The Election

[dmcauliffe09]

In my opinion, this upcoming election is one of the most historically important elections thusfar. We have a black male (D) running for president and a woman (R) running for vice president. However, I have also come upon the realization that whoever gets elected, it doesn't really matter. Many people would disagree with that I just said, but I stand by my statement. It does not matter who gets elected. Despite my intense dislike of Repulicans, Obama is not some hero. He is a capitalist, just like McCain, just like Palin, just like Bush. In an election where capitalists are the only candidates (except for socialist candidates like La Riva who get practically no exposure whatsoever), and in a system that is set up for capitalist economic gain, it doesn't matter who wins, because their goals are the same. Sure, Obama and McCain may have different approaches as to how they want the economy to run, but in the end, they both just want to make money. And while Obama is more representative of the disenfranchised than McCain is, how many liberal democratic leaders in the United States have publicly endorsed a socialist government?

Any thoughts?

[GPDP]

You're getting it. :)

[Yehuda Stern]

I disagree that the historical importance of the elections is in the ethnicity or gender of the candidates - it is important because it shows that the extremely racist and chauvinist ruling class of America is willing to let a black man or a woman be President to regain some sort of popular base for their failing system. Other than that, I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

[Prisoner#69]

I imagine the US and the world will be worse off should McBush/Palin win.

[berlitz23]

my question is how are we going to arouse people to action now, instead of the presidential spectacle
</div>

[Yehuda Stern]

I imagine the US and the world will be worse off should McBush/Palin win.




Not in the sense that you are thinking of, that Obama is better than McCain - he is not, in absolutely any way. However, it would be good if Obama and the democrats would be exposed exactly as that - identical twins of the Republicans. In that sense, one might prefer an Obama victory, but it is certainly impermissable for revolutionaries to vote for him.


my question is how are we going to arouse people to action now, instead of the presidential spectacle

Not sure there is much to do other than to illustrate how they advocate, in essence, exactly the same policies. People often have to see for themselves - they will have to see that Obama is just as bad as McCain.

[BobKKKindle$]

An important problem which has provoked many people to support Obama is the illusion that the Democrats have historically supported peaceful reconciliation of disputes with other countries in contrast to the Republican approach which, according to the dominant perception, involves the use of force. This has become an issue of concern for many (especially young) Americans due to the failure of the ongoing occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial expense of both wars at a time when people are being asked to accept material austerity. Socialists need to give examples of cases where the Democrats have been willing to use military force to preserve the commercial interests of American corporations at the expense of democracy and economic growth in the developing world, and thereby eliminate the myth that the Democrats are the party of "peace".

[berlitz23]

several democrats have exercised power and unnecessary military action, most recently FDR, Kennedy Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Clinton
</div>

[Sendo]

palin is not the first female main VP nominee, contrary to what the GOP says. It was Geraldine D. Ferraro on the Dems ticket with Mondale in 1984.

Just so you know. There is nothing historic about Palin, even if she is a woman.

And please, can't we call call ol' Lyndon "LBJ"? I've always thought it was what he preferred to be called.

[Revy]

I am voting for Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander. They oppose capitalism. Brian Moore has gotten media coverage too.

There is also Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear. That is who I would be voting for if the SPUSA had not nominated a candidate (or had nominated a social democrat, which might as well be considered the same action).

[KurtFF8]

Why Moore over La Riva if you don't mind me asking? And did anyone here see the "alternative debate" last week that included Moore and La Riva? I tried to watch some but the audio was so low that it was unwatchable.

[Revy]

Why Moore over La Riva if you don't mind me asking? And did anyone here see the "alternative debate" last week that included Moore and La Riva? I tried to watch some but the audio was so low that it was unwatchable.

Because I'm a member of the Socialist Party USA. I have some ideological differences with PSL as well. But I would support a coalition with PSL in the future (maybe the 2010 elections...).

[AJLaw]

I disagree that the historical importance of the elections is in the ethnicity or gender of the candidates - it is important because it shows that the extremely racist and chauvinist ruling class of America is willing to let a black man or a woman be President to regain some sort of popular base for their failing system. Other than that, I pretty much agree with what you are saying.


Well we shall see in time. I guarantee an attempt will be made on Obama's life.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think Obama's skin color does carry some historical importance

[Elway]

I disagree that the historical importance of the elections is in the ethnicity or gender of the candidates - it is important because it shows that the extremely racist and chauvinist ruling class of America is willing to let a black man or a woman be President to regain some sort of popular base for their failing system. Other than that, I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

I disagree with the "ruling class" point of view on two counts:

First, like it or not, "people of color" are becoming the future of America. It's simple math: People will procreate with others, and it's becoming "more difficult" to find people of one racial class, and literally impossible to find someone of one ethnic class. Pure and simple.

Yes, you will find people of ALL skin colors with no intention whatsoever of "breeding out of their race." But each few years erodes such viewpoints.

Ethnically, FORGET IT!!! When was the last time you actually met an American who intended to ONLY breed with a fellow Swedish-American, or Portugese-American, etc. It's purely nuts.

While skin prejudice is alive and well all over the world, wiith every passing few years, fewer such prejudices exist on a personal level. In some cities in the U.S., especially Los Angeles and New York, but others to be sure, mixed race relationships and their offspring are commonplace, and such couples aren't finding it difficult to promote in their jobs, nor are they denied grants, etc.

Second, there was NO secret meeting that took place in the United States in which 20 white males "agreed" to let B. Obama become the Democratic party's nominee, as opposed to H. Clinton. There was a fight, either could have won it.

Accept that Obama is simply and American of a general background similar to many Americans and it all makes sense. He's just a guy running for President, who HAPPENS to be black. Big deal.

When my dad was a kid, he was told a Catholic would never be U.S. President. I was told a jew wouldn't be one, and in 2000, a jew on the vice president ticket got more popular votes than a Christian on the vice president ticket.

Of course, if the U.S. Presidency is around a while longer, we'll all live to a woman serve, an Asian serve, and an American of Latin-American background. Again, big deal.

More important is the orchestrated efforts to prevent the word "socialism" from making it out into the wide American mainstream media.

A female, Muslim, Asian/African American would more easily win a major party nomination than Dennis Kucinch, and that, for me, is what it's all about: Americans have a LONG way to go, before voting their class interests.

The ruling class didn't "allow" Obama to be elevated to party nominee; Obama took it. If the ruling class had THAT knid of power, there would be no direct election of Senators, no income tax, and no Fifth Amendment takings clause; all of these being Constitutional amendments that have greatly liberalized the U.S. government, to the disadvantage of the ruling class.

It's the psychology of the American electorate that is "the problem". If that changes, you'll have an open discussion of "democratic socialism" in parts of the U.S. that benefit average people, as opposed to the $750,000,000 socialist bail out that benefits the corporate elite. :)