Brian Moore is on C-Span

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He's actually doing pretty good, if anyone's interested in looking him up.

[Catbus]

What are they discussing?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

People are calling in and asking him about real socialism. He's calling out the Soviet system as "communism," but he's articulating socialism pretty well and pointing out hypocrisy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

EDIT: I put Michael instead of Brian. :thumbup: My bad.

[Catbus]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Ok. Ha, he held up decently on The Colbert Report a few days ago.

[chegitz guevara]

:laugh:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I fixed the title.

[GPDP]

rofl

I was like "since when does Michael Moore know anything about socialism?"

[KurtFF8]

Does anyone have a link to a clip or anything?

[Zeus the Moose]

http://www.c-span.org/ The link is still on the homepage for the moment, but unfortunately it's in RealMedia format.

This should work too: http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=%22Brian%20Moore%22

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Someone just sent me a link to an Al jazera interview that contains the following:

Host: "What are you trying to achieve?"

Brian Moore: "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...."

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axhVX69w-TA&eurl=http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/)

I ask the SPUSA members here, what is this but reformism?

[chegitz guevara]

I can't defend that statement nor would I if I could. I don't think many of us in the party would. Sometimes Brian misspeaks. I hope this was one of those times.

[GPDP]

Brian Moore: "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

This is not the twat that commentates on the rugby then? lol

[Revy]

I posted an excerpt up on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YFd4-6sTCM

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I hope this was one of those times.

You "hope"? Sorry comrade, but that's not enough. It's one thing to misspeak, it's another to put forward a thoroughly reformist line on international television.

Is a person free to say whatever they want once they are nominated by the party?

[chegitz guevara]

You "hope"? Sorry comrade, but that's not enough. It's one thing to misspeak, it's another to put forward a thoroughly reformist line on international television.

You are pulling one quote out from the rest of an otherwise okay interview. I winced when he said that, but I think he made up for it elsewhere. The main message we're trying to get across is that socialism is workers control of the economy, which Moore has been putting out consistently. People misspeak. It happens. It's not as if this is a constant message on his part.

So let me ask you, do you think that people who watch this interview, who aren't already Marxist revolutionaries, are going to come away with the the idea that socialism is about pressuring the capitalist politicians? If they decide to look up the Socialist Party or another socialist organization, will they be thinking more about workers taking power or about trying to pull the other candidates towards us.


Is a person free to say whatever they want once they are nominated by the party?

We are not a "Leninist" organization. We don't have that kind of party discipline. Removing a person from the ticket is pretty much impossible four days before the election in any event. Even if we had the time, it would require a complicated internal process that is guaranteed to fail (a mail-ballot of the whole party). When the SPUSA was created, it was created with a very weak national committee. Short of expelling Moore, there's nothing the party can do to show its displeasure (even then, because of the internal structure of the party, the NC doesn't have the authority to do anything--that falls to the local).

The SP is not the perfect organization. I have lots of problems with it, but I think it's fixable, and flexible enough to do what I want even without it being fixed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thanks for responding.


You are pulling one quote out from the rest of an otherwise okay interview.

That's what stuck out.


People misspeak. It happens. It's not as if this is a constant message on his part.

Of course it does. But I've never "misspoken" against my own principles. I've never been talking to someone or giving an interview and said "I'm for fixing capitalism". That's not to say I'm better than anyone else, simply that I don't think it's very common to "mispeak" to the degree that you forsake your principles. Even if that was the case, and Brian Moore didn't mean what he said, shouldn't he have done his best to retract that statement and clarify?


So let me ask you, do you think that people who watch this interview, who aren't already Marxist revolutionaries, are going to come away with the the idea that socialism is about pressuring the capitalist politicians?

The point is, the possibility exists because so many "socialists" either aren't clear, put forth reformist slogans as an end-all, or even openly say "we want to pressure the main parties towards our position."

And actually, it's interesting that you raise that question. I actually found that video because a friend of mine (who is leftist in ideals and positions, but relatively apolitical) from another country was at my place and asking me if socialist or communist candidates get any press coverage, which prompted me to look for some clips online. And this friend, who has never picked up a book by a communist in his life, said immediately after watching the video: "So that's what the smaller parties do in the U.S.? Try to influence the two parties which actually win?"

That was without me saying anything. Of course it's anecdotal, but I think it shows something. My friend and the interviewer both picked up on that comment out of everything else. If people think your party is just a pressure group, what reason would they have to join?


If they decide to look up the Socialist Party or another socialist organization, will they be thinking more about workers taking power or about trying to pull the other candidates towards us.

Who knows? Each case is different. But that's not really the point. There are certain principles that we have to stand by if we are really revolutionaries. Things like the independence of the working class and the need for revolution are two.

Anyway, you can say "we are for workers control of production," but if you say it in the same breathe as "we're trying to pressure the major candidates towards our positions," it comes off as if you're trying to "pressure" the ruling party into "legislating" workers control of production.

You can't have workers' control of production without the revolutionary seizure of power, and that has to be emphasized.


We are not a "Leninist" organization. We don't have that kind of party discipline.

PoWR is not a "Leninist" organization either, yet we still have party discipline.

Don't you think that's important?

Do you think it's okay that your party is set up in a way that allows your most promenent member to get on international TV and say your party is basically a pressure group and not face any sort of action?


Short of expelling Moore, there's nothing the party can do to show its displeasure (even then, because of the internal structure of the party, the NC doesn't have the authority to do anything--that falls to the local).

You don't think that's a problem?

The funny thing is that that this "open" party is even more harsh than some of the "Democratic Centralist" ones. At least in a "Democratic Centralist" party you know where your party stands, and if you do something the party doesn't like you can be criticized, censured, or suspended. Usually (or at least formally) expulsion is limited to the most severe cases. In the SPUSA it's do what you want, but if we don't like it, we'll throw you out!


The SP is not the perfect organization. I have lots of problems with it, but I think it's fixable, and flexible enough to do what I want even without it being fixed.

What is it that you want?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The funny thing is that that this "open" party is even more harsh than some of the "Democratic Centralist" ones. At least in a "Democratic Centralist" party you know where your party stands, and if you do something the party doesn't like you can be criticized, censured, or suspended. Usually (or at least formally) expulsion is limited to the most severe cases. In the SPUSA it's do what you want, but if we don't like it, we'll throw you out!

WTF? :confused:

That's not what happened with the FaRTs or the DAT.

[chegitz guevara]

Of course it does. But I've never "misspoken" against my own principles. I've never been talking to someone or giving an interview and said "I'm for fixing capitalism". That's not to say I'm better than anyone else, simply that I don't think it's very common to "mispeak" to the degree that you forsake your principles. Even if that was the case, and Brian Moore didn't mean what he said, shouldn't he have done his best to retract that statement and clarify?

I'm not saying you aren't raising valid criticism.


If people think your party is just a pressure group, what reason would they have to join?Good point. My best guess is that it was a response to the question, given that you aren't going to win, what do you hope to expect. I don't want to justify bad politics, but it is possible it was a clumsy phrase. One of the things I point out to people is that it doesn't matter which candidate you elect, without a movement from below to put pressure on the winner, you get a right-wing President like Clinton. When you have that pressure, you get a president like Nixon, who signed into law affirmative action, the clean air and water acts, OSHA, talked about universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income. My guess is what Brian meant, given previous conversations with him, is that he meant to build a mass movement to put pressure on the government. I'll ask him when I talk to him later.


PoWR is not a "Leninist" organization either, yet we still have party discipline.To be honest, I wasn't even aware your organization existed. I thought that was just your user handle.


Don't you think that's important?

Yes, I do. Lack of internal discipline in a severe problem. Many of our comrades have a very American notion of democracy, mean that they think it means that you are allowed to do whatever you want and no one can tell you what to do. So we've had three comrades running for office this campaign season in ways that violate the national constitution. When we suspended one of them (because he'd done it several times over the years and had been rebuked each time) there was a huge uproar. I opposed it, not because I didn't think we shouldn't have tossed the comrade out, but because I do not believe the current constitution gives the national committee that authority. As it is written, the authority to discipline comrade falls to the party organization closest, so to discipline Comrade Moore, it would be necessary for the Tampa Bay Socialist Party to do it. Obviously, this needs to change.


Do you think it's okay that your party is set up in a way that allows your most promenent member to get on international TV and say your party is basically a pressure group and not face any sort of action?No, I don't. But I have to work within the existing parameters of my organization. I don't want a group where the leadership can act on a whim, and since I'm in the leadership . . . Keep in mind, the SPUSA was set up as a social democratic organization, and that the structures we have are to prevent the national organization from having too much authority (also in reaction to the authoritarian leadership of Shachtman is his followers). It's taken time for the revolutionaries to win the majority, and it was only a bare majority in the last covention. There are discussions in the organization now about the next convention being a constitutional convention, taking more time, and having greater membership participation. My expectation is that we will come out of this with a more functional organization with more revolutionary, class oriented politics.


You don't think that's a problem?Yes.


The funny thing is that that this "open" party is even more harsh than some of the "Democratic Centralist" ones. At least in a "Democratic Centralist" party you know where your party stands, and if you do something the party doesn't like you can be criticized, censured, or suspended. Usually (or at least formally) expulsion is limited to the most severe cases. In the SPUSA it's do what you want, but if we don't like it, we'll throw you out!Well, criticism, censure, and suspension are fairly meaningless in a loose organization, especially if the local refuses to go along, which it has in several cases. Expulsion is such a drastic step that we take it rarely, although we've expelled three comrades in the last year and a half, when we hadn't done it at all in twenty years.


What is it that you want?I want a more democratic organization, with stronger powers for the national leadership, and a recognition we are a national organization, not a collection of state parties or locals. I want overt revolutionary Marxist politics. I want comades to act with more disciple (democracy requires disipline) and the leadership to act with more discipline.

[PRC-UTE]

WTF? :confused:

That's not what happened with the FaRTs or the DAT.

actually he's correct, see the film Reds.

[PRC-UTE]

I agree with smoe of the critcisims raised, however at least the idea of socialism might reach a mass audience.

[chegitz guevara]

actually he's correct, see the film Reds.

That was 90 years ago.

[PRC-UTE]

does anyone have a link to a list of which states Moore is running in? is he running in the same states as the PSL?

is there any chance of these two parties working together in the future?

[chegitz guevara]

does anyone have a link to a list of which states Moore is running in? is he running in the same states as the PSL?

From http://www.votesocialist2008.org/

On the ballot:
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
New Jersey
Ohio
Tennessee
Vermont (through Liberty Union Party)
Wisconsin

Confirmed write-in status:
Alabama
Alaska
Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

Write-in papers filed,
awaiting confirmation: Call your City/County Clerk's Office to Demand Our Filing Be Recognized and Your Vote Be Counted!
California
Georgia
Illinois
Montana
Utah
West Virginia

Moore is on in enough states that it's statistically possible for him to win the Presidency (not that anyone even dreams of that happening). He should have been included in the 3rd party debates, but wasn't.


is there any chance of these two parties working together in the future?

Maybe. It's definitely something we should discuss. Last year, the SPUSA issued an open call for socialists to work together around a common electoral campaign (not necessarily us), but only the Freedom Socialist Party responded (and they even helped our campaign). I have an idea on how to approach this, but it will take somet time to get it to work (and it still may not).

[Revy]

I also have entertained the idea of an SPUSA-PSL-FSP electoral coalition. Earlier, I would have included the Peace and Freedom Party in that, but they endorsed Nader in 2008, so they're excluded. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_News_%28Internationalist%29) does not seem to be a new problem though. A socialist wing still exists (La Riva, Alexander, and others, but the social democratic progressives have taken over, which is why I believe socialists should leave that party.

[Zeus the Moose]

does anyone have a link to a list of which states Moore is running in? is he running in the same states as the PSL?

is there any chance of these two parties working together in the future?

The Moore/Alexander campaign is on the ballot in eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The PSL ticket is also on the ballot in all of those states except for Ohio and Tennessee (PSL is also on the ballot in Arkansas, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington for a total of twelve, making them the winner in terms of number of states on the ballot for a socialist campaign this election cycle.) However, the Moore/Alexander campaign has gotten write-in access in many other states as well, so votes for the campaign in those states will at least be counted, even if the ticket isn't on the ballot. I don't know if PSL filed for write-in status in states or not, as they don't seem to have it listed on their website. So to answer your question, the SP-USA and PSL do overlap on several states, but that's primarily due to ballot access being what it is than a desire to steal votes from one socialist ticket to another.

I remember reading something recently that indicated that the IRSP endorsed the PSL campaign, is that correct?

[PRC-UTE]

Maybe. It's definitely something we should discuss. Last year, the SPUSA issued an open call for socialists to work together around a common electoral campaign (not necessarily us), but only the Freedom Socialist Party responded (and they even helped our campaign). I have an idea on how to approach this, but it will take somet time to get it to work (and it still may not).

interesting. maybe through a process like this, the unions in the states could break with the democratic party




I remember reading something recently that indicated that the IRSP endorsed the PSL campaign, is that correct?

right.

and thanks for the info in the rest of yoru post. good luck to all the socialist candidates running.

[chegitz guevara]

interesting. maybe through a process like this, the unions in the states could break with the democratic party

The union leadership has zero interest in breaking free from the Democrats. What they want is more influence over the Dems, not less. If the Greens, perhaps, were to become a viable second party (eclipsing the Dems), labor might switch allegiance to them. Labor certainly has no interest, at this time in socialism, whether under a unified electoral banner or not.

[chegitz guevara]

Hmmm, I got more than three times the votes of our presidential candidate here in Florida. I got 1038 votes, Moore got 350. :blushing:

[Revy]

Hmmm, I got more than three times the votes of our presidential candidate here in Florida. I got 1038 votes, Moore got 350. :blushing:
where'd you get those results from?

I checked here (http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/). It's still saying you got zero....they need to fix it or something. and yeah I can't wait until we know the full vote tally for Brian Moore, because I'm clueless.

Brian Moore ran for Senate in 2006 so I think he should do it again in 2010, this time as a Socialist. This time he will be facing the incumbent Mel Martinez, a right-wing Cuban exile. He has lots more name recognition since his 2008 Presidential bid so he might make some waves.

[fredbergen]

Brian "Lock 'em Up" Moore: Racist Vigilante "Socialist"

http://www.internationalist.org/socialistselectionland0811.html
... A “Socialist” Who Called for Racist Police Repression
Among the campaigns of various minor parties claiming to be socialist, the one that is on the most state ballots is the Socialist Party U.S.A. (SPUSA), which is running Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander for president and vice-president. In his campaign biography, Moore cites his role as an “advocate for small businesses and community’s civil rights in wake of riots; Wash. DC, 1991-92” (www.votebrianmoore.com/background.htm). It turns out that this “socialist” presidential candidate was the spokesperson for a businessmen’s “law and order” vigilante group!
In May 1991, the heavily Latin American-immigrant neighborhood of Mount Pleasant in Washington, D.C. was shaken by crowds protesting a wanton police shooting of a Hispanic man celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo. Thousands of youth held off the police for hours, torching more than a dozen police cars, in the course of which some local shops were damaged. The blame for these desperate outbursts of rage rests squarely on the racist capitalist police force that even some in the bourgeois media recognized as the cause of the youths’ anger.
At the time we Trotskyists called for all charges to be dropped against the arrested protesters. The response of “Socialist” Brian Moore, who had run for D.C. mayor, was quite different: he was the spokesman for a merchant’s association clamoring for more arrests! According to the Washington Post (12 July 1991):
“A group of merchants, dissatisfied by official efforts to arrest looters and vandals from the Mount Pleasant disturbances, has begun soliciting videotapes and photographs of the violence in order to pick out suspects and turn their names over to police....
“Aided in part by advertisements with the headline, ‘Wanted: Photos/Videos of Riots,’ which were placed in two neighborhood newspapers, the merchants have obtained several dozen photos and four videotapes of the unrest, said Brian Moore, the campaign’s coordinator and an independent candidate for D.C. mayor last year.
“Moore and others supporting the merchants’ ‘Accountability Project’ said that identifying and prosecuting those who burned buses and cars, broke windows and stole merchandise could help the District avoid a repetition of the disturbances in Mount Pleasant, Adams-Morgan and Columbia Heights on May 5 and 6.
“‘You can’t solve social injustices with other social injustices, and too many times people in the community are allowed to get away with murder,’ said Moore, who neither lives nor works in the Mount Pleasant area but said he got involved because his Southwest neighborhood – or any other – might be next.
“He said many merchants believe the police have failed to pursue aggressively those involved in the May disturbances, much as they complained bitterly then that some officers had stood by and watched looting and vandalism occur. About 230 people were arrested during the disturbances, many of them for violating curfews imposed by Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon.
“‘There were a large number of participants,’ Moore said, but the community has no indication from the police that many of those involved have been arrested.”
As a candidate for DC city council, Moore called for a 9 p.m. curfew for youth and for warrants to be issued against violators’ parents!
We have to assume that the SPUSA is aware of these facts. That the Socialist Party USA would list this crime against the people, without comment, as a qualification for their candidate means that these “socialists” take the side of the enemies of the workers and oppressed, and their candidate should be roundly denounced. ...

[Revy]

Brian "Lock 'em Up" Moore: Racist Vigilante "Socialist"

http://www.internationalist.org/socialistselectionland0811.html
... A “Socialist” Who Called for Racist Police Repression
Among the campaigns of various minor parties claiming to be socialist, the one that is on the most state ballots is the Socialist Party U.S.A. (SPUSA), which is running Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander for president and vice-president. In his campaign biography, Moore cites his role as an “advocate for small businesses and community’s civil rights in wake of riots; Wash. DC, 1991-92” (www.votebrianmoore.com/background.htm (http://www.votebrianmoore.com/background.htm)). It turns out that this “socialist” presidential candidate was the spokesperson for a businessmen’s “law and order” vigilante group!
In May 1991, the heavily Latin American-immigrant neighborhood of Mount Pleasant in Washington, D.C. was shaken by crowds protesting a wanton police shooting of a Hispanic man celebrating the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo. Thousands of youth held off the police for hours, torching more than a dozen police cars, in the course of which some local shops were damaged. The blame for these desperate outbursts of rage rests squarely on the racist capitalist police force that even some in the bourgeois media recognized as the cause of the youths’ anger.
At the time we Trotskyists called for all charges to be dropped against the arrested protesters. The response of “Socialist” Brian Moore, who had run for D.C. mayor, was quite different: he was the spokesman for a merchant’s association clamoring for more arrests! According to the Washington Post (12 July 1991):
“A group of merchants, dissatisfied by official efforts to arrest looters and vandals from the Mount Pleasant disturbances, has begun soliciting videotapes and photographs of the violence in order to pick out suspects and turn their names over to police....
“Aided in part by advertisements with the headline, ‘Wanted: Photos/Videos of Riots,’ which were placed in two neighborhood newspapers, the merchants have obtained several dozen photos and four videotapes of the unrest, said Brian Moore, the campaign’s coordinator and an independent candidate for D.C. mayor last year.
“Moore and others supporting the merchants’ ‘Accountability Project’ said that identifying and prosecuting those who burned buses and cars, broke windows and stole merchandise could help the District avoid a repetition of the disturbances in Mount Pleasant, Adams-Morgan and Columbia Heights on May 5 and 6.
“‘You can’t solve social injustices with other social injustices, and too many times people in the community are allowed to get away with murder,’ said Moore, who neither lives nor works in the Mount Pleasant area but said he got involved because his Southwest neighborhood – or any other – might be next.
“He said many merchants believe the police have failed to pursue aggressively those involved in the May disturbances, much as they complained bitterly then that some officers had stood by and watched looting and vandalism occur. About 230 people were arrested during the disturbances, many of them for violating curfews imposed by Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon.
“‘There were a large number of participants,’ Moore said, but the community has no indication from the police that many of those involved have been arrested.”
As a candidate for DC city council, Moore called for a 9 p.m. curfew for youth and for warrants to be issued against violators’ parents!
We have to assume that the SPUSA is aware of these facts. That the Socialist Party USA would list this crime against the people, without comment, as a qualification for their candidate means that these “socialists” take the side of the enemies of the workers and oppressed, and their candidate should be roundly denounced. ...

WTF? This is from a notoriously sectarian group which loves to attack any other group on the left.

I find it hard to believe that Moore is the vicious "racist" you want to portray him as when his running mate is black and his wife is Latina, he speaks Spanish, and has spoken up for immigrant rights. Our position has always been for a world without borders where no human being is illegal.

Also, this was before he became a socialist. He was not a socialist during the period the article focuses on. He had recently become a socialist when he was nominated.

:thumbdown:

[fredbergen]

Your party's candidate worked with the police to put anti-racist protesters in jail. Your party's candidate's official biography lists this as an accomplishment.

Any genuine socialist party would refuse membership to an enemy of the people like Moore. Instead, your party ran him for president!

Anyone who does not quit the SPUSA in disgust over this is either a fool or a charlatan.

For a revolutionary workers party that champions the cause of all the oppressed! Reforge the Fourth International!

[Revy]

Your party's candidate worked with the police to put anti-racist protesters in jail. Your party's candidate's official biography lists this as an accomplishment.

Any genuine socialist party would refuse membership to an enemy of the people like Moore. Instead, your party ran him for president!

Anyone who does not quit the SPUSA in disgust over this is either a fool or a charlatan.

For a revolutionary workers party that champions the cause of all the oppressed! Reforge the Fourth International!

Look there was nothing racist about anything he did during his life...he went to Latin America during Vietnam and instead of participating in a war went over to Latin America to help the (Latino) people there, so hmm.

I don't think your group is concerned at all with forming a revolutionary workers party when all you do is spew unfounded bullshit about other groups....and you can say "Reforge the Fourth International" it's not going to happen just because you say it.

I know someone from your very same group (maybe it's you?) who attacked feminism as "bourgeois" claiming it was anti-abortion. Oh, the hilarity! You know what Brian Moore said about Jeremiah Wright? Are you listening? Brian Moore said he would make Jeremiah Wright UN Ambassador if he was elected President. Yeah, he's such a racist.

[Revy]

Oh yeah. I just looked at your name. It's YOU. His name was Fred too. Cannot be a coincidence.

[fredbergen]

Look there was nothing racist about anything he did during his life

Except being an attack dog for police repression against anti-racist protesters on behalf of businessmen, and listing this on your party's election campaign material as some kind of positive endorsement!


...he went to Latin America during Vietnam

With U.S. Imperialism's "Peace Corps," like any good pro-capitalist liberal would.

It is bad enough to run a racist-pro-cop vigilante for president. It is worse to claim that such a racist, pro-cop vigilante is some kind of "socialist." It is unconscionable to defend this anti-working class position.

[Revy]

Except being an attack dog for police repression against anti-racist protesters on behalf of businessmen, and listing this on your party's election campaign material as some kind of positive endorsement!



With U.S. Imperialism's "Peace Corps," like any good pro-capitalist liberal would.

It is bad enough to run a racist-pro-cop vigilante for president. It is worse to claim that such a racist, pro-cop vigilante is some kind of "socialist." It is unconscionable to defend this anti-working class position.

OMG!

Watch out, you're about to be pwned (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oPENAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rHUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3292,6158453&dq=brian-moore).

You know what that says? It says Brian Moore was DISMISSED from the Peace Corps for openly opposing Vietnam.

He stood up against imperialism during that time.

Do you have any shame? :thumbdown:

[chegitz guevara]

where'd you get those results from?

I checked here (http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/). It's still saying you got zero....they need to fix it or something. and yeah I can't wait until we know the full vote tally for Brian Moore, because I'm clueless.

Brian Moore ran for Senate in 2006 so I think he should do it again in 2010, this time as a Socialist. This time he will be facing the incumbent Mel Martinez, a right-wing Cuban exile. He has lots more name recognition since his 2008 Presidential bid so he might make some waves.

I checked the County Supervisor of Elections results in Broward and Dade counties. Since I know I voted for myself, the Florida DOE results have to be wrong. Mostly likely, they just haven't counted write-in votes yet.

[KurtFF8]

I checked the County Supervisor of Elections results in Broward and Dade counties. Since I know I voted for myself, the Florida DOE results have to be wrong. Mostly likely, they just haven't counted write-in votes yet.

Moore was on the ballot here in FL, why would anyone write him in?

[Revy]

Here's the election results. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/)

Votes are still coming in. For example earlier today the vote tally for Moore was less than 5,000. Now it's 6,392.

I had hoped at least we might get more votes than 2004, in which we got over 10,000 votes. It's still not anything to be ashamed of, compared to our showing in previous elections. I believe only 1980 had more votes (6,898). But we may surpass that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ouch! :(

On the other hand, EVERY other third-party candidate got trounced, including that fraud Nader.

[KurtFF8]

Well I would imagine the Obama campaign had a lot to do with that fact. And as of now La Riva has more votes than Moore.

If it were any other candidate than Obama (maybe even Clinton) then I bet there would have been many more for the socialist candidates.

[chegitz guevara]

Moore was on the ballot here in FL, why would anyone write him in?

The write-in votes were for me, not Brian. I was "running" for Congress. On the state Department of Elections website, I have 0 votes, but there are 1054 write-in votes counted so far in Dade and Broward for the 20th Congressional District, and since I'm the only qualified write-in. . . . Since they aren't supposed to count write-in votes for anyone else but me, those votes should be for me. It's possible that one county or both is counting all of them at this point, until they go through and check them.

[chegitz guevara]

Well I would imagine the Obama campaign had a lot to do with that fact. And as of now La Riva has more votes than Moore.

If it were any other candidate than Obama (maybe even Clinton) then I bet there would have been many more for the socialist candidates.

I agree.

[KurtFF8]

The write-in votes were for me, not Brian. I was "running" for Congress. On the state Department of Elections website, I have 0 votes, but there are 1054 write-in votes counted so far in Dade and Broward for the 20th Congressional District, and since I'm the only qualified write-in. . . . Since they aren't supposed to count write-in votes for anyone else but me, those votes should be for me. It's possible that one county or both is counting all of them at this point, until they go through and check them.

Ah alright. I wish I had a write-in socialist candidate in Tallahassee. Our National house representative is a conservative Democrat :(

[chegitz guevara]

Next time, why don't you run? Seriously, think about it. I'd like to get comrades to run in as many districts as possible in 2010.

[Revy]

I'm running in 2010! I'm only 19 right now. But I'll be 21 in 2010 which is old enough to run for the state legislature. There is also a mayor election here in 2011.

Eugene Puryear was 22 during the PSL campaign. So that made me think I could put my name in for 2012 VP candidate of the SPUSA. But I wouldn't want to limit the ticket in regards to state laws. How about you Marc? Presidential hopes? I'm not sure it's best to run Moore again in 2012.

[fredbergen]

I'm going to leave aside for a minute some of the cynical sniping or
dismissive diversions that have raised in response to the Internationalist
Group's expose of the actions of the SPUSA's presidential candidate Brian
Moore in calling for more repression of Latinos protesting a wanton police
attack in 1991. This is a serious issue that merits a serious response.
Maybe it seems to be just words in Internet discussions, but in the real
world when you present a candidate you assume a responsibility in calling
for people to vote for him or her.

So when we read in the CV on the web site of the Socialist Party's
presidential candidate Moore that he was the spokesman-organizer for a
business owner's association in Washington, D.C., we figured we should see
what that was. Moore claimed it had something to do with defending "civil
rights." What we discovered was that this association was calling to punish
and repress the working-class immigrant community for the "crime" of
protesting, when one of their own was wantonly shot by the police on Cinco
de Mayo. Just consider what message this sends to immigrant workers.

Seventeen years is a long time ago, some responded, but it may not seem so
long ago to the over 200 youth who were jailed during the protests. What
does it say to them that the top of the SP ticket wanted them in jail, and
therefore maybe deported?

This shouldn't be seen as just an embarrassing incident. It actually says
something about the Socialist Party's political orientation, because this
isn't the first time someone like this has posed as a SP candidate. Remember
how in 2004, it came to light that the SPUSA's last presidential candidate
Walter Brown opposed abortion. This led the Michigan SP to demand that he be
removed as a candidate.

The SPUSA today cites Eugene V. Debs, who went to jail for his opposition to
imperialist war. But it should be remembered that the SP was also the party
of Milwaukee mayor Victor Berger, who was an out-and-out racist, and not the
only one. Even Debs, who was miles ahead of most "Socialists" in the U.S.,
claimed that socialists had nothing particular to say or do about black
oppression in America. Of course, all that was even longer ago, but I raise
it because there's an important lesson here about the nature of social
democracy in general.

There is a lot of feel-good talk about the SP being a "multi-tendency"
party, which sounds nice and welcoming to the politically uninitiated --
until something like this happens. Ask yourself, why does the SP-USA exist?
Why would self-described socialists with so many differences all get
together in the same party in the first place? The one thing that unites the
various tendencies in the SPUSA is opposition to Bolshevism. Rejection of
the lessons of the October Revolution and the party that made it possible.
Rejection of Leninist democratic centralism. You prefer an "everyone do
their own thing" party? Then you're liable to end up with a Brian Moore or
Walter Brown as your candidate.

The Bolsheviks broke from social democracy (and Communists in the U.S. broke
away from the party of Debs and Berger) because they had learned from their
own experience that in the epoch of imperialism, social-democracy was no
longer capable of revolution, or even of defending the most basic interests
of the workers and oppressed. These parties that claimed to organize the
whole class around a few general principles, with all sorts of tendencies,
sent millions of workers to slaughter each other for colonial plunder. What
was needed, the Bolsheviks said, was a party of the revolutionary vanguard,
which is what Trotskyists seek to build today.

So let's come back to the present, where we have a "socialist" party running
a candidate for president who thinks that locking up anti-racist protesters
is defending human rights, right after running a candidate who opposes a
woman's right to abortion.

Some snarky commenters have asked me if I or the Internationalist Group have
ever made political errors, lest we throw stones in a glass house. Well, I
will admit that I wish we had dug up the information about Brian Moore
earlier, but then, we weren't running him as our candidate. Errors are one
thing, but this is about betrayals.

Now I listened to the interview with Matt Erard on the Michigan radio talk
show that the SP website has a link to. Given, it was a hostile interviewer,
but in close to half an hour, the Socialist Party candidate for Michigan’s state
legislature, said not a word about: the war, or the racist prison system, or the
attacks on immigrants, or Mumia Abu-Jamal, or even the organized labor
movement except in the most superficial sense. And Erard, if I'm not
mistaken, is a representative of the SP-USA's "left-wing": tendency.

A revolutionary candidate, in contrast, would not only talk about the war,
she or he would point that this is imperialist war, that it is part of the
bosses war on working people, blacks, Latinos, women, immigrants "at home,"
and that we must fight to defeat this war through working-class action. That
is what we as Trotskyists in the Internationalist Group call for, and what
we fight for in very real concrete ways. (See our article on the West Coast
longshore May Day 2008 strike against the war at:
http://www.internationalist.org/ilwumaydaystrike0805.html)

If there are comrades in the SPUSA who want to find a road to socialist
revolution in the U.S., and I assume there must be, I would urge them to
consider this latest embarrassing betrayal in the context of the history of
the workers movement, and to draw all the necessary conclusions. I'd be
happy to discuss with anyone who agrees that a socialist party should not
run a candidate who called for tracking down and locking up people
who were protesting racist police repression. On the other hand, those who
resort to sectarian-baiting and red-baiting diversions to defend the
indefensible can be my guest and keep on digging themselves deeper into a
hole with Victor Berger.

Fred Bergen
supporter, Internationalist Group

[Revy]

You may not know this, Fred, but Victor Berger is dead. When has the SPUSA ever praised him? We praise men like Debs who fought strongly against racism, as well as Hubert Harrison, a prominent black member.:)

[Martin Blank]

I'm going to leave aside for a minute some of the cynical sniping or dismissive diversions that have raised in response to the Internationalist Group's expose of the actions of the SPUSA's presidential candidate Brian Moore in calling for more repression of Latinos protesting a wanton police attack in 1991. This is a serious issue that merits a serious response. Maybe it seems to be just words in Internet discussions, but in the real world when you present a candidate you assume a responsibility in calling for people to vote for him or her.

I have been following this issue both here and on the unofficial SP e-mail list called "Debsian". I have to admit that I find the stories on both sides lacking in credibility in different areas.

In terms of the Internationalist Group's "expose" of Brian Moore, I don't buy that they just found this information out about him. Jan Norden, editor of the IG's magazine (and former editor of the Spartacists' newspaper), is no slouch when it comes to "opponent research". I have a hard time believing they just discovered it only days before the election. What seems more likely is that he and the rest of the editorial board of The Internationalist sandbagged and sat on this information until the last minute, in order to have a round of "gotcha!" with certain members in the SP. Translation: This is the opening salvo of a raid by the IG against the SP.

In terms of the Socialist Party's choice of Moore, I think it shows that, regardless of who is doing it, there remains a real problem with vetting inside the party. There was plenty of information to go on, and it would not have been hard to do. One thing Bergen is right about is that this does feel a lot like what happened with Walt Brown in 2004, except that it was not until a day or two before the election that it began circulating among members. That, in and of itself, is a problem. The only reason I can think of as to why no vetting was done is because there were some members, including in the party's "left wing", that did not want to risk a repeat of 2004. In the end, though, a replay of 2004 is more or less what they got.

What I think is telling, though, about both the SP and the IG is that not one criticism was raised of Moore's role as an HMO executive, or of his running mate's ownership of an auto dealership. Apparently, neither group is willing to make a stand on the basic class question. That, in my opinion, is more telling than anything else.

[iloveche]

Ya hse [email protected] pr0 and liek stuv u r a n00b n u shud go bk to school

[iloveche]

go gene u like'y the spoonge bob

[chegitz guevara]

:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing: I just lost five paragraphs of response.

Fred's position is a thoroughly anti-Marxist position. In addition to merely being an extended ad hominem, it rejects the capacity of humans to change. The reason why The Autobiography of Malcolm X is such a popular choice of study material among revolutionaries is not because it's a great book (although it is). It is because it shows how a man changed from being one of the worst examples of humanity (a pimp, a drug dealer, a thief, a number runner) to becoming a leader of Black nationalism and then civil rights. If we apply the same logic of the IG's attack on Moore to X, then all revolutionaries should reject him. I, for one, welcome all who turn from enemies to allies, from supporters of capitalism to socialism. The IG's hit piece reminds me of those who attacked Jesus for ministering to sinners and tax collectors. We will never build socialism unless we attract people who aren't socialists now.

Communist League raises a more valid critique, not of Moore and Alexander, but of the SP's internal processes. He is correct in that the SP didn't do any vetting of its candidates. Clearly, that's problematic. Clearly the SP needs to change internally, to become a much more serious revolutionary organization and a more serious political party. We are, however, both ametuer politicians and ametuer revolutionaries. That cannot continue. Making that change, however, will be a struggle, but one I welcome.

Lastly, as to the class of Alexander and Moore. As the ISO likes to say, it's not what class you're from, it's what class you for. Remember, Fred Engels was a capitalist too.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm running in 2010! I'm only 19 right now. But I'll be 21 in 2010 which is old enough to run for the state legislature. There is also a mayor election here in 2011.

Excellent!


Eugene Puryear was 22 during the PSL campaign. So that made me think I could put my name in for 2012 VP candidate of the SPUSA. But I wouldn't want to limit the ticket in regards to state laws. How about you Marc? Presidential hopes? I'm not sure it's best to run Moore again in 2012.

It is highly unlikely Moore will be selected again. Not because of any issues raised here, but more that we don't like to have any one person monopolize leadership roles (except the Nat Secretary--since no one else has shown any willingness to work as hard as Greg). Only David McReynolds has been selected to run more than once since the SPUSA was founded. I would also like to see a woman and/or a person of color lead the ticket next time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What I think is telling, though, about both the SP and the IG is that not one criticism was raised of Moore's role as an HMO executive, or of his running mate's ownership of an auto dealership. Apparently, neither group is willing to make a stand on the basic class question. That, in my opinion, is more telling than anything else.


Lastly, as to the class of Alexander and Moore. As the ISO likes to say, it's not what class you're from, it's what class you for. Remember, Fred Engels was a capitalist too.

Comrade chegitz, I gotta side here with Comrade CL. :(

As both of you recall, in my CSR chapter section on "USL"/"CSSL," I recalled Engels' quote on the class-strugglist organization having to be comprised exclusively of manual, clerical, and professional workers.

You two may also be interested in one of Comrade Rakunin's articles in the History thread on Rosa Luxemburg, which mentions Kautsky's reiteration of Engels' "proletarian separatism" (to use Comrade CL's words):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1264695&postcount=14


^^^ Interesting, comrade, that the article noted Bebel's key theoretical blunder as a revolutionary centrist:


Led by Georg von Vollmar [praised excessively by the "Marxist-Leninist" Ludo Martens for his theoretical conception of "socialism in one country," expanded further upon by Bukharin and ultimately adopted by Stalin and co.], the south German forces gained sufficient support to get the 1894 Frankfurt party congress to pass a resolution calling for the adoption of an agrarian policy to be grafted onto the Erfurt program. Two things about the campaign particularly rankled Kautsky. One was the almost vituperatively anti-theoretical posture of the major proponents of the agrarian program. Over and over again these people scornfully rejected any theoretical objections to including peasants and small farmers among party membership and to making special programmatic concessions to try to win their votes. Quite naturally Kautsky resented this attack on his special bailiwick. Kautsky also opposed the suggestion that the exclusively worker character of the party should be violated. This was contrary to what was for him the most important basic political principle of any socialist party.

For a time it seemed that perhaps Kautsky had chosen the wrong side on this issue because Bebel sided with Vollmar and the south Germans. Actually Bebel had never been entirely happy with the exclusively worker party; he had tried to keep worker out of the name of both the SDAP and the SAPD to avoid offending possible non-worker followers. But the issue did not come up again in the intervening period, largely because of the radicalizing impact of the anti socialist law. In 1894 Bebel was securely in control of the party, and the number of issues on which he lost at parts congresses was very small.

In the end, however, Bebel, not Kautsky, chose the wrong side this time. Even though a major theoretical dispute on the agrarian question preceded the 1895 Breslau congress at which the new policy was voted on, the issue was not so much one of facts and theories as it was an emotional one. At Breslau the agrarian commission selected the previous year presented its report to the delegates, and Kautsky offered a counter-resolution calling for the rejection of the commission's proposal. Vollmar was unable to attend the congress, so Bebel delivered the major attack on Kautsky's resolution, arguing primarily that even if the agrarian program was ineffective, it did not cost the workers anything, and it might win the party some new supporters.

Clara Zetkin and Kautsky both gave strong speeches in favor of preserving the proletarian purity of the party. Zetkin met with prolonged stormy applause when she closed her presentation with a stirring call for the party to reject the agrarian program and thereby "hold firmly to the revolutionary character of our party." Kautsky conceded that the new program might win the SPD some voters but added that such followers would only desert the party "at the decisive moment." He concluded with an emotional appeal to revolutionary solidarity: "We face great and difficult battles, and must train comrades-in-arms who are resolved to share everything with us and to fight the great fight to the end." Such entreaties got a sympathetic response from the delegates, most of whom shared the prejudice of urban dwellers against what Marx referred to in the Communist Manifesto as "the idiocy of rural life." By a vote of 158 to 63, Kautsky's resolution passed.

On the other hand, Lenin was key in drafting the agrarian section of the RSDLP's program.

[fredbergen]

Fred's position is a thoroughly anti-Marxist position. In addition to merely being an extended ad hominem, it rejects the capacity of humans to change. The reason why The Autobiography of Malcolm X is such a popular choice of study material among revolutionaries is not because it's a great book (although it is). It is because it shows how a man changed from being one of the worst examples of humanity (a pimp, a drug dealer, a thief, a number runner) to becoming a leader of Black nationalism and then civil rights.

You've got to be kidding!
7121
(And Jesus, too!!!)


We will never build socialism unless we attract people who aren't socialists now.

So are you saying that the SP-USA's presidential candidate isn't a socialist now? (I agree!)

This isn't about "sins" committed in the past. It's about a "socialist" party running a presidential candidate who presently considers his role as a pro-police vigilante to have been promoting "civil rights."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I know someone from your very same group (maybe it's you?) who attacked feminism as "bourgeois"

Feminism is a bourgeois ideology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556).

[Revy]

Feminism is a bourgeois ideology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556).
:rolleyes: That just seems out of hand. I've always thought this kind of view chauvinistic.

Socialist feminism is feminism through socialism. You can't just lump bourgeois liberal feminism in the same boat.

[chegitz guevara]

You've got to be kidding!
7121
(And Jesus, too!!!)

So are you saying that the SP-USA's presidential candidate isn't a socialist now? (I agree!)

This isn't about "sins" committed in the past. It's about a "socialist" party running a presidential candidate who presently considers his role as a pro-police vigilante to have been promoting "civil rights."

Oh look, Fred thinks he's clever.


Comrade chegitz, I gotta side here with Comrade CL. :(

As both of you recall, in my CSR chapter section on "USL"/"CSSL," I recalled Engels' quote on the class-strugglist organization having to be comprised exclusively of manual, clerical, and professional workers.

You two may also be interested in one of Comrade Rakunin's articles in the History thread on Rosa Luxemburg, which mentions Kautsky's reiteration of Engels' "proletarian separatism" (to use Comrade CL's words):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1264695&postcount=14 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1264695&postcount=14)

There's a difference from trying to attract another class, such as peasants via the Agrarian Programme, and accepting individual members from different classes who are attacted to socialism. After all, if we are going to stick to proletarian purity, it would be the case the most socialist organizations in the West would lose most of their membership. Also remember, intellectuals are not workers (generally), and Lenin fought to keep them in the party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'll wait for CL to pop in here and talk about the question of the "intelligentsia" (some being professional workers, some being coordinators, and others being petit-bourgeois).