, folks.

[JimmyJazz]

Jacob: even if you believe in abstention* as the best tactic for the members of a mass socialist/working class organization, what would be the point of abstention in the absence of a mass socialist/WC organization? I am not grasping your logic whatsoever.

This is the same question I asked, in more detail, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html?p=1253276#post1253276).

*or refusal, or spoilage, or whatever else besides voting for a (revolutionary) leftist third party


Normally our vote in the USA eletion process is futile but perhaps this election may make some kind of change towards the working class and away from Corporate domination. Perhaps? The first step towards freedom. What other choice do we have.

Revolution. Check your address bar. This is revleft.com.

[fmlnleft]

i plan to vote for obama:blushing:

[Die Neue Zeit]

By standing in elections you do not take part in the system; you use the election tools within the system, as you would do in trade union work. To turn your back on this kind of work is to become nothing more than a critic, a Moaning Minnie with no real intention of changing anything except the mood you are in at any given moment.

My experience is that elections are great for educating inexperienced workers, the consciousness of the people are raised during elections and it becomes easier to engage them in a dialog, many people who are new to real communists politics are nervous about being rebuffed when dealing with people on the street, but during an election they gain an enormous amount of confidence, they might get the odd rebuff but that is countered by the desire of many to engage in real discussions, especially during times like these where the questions of capitalism versus socialism is raised openly..

I wonder, though, having just spoiled my ballot (thank goodness):

If there had to be a compromise between being an electoral party and spoiling, shouldn't anti-electoral party members be free to spoil their ballots and agitate for spoilage, while leaving all party support to non-members and more electorally inclined members - the latter organizing specifically as an electoral "platform" (faction) within the party?


Jacob: even if you believe in abstention* as the best tactic for the members of a mass socialist/working class organization, what would be the point of abstention in the absence of a mass socialist/WC organization? I am not grasping your logic whatsoever.

I did not say abstention; I said spoilage. One shows contempt for the system, while the other gives the PC media lots of "people are too lazy to vote" and "non-voters have no right to complain" fodder. You may wish to note my compromise suggestion in this post.

[JimmyJazz]

^^^ link didn't work last time, but here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1253276&postcount=54)'s the fuller version of my question (it isn't addressed by what you just said).

Basically, (1) how do you know a spoiled ballot even gets counted, and (2) why not throw away your vote in a more specific/informative way by voting for a revolutionary socialist party with no chance of winning (after all, a spoiled ballot could signify a fascist protest vote)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ link didn't work last time, but here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1253276&postcount=54)'s the fuller version of my question (it isn't addressed by what you just said).

Basically, (1) how do you know a spoiled ballot even gets counted, and (2) why not throw away your vote in a more specific/informative way by voting for a revolutionary socialist party with no chance of winning (after all, a spoiled ballot could signify a fascist protest vote)?

1) Ideally, there should be a "none of the above" option. What I have said was said regardless of whether or not the ballot gets counted (let's face it, workers ARE disenfranchised through various backdoor electoral tactics).

2) Voting even for a revolutionary socialist party (even one's own) legitimizes the bourgeois-electoral system, which is based generally upon the Greek oligarchic principle of selection (albeit combined with the "democratic" principle of "universal" suffrage).

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is projected that less than 60% of Canadians eligible to vote have voted.

[JimmyJazz]

2) Voting even for a revolutionary socialist party (even one's own) legitimizes the bourgeois-electoral system, which is based generally upon the Greek oligarchic principle of selection (albeit combined with the "democratic" principle of "universal" suffrage).

Hmm. That seems to contradict this, which would be my own position:


And lastly, the possessing class rules directly through the medium of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class, in our case, therefore, the proletariat, is not yet ripe to emancipate itself, it will in its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one possible and, politically, will form the tail of the capitalist class, its extreme Left wing. To the extent, however, that this class matures for its self-emancipation, it constitutes itself as its own party and elects its own representatives, and not those of the capitalists. Thus, universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more, in the present-day state; but that is sufficient. On the day the thermometer of universal suffrage registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do.

BTW that last sentence has to be the most badass thing Engels ever wrote.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Democracy Question



[Note: This unabashedly borrows from, in order: Kautsky’s The Class Struggle (Erfurt Programme), the actual Erfurt Programme, Aristotle’s Politics, Marx’s The Civil War in France, and the programme of the historic French Workers’ Party.]



The more completely the various divisions of the working class unite into a single working-class movement, the more must the struggles against bourgeois-capitalist exploitation of their labour necessarily take on a political character. Even the bare requirements of the economic struggles force the workers to make political demands. Without political rights and especially real political enfranchisement, the working class cannot carry on its economic struggles and develop its economic organization.

There can be no parliamentary, pseudo-representative, liberal, or other non-class-strugglist roads to the aforementioned emancipation of the working class. All Social-Labourists seek to delegitimize further these dead ends which have, time and again, compromised the political and ideological independence of the working class and have been delegitimized by that class itself through abstention, having been disenfranchised in all but the formality of universal suffrage.

The only road to the aforementioned emancipation of the working class by that class itself is necessarily class-strugglist, but also necessarily participatory-democratic. The highest form of this class-strugglist democracy comes into existence when these demands, among others, are met:

1) The working-class supermajority is to have the authority to rule, while under the current oligarchy this authority is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, who along with other non-worker classes are a minority;
2) All assemblies of the remaining representative democracy and of an expanding participatory democracy are to become working, not parliamentary bodies, legislative and executive at the same time and not subject to judicial review;
3) All public offices are to be assigned by lot, since the elections of such would be in fact oligarchic in the classical sense;
4) All public offices are to be free of any formal or de facto property qualifications;
5) All public offices are to be compensated at the same level as an average worker; and
6) All public offices are to be subject to immediate recall in cases of abuse of office.

Class-strugglist democracy, although not yet functioning on the principles of social labour, transforms political enfranchisement from an instrument of deception – through oligarchic selections held once every few years to decide which individuals, particularly non-workers, would misrepresent the working-class supermajority in the various legislatures – into an instrument of emancipation for the working-class supermajority.





================================================

Comments: The way the demands are ordered are important. The last three demands are immediate demands. The lot demand - the basis of real democratic selection - can be intermediate, threshold, or directional. The Paris Commune demand is either threshold or directional, except for the part about "expanding participatory democracy" (intermediate or even immediate). The first demand is usually interpreted as being either directional or maximal, but the CPGB interprets this as the culmination of its minimum program.

[spice756]

You have completely missed my point. There are socialist parties in the United States. We have that already. My point is a third party will not suffice. Working in the Democratic Party pushing our beliefs is our best way to work the system as is..


The socialist parties can NOT hold seats in government.

No the 2 party is not democracy they are the same the only difference is social issues when it comes to the economy they are the same.




That is fine if they are not socialist. The more we step in a leftist direction and get our points across and make progress, we will be able to eventually continue in a socialist direction.

The government does what it likes not what the people want.



The Social Democrats and center lefties are closer to us than the Republican party. So the more that they get in, more progressive policies are imposed. It is not a quick process but definitely can help us make headway.

There is no Social Democrats or socialist parties.And you cannot be poor to run for republican or democratic.




Believe me, civil disobedience can be done as well, but it is worthless to only depend on one when there is a possibility of progress on both sides


The way the US government works if you do not play by the rules you do not get in.

[Dean]

I will be voting for Nader this year.

[zimmerwald1915]

I will be voting for Nader this year.
Why?

I was considering spoiling my ballot until I realized that Maryland uses touch-screen voting machines. I'll probably just stand inside the booth for a while and then leave.

[JimmyJazz]

I will be voting for Nader this year.

I have to ask why the hell you would do this over McKinney.

[Dean]

I have to ask why the hell you would do this over McKinney.

Nader seems to have a much more concise and relevant platform.


Why?

I was considering spoiling my ballot until I realized that Maryland uses touch-screen voting machines. I'll probably just stand inside the booth for a while and then leave.

Well Nader doesn't support worker control of the means of production, but his platform is a pretty solid contender against the Dual party platform, and he has very deliberate and clear messages about foreign policy. It means a lot more to say that we should stop funding Israeli violence than it does to say that we will "be for peace," in other words. Not only does he have a solid foundation, but he has a good set of policy initiatives which can pave the way for a more inclusory leftist movement in the U.S..

[DesertShark]

What is wrong with the electoral college ?
Well the electoral college was put in place so that the 'uneducated masses couldn't gain control of the government.' Under the electoral college, everyone's vote goes into a pool. The winning party for that state has electorates that then vote for the president and they can vote for whoever they want (even Mickey Mouse). Electorates are picked by the party based on their loyalty to the party and each party has their own set. So every voter does not have a direct say in who they are voting for, they vote for representatives to vote for the president.

-DesertShark

[DesertShark]

Something in the back of my mind is telling me to vote McCain only because there is the chance that people will etheir grow sick of the same bullshit as bush or that he would die, making Palin step into office. If she was to rule our country there would be a major outcry and some people might start to look at diffrent avenues of poltics (thats all just wishful thinking and speculation though).
My brother and his friends were saying the same thing; while they don't want McCain in office, they think that Palin getting in would cause enough of an outrage for people to stand up and fight the system. I'm not sure, I think that Obama getting assassinated as president would cause more of an uprising; just think of all the riots after MLK Jr was murdered.


Women haven't even had the right to vote for a 100 years. And the women who fought for our right to vote were imprisoned, tortured, physically beaten, etc. but still they fought. It hurts me to see women not voting because of how hard the struggle was.

I wish there was an option on the ballot to reform the government or instead of voting for someone, you can vote against someone.

-DesertShark

[apathy maybe]

Why?

I was considering spoiling my ballot until I realized that Maryland uses touch-screen voting machines. I'll probably just stand inside the booth for a while and then leave.

Why the fuck bother to even go then? Sleep in, have sex, don't bother wasting your time going to the voting booth if you aren't going to vote. (And I would say, don't bother to vote.)

[arielle]

I had to fill in an absentee ballot and sent it in already

I put "go fuck yourself" on the ballot...

it's not that hard to get multiple absentee ballots either, any body out of country want to vote?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Beautiful! Just beautiful (your spoilage)! :cool:

[arielle]

^^^ Beautiful! Just beautiful (your spoilage)! :cool:


Haha. Yeah. After knowing the state that I'm voting in isn't a swing state, it doesn't matter at all. The electoral college already has it's mind made up on who it's going to be voting for. Popular vote does not matter in the general presidential election. As was demonstrated in many elections in the past.


~_~
back to lurking like I have been for the past years.

[BraneMatter]

Obama the Duck --

Up here on my little mountaintop in the Ozarks, I have a black pygmy goat, and a flock of three Chinese geese... and a lone white duck.

Now the duck acts like a duck, and does duck things.

The geese act like geese and do geese things.

And yet, the geese and the duck all form ONE FLOCK! They travel around together, eat together, are never separated too much, but stick close to each other and to the goat for protection from predators.

Now the duck is the odd girl out in the flock, and at the bottom of the pecking order, as all the geese are bigger, but the duck isn't stupid and knows that if it is going to eat and stay alive, it needs the guidance and protection of the flock and the big male flock leader. When you get right down to it, the duck and the geese are all flock creatures, and so they have a lot in common.

Now I have always wondered if the duck really knows that it is a duck, or does it think it's a goose? Does it even care as long as it gets three squares a day by hanging with the geese? And would the duck leave the geese if a flock of ducks arrived on the scene, or would the duck stick with the flock it knows?

I dunno, as I can't get inside that duck brain, but I suspect the duck feels pretty much right at home with the geese! :laugh:

So I got to thinking about this business of the McCain campaign calling Obama a socialist and a communist, knowing full well the psychological and propaganda power of those words with a large segment of the American public. Joseph McCarthy is still alive and well in the good ole USA it would seem.

Now what would happen, I wonder, if the real socialists and communists all of a sudden adopted Obama as one of their own, and shouted out, "Yes, we finally have a communist as President of the United States, and isn't he wonderful!"

Now we know that Obama is a duck, and not a goose, but the question is, if the geese take the duck into the flock, will the duck start to believe it's a goose? Or, even more important, will those outside the flock, seeing the duck and the geese together, believe the duck is one of the geese? Birds of a feather, you know...

Now, to be sure, ducks are ducks, and geese are geese, but perception often molds reality, even if only in appearance.

And we all know how important appearance is, especially in this age of video media.

So if a large number of Americans happen to like ducks, and we can make them think that a duck is pretty much the same thing as a goose, then maybe geese will suddenly become as fashionable as ducks... hmmmm... :D

(Or maybe only a birdbrain would think like this...)

[RedHal]

hehe, unfortunately, most americans are ducks or atleat they are made to believe they are, and are scared of geese! Obama proclaiming himself a socialist or communist would be suicide, because commuists will nationalise your house, your car, your wife/husband and kids! Wwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

[BraneMatter]

hehe, unfortunately, most americans are ducks or atleat they are made to believe they are, and are scared of geese! Obama proclaiming himself a socialist or communist would be suicide, because commuists will nationalise your house, your car, your wife/husband and kids! Wwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh


No, no, no!

Obama doesn't say anything. Rather, we wait until AFTER the elections, and then we say how happy we are that we finally have a communist as our President! We just act as if it was a commie plan all along. We play it cool. :D

We act as if he is one of our own flock, even though we know he is the odd duck out. That way, everyone is scratching their heads going, "What the hell happened, we elected a commie!!! Oh my gawwwwd!"

Then, when Obama turns out better than 'Dubbya' (how hard can THAT be?), people will think, "Hey, maybe commies aren't so bad after all." And if we can get the duck to start thinking he's a goose, or, at least, that the geese are his friends and "birds of a feather," then all the better.

Ok, ok. Now you can go ahead and ask me what sort of drugs I'm on... :thumbup:

Gawd, I can only wish someone, anyone, would nationalize my kids!!! I'm 64, with a bad heart, and I'm still taking care of them!

As for nationalizing my wife (rip, dear), well, we tried all that 'free love' stuff back in the Sixties, and I can only say that it had it's moments... and hell yes, I'd do it all again, bell-bottoms, street riots and all, if I were still young!

[Guerrilla22]

Will they still let you vote if you show up to the polling place clearly intoxicated?

[Red Rebel]

I am voting for Socialism in this upcoming election.

[Pawn Power]

Why?

I was considering spoiling my ballot until I realized that Maryland uses touch-screen voting machines. I'll probably just stand inside the booth for a while and then leave.

Haha. Best (and most hilarious) tactic I have heard this far.