Anyone vote Nader?

[DenniZ]

Anyone else vote for the REAL socialist?

[JohnnyC]

Haha!:laugh:

If he is a real socialist than I'm Adolf Hitler.He is just a green, social-democrat.

[DenniZ]

Haha!:laugh:

If he is a real socialist than I'm Adolf Hitler.He is just a green, social-democrat.

No that would be cynthia mckinney! :drool:

[GPDP]

Brian Moore was the real socialist in the race, but considering the things he did and said, he sure as hell didn't act the part.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's a hard time deciding who's the real socialist - the immigrant basher Nader, the ex-Democrat McKinney, or the Obama-praising Moore.

[Q]

Anyone else vote for the REAL socialist?

The Socialist Alternative (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=902) did (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=901) call (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=955) for a vote on Nader multiple times and supported his campaign, recognising he would be able to be a rally point to launch a campaign for a mass workers party. Sadly, Nader wasn't interested in supporting the latter himself.

[Victor]

I voted for Nader, even though he has many defects and is not a socialist. But I think that it is an absolute necessity to break the two party structure in the USA. I was hoping that Nader might be a good wedge to do that with.

That being said, I would've voted LA Riva or Moore had they been on the ballot in Massachusetts:).

[StalinFanboy]

I voted for Nader for the lolz. I was voting on the California State Props, and thought "What the hell, I'll just fill in this little bubble."

[chegitz guevara]

Voting for capitalists won't bring about socialism and voting for a part other than the main two won't break the duopoly. The duopoly is a result of the structure of the government, and nothing short of changing the way elections are run will do that.

I voted for Moore . . . and myself. I lost. :(

[Yehuda Stern]

Sadly, Nader wasn't interested in supporting the latter himself.

Well, imagine that, a racist pro-capitalist politician not wanting to build a workers party.

[Revy]

I voted for Brian Moore. And he was criticizing Obama throughout the campaign. That whole "letter of congratulations" was written after the election by him and he really was defiant when we told him to take it down off his personal website. But throughout the campaign he never said such a thing. But I do agree that Brian Moore was a TERRIBLE choice and this was a terribly run campaign. The problem was, Brian Moore was an outsider, new to socialism, and that created a lot of problems. He was chosen because of his experience it seems.

Our campaign was for socialism, and against capitalism. That is quite unlike Nader and McKinney which were just capitalist campaigns. Socialist Alternative did the wrong thing in endorsing him, but numerous groups had endorsed him before, when his xenophobia was then also blatant. But a lot of those groups endorsed McKinney in this election (Workers' International League, Solidarity, etc). It was all very frustrating to see these so-called "socialist" groups endorsing capitalists.

There were three socialists running. Moore, La Riva, and Calero. any of those three would have been good. Though I really don't like the SWP, I just don't. I'd say, though, they ran a better campaign than us. But I am proud to be in the SPUSA and I believe it is the best party.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, imagine that, a racist pro-capitalist politician not wanting to build a workers party.

boggles the mind, doesn't it

[KurtFF8]

Gloria La Riva is the "real socialist" who received the highest amount of the socialist vote. (Less than Nader and McKinney though).

My problem with the Moore choice is that the SPUSA had a real opportunity in this election: going on national TV and Radio, getting coverage, etc. Yet the spokesman the left got was inconsistent and not really that up on what socialism even was or how to build it. I don't know how the SPUSA ever thought it was a good idea to run Moore.

[Yehuda Stern]

Brian Moore looks like the run of the mill social-democratic dry bureaucrat who can't inspire anyone, regardless of what he has to say.

La Riva seems to be just an opportunist looking for a party to endorse her.

I wouldn't support either party regardless of the candidate, as I think both parties are reformist and have no base in the working class. However, their choice of candidates is still quite revealing.

[KurtFF8]

La Riva seems to be just an opportunist looking for a party to endorse her.

Oh boy, here we go. Once again, every leftist organization is opportunist/reformist/etc. and every effort to organize leftist organizations is anti-Marxist!

[Yehuda Stern]

Once again, every leftist organization is opportunist/reformist/etc.

Not all of them - just the ones who practice opportunism or reformism. An example of the first is a party which takes whatever relatively big name it can to endorse in an election even though the said person does not necessarily reflect the views of the party.


and every effort to organize leftist organizations is anti-Marxist!

Well, this is a pretty stupid sentence. Are you saying that I'm claiming it's anti-Marxist to organize left groups? Of course I don't consider organizing revolutionary parties to be wrong. Is it anti-Marxist to organize reformist parties, or a popular front of different political groups, on the basis of a propaganda bloc? Yes, it is.

[Revy]

But you must realize that Brian Moore did not win some kind of broad support. It was a 25 to 20 vote. The other man that almost won was Eric Chester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Chester). Indeed, he is not new to socialism at all.

We have lost many of the reformists and social democrats since then, they have left displeased at the revolutionary & radical turn the party has taken. 5 people made the difference at the 2007 Convention and I wasn't even there to vote, and I supported Eric Chester from the very beginning, that's how I would have voted. He is a very admirable person, and I kinda disliked how I heard Brian Moore just come in and get the nomination without having been in the party for more than what seemed like a quick time.

I live in Florida, and I remember Brian Moore's GREEN campaign for Senate in 2006. It was anti-war...and progressive. But it wasn't socialist so I was prepared for Brian Moore not knowing much about socialism.

Of course, a lot of people think this reflects on our party, it doesn't. The facts are, we are a party. Not a cult, not a dictatorship, thus the leadership cannot just appoint whoever it wants. Battles are fought, sometimes won, sometimes lost. Our democracy is why we have not degenerated like the SWP or the SEP.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is all good and well, but the fact remains that the reformist wing of the SPUSA calls the shoots in the party, and the other wings' refusal to break organizationally with it just shows how "radical" and "revolutionary" it really is. Lame excuses aside, this is the bottom line: the SPUSA is a reformist party with a 'radical' wing which serves as its left flank. In this it is no different than any other social-democratic party on this planet.

[Revy]

Well I can't agree with that. The social democrats left and their tendency ceased to exist. Now there is a Trotskyist tendency being formed (Cannon Tendency) alongside the revolutionary Debs Tendency and Grass Roots Tendency. I'd say the social democrats are not in control, neither are reformists. Which is why they left, because they knew the direction the party was heading.

the party does call itself "democratic socialist" but obviously people shouldn't take that to mean "social democratic". When we say democratic socialist it is genuine to the true meaning of the term. Many have adopted the term "revolutionary democratic socialist" and some are just choosing to use "revolutionary socialist" and drop democratic socialist altogether because of its connotations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh dear. I'm waiting for the Cannon Tendency to push forward some form of the usual broad economism that is the "Transitional Program."

[KurtFF8]

This is all good and well, but the fact remains that the reformist wing of the SPUSA calls the shoots in the party, and the other wings' refusal to break organizationally with it just shows how "radical" and "revolutionary" it really is. Lame excuses aside, this is the bottom line: the SPUSA is a reformist party with a 'radical' wing which serves as its left flank. In this it is no different than any other social-democratic party on this planet.

Right, because what defines how radical or revolutionary a wing of any organization is is its tendency to split (which is what the left needs: more splits) instead of trying to make a party like the Socialist Party a revolutionary party again... Come on.

And if it is the case that the reformist wing has for the most part left the party, why would the revolutionary wing also leave? What's the point of starting yet another socialist party in the United States when they're already in one that they can reshape into a more overtly revolutionary party.

If I were in SPUSA, I would likely support adopting the term "Revolutionary Socialist" however.

[Yehuda Stern]

To Stancel and Kurt: I obviously don't know the inner workings of the SPUSA as well as you do. However, the Moore episode shows that there is a strong reformist current in the party which will opportunistically send someone like Moore to be the presidential candidate of the party, something which the revolutionary wing was powerless to prevent. Having someone like Moore, who praises Obama, in such a position in a workers' party is no trivial thing. It is a grave betrayal to the working class. That you insist on staying in such a party despite all this gives the impression that you care more about numbers and fake unity than with having the positions that are correct from the point of view of the working class.

I am not against entryism in principle - sometimes entryism can be a useful tactic, which can help the revolutionary organization win over many workers from reformist or centrist groups. But when entryism, from a temporary tactic, becomes a permanent strategy, it just buries revolutionaries in a reformist party. It's even worse when these people try to give that party revolutionary credentials.

[Revy]

To Stancel and Kurt: I obviously don't know the inner workings of the SPUSA as well as you do. However, the Moore episode shows that there is a strong reformist current in the party which will opportunistically send someone like Moore to be the presidential candidate of the party, something which the revolutionary wing was powerless to prevent. Having someone like Moore, who praises Obama, in such a position in a workers' party is no trivial thing. It is a grave betrayal to the working class. That you insist on staying in such a party despite all this gives the impression that you care more about numbers and fake unity than with having the positions that are correct from the point of view of the working class.

I am not against entryism in principle - sometimes entryism can be a useful tactic, which can help the revolutionary organization win over many workers from reformist or centrist groups. But when entryism, from a temporary tactic, becomes a permanent strategy, it just buries revolutionaries in a reformist party. It's even worse when these people try to give that party revolutionary credentials.

Actually, if I felt this party was heading in a direction like that I would leave it.

The reason I am in the SPUSA and I choose to fight these battles, is because I value its structure and its commitment to democracy as well as its potential.

You have to be fair also, when we nominated Moore, in fall 2007, we did not have a crystal ball which would show him writing a congratulatory letter
after the election. During the campaign he in fact criticized Obama on numerous occasions.

I believe there is more to be gained by people with genuine revolutionary socialism, coming into this party than there is them leaving. But if it ever reaches a hopeless point, I will split and take as many people as I can with me. I see the party now as firmly in the hands of revolutionaries, genuine socialists, there is no danger now of someone like Moore being irresponsibly nominated.

[JimmyJazz]

I voted for Nader, even though he has many defects and is not a socialist. But I think that it is an absolute necessity to break the two party structure in the USA.

Not really that important. It's been broken before, by the Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#History). That has not worked out as a very progressive development in U.S. politics.

I joined the IWW after deciding that there's no point in building a socialist party when there's not even a real working class movement in this country. Before that, though, I looked into the SPUSA, ISO, PSL and (to a lesser extent) SWP, and I think the PSL is probably the best thing going. Probably. But their emphasis on anti-imperialism isn't going to connect with most working people and it needs to be toned down, and considering it's part of their name I'm not sure how likely this is to happen. It should remain their policy, of course, but why talk about it all the time? Socialism is what they should be talking about, while helping people make the connections between socialism and their day-to-day grievances at work. The current IWW does this better than anyone else imo. It's only flaw (and I'll admit this is a huge one) is that despite its constitution declaring it a "non-political" organization, which endorses neither any specific candidate nor abstention from elections, it does have a strong semi-official tendency to endorse anarcho-syndicalism. When I'm no longer the new guy (say, in 6 months or so), I'll start seeing if I can assert my Marxist ideas without pissing anyone off. I don't want to make it a political organization though, I agree fully with the stance in its constitution, so I'll probably just bring it up in unofficial discussions at member BBQs or whatever. Just to make it known that I am a Marxist and I don't eat babies.

eta anyway yeah, Nader's not a socialist at all XD

[scarletghoul]

It was at the time. It abolished slavery.

Yes, we are back to the 2 party system again now, but to blame that on the breaking of the 2 party system before makes no sense.

Besides, Nader's mostly independant right? So his success wouldnt simply install another major party, it would open the way for other independants and so more free debate etc

[JimmyJazz]

It was at the time. It abolished slavery.

No kidding.


Besides, Nader's mostly independant right? So his success wouldnt simply install another major party, it would open the way for other independants and so more free debate etc

His success? :lol:

His losing campaigns might get his ideas out there slightly more, but they don't make an appreciable dent in capitalist politics as usual.

[scarletghoul]

Im talkin' hypothetically, if he got significant amount of votes.

[Pogue]

Not really that important. It's been broken before, by the Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#History). That has not worked out as a very progressive development in U.S. politics.

I joined the IWW after deciding that there's no point in building a socialist party when there's not even a real working class movement in this country. Before that, though, I looked into the SPUSA, ISO, PSL and (to a lesser extent) SWP, and I think the PSL is probably the best thing going. Probably. But their emphasis on anti-imperialism isn't going to connect with most working people and it needs to be toned down, and considering it's part of their name I'm not sure how likely this is to happen. It should remain their policy, of course, but why talk about it all the time? Socialism is what they should be talking about, while helping people make the connections between socialism and their day-to-day grievances at work. The current IWW does this better than anyone else imo. It's only flaw (and I'll admit this is a huge one) is that despite its constitution declaring it a "non-political" organization, which endorses neither any specific candidate nor abstention from elections, it does have a strong semi-official tendency to endorse anarcho-syndicalism. When I'm no longer the new guy (say, in 6 months or so), I'll start seeing if I can assert my Marxist ideas without pissing anyone off. I don't want to make it a political organization though, I agree fully with the stance in its constitution, so I'll probably just bring it up in unofficial discussions at member BBQs or whatever. Just to make it known that I am a Marxist and I don't eat babies.

eta anyway yeah, Nader's not a socialist at all XD

We are political, obviously. I think that part of the constitution means we don't engage in party politics and support such political campaigns. The IWW is a group calling for a communist society through a non-heirarchial revolutionary union, so we are basicaly anarcho-syndicalist.

[JimmyJazz]

Yes, we are back to the 2 party system again now, but to blame that on the breaking of the 2 party system before makes no sense.

I wasn't blaming it on that, obviously. The point was that despite breaking it before, look where we are. Hence one would be a fool to make a blanket statement that breaking the two-party stranglehold is some kind of a step away from the continuation of capitalist politics.

Capitalist-managed elections don't put socialist candidates in power. That's a fact. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's the lesson of both history and common sense.

Social Democracy in 1914 (http://marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch1.htm#s1)

The Second International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International)


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.

[JimmyJazz]

We are political, obviously. I think that part of the constitution means we don't engage in party politics and support such political campaigns. The IWW is a group calling for a communist society through a non-heirarchial revolutionary union, so we are basicaly anarcho-syndicalist.

Technically you're wrong. Although I can see why you got that impression, and that's exactly my complaint. However, as far as the official (constitutional) stance goes:


Resolved, That to the end of promoting industrial unity and of securing necessary discipline within the organization, the IWW refuses all alliances, direct and indirect, with existing political parties or anti-political sects, and disclaims responsibility to any individual opinion or act which may be at variance with the purposes herein expressed

Thus, members are free to belong to a political party if they want, including the Maoist-Guevarist People's Third World Liberation Front of America (ML).

However, the informal influence of anarchist ideas is extremely evident in some ways. For instance, here's the same passage from the constitution, but with the part that precedes it:


Whereas, the primary object of the Industrial Workers of the World is to unite the workers on the industrial battlefield; and

Whereas, Organization in any sense implies discipline through the subordination of parts to the whole and of the individual member to the body of which he or she is a part; therefore be it

Resolved, That to the end of promoting industrial unity and of securing necessary discipline within the organization, the IWW refuses all alliances, direct and indirect, with existing political parties or anti-political sects, and disclaims responsibility to any individual opinion or act which may be at variance with the purposes herein expressed.

The second "Whereas" paragraph was certainly written by someone with some background in anarchist ideas.

Also, their traditional advocacy of direct action, etc. So I agree with you that an anarcho-syndicalist would probably feel more at home in the IWW than a Marxist, but at the same time, I already said that.

And Marxists do have a history of working with the IWW; John Reed tried to get them recognized by the Cominern.

[Revy]

Nader will never be elected President. It's become a self-movement now, there is no party attached to him. I think eventually it will fade like the LaRouche movement.

So do I think Nader will be 3rd place again in 2012? Nope.

[Pogue]

Technically you're wrong. Although I can see why you got that impression, and that's exactly my complaint. However, as far as the official (constitutional) stance goes:



Thus, members are free to belong to a political party if they want, including the Maoist-Guevarist People's Third World Liberation Front of America (ML).

However, the informal influence of anarchist ideas is extremely evident in some ways. For instance, here's the same passage from the constitution, but with the part that precedes it:



The second "Whereas" paragraph was certainly written by someone with some background in anarchist ideas.

Also, their traditional advocacy of direct action, etc. So I agree with you that an anarcho-syndicalist would probably feel more at home in the IWW than a Marxist, but at the same time, I already said that.

And Marxists do have a history of working with the IWW; John Reed tried to get them recognized by the Cominern.

Oh yeh we're allowed to be in a party. But the IWW wont affiliate with/work for a party. And our politics are Anarcho-Syndicalist - the revolutionary union is to be the bastion of class struggle leading to the IWW's goal - workers receiving the full receipt of their labour, i.e. collective ownership, basically communism. So we want a non-heirarchial union struggling to common ownership without reform - revolutionary, or anarchist syndicalism.

[JimmyJazz]

There are Marxists in my local, that's all I can say. And they are not all "libertarian" Marxists. Yes, syndicalism carries a lot of weight with most Wobs, and Wobs do drive the IWW's policies.

[Pogue]

Well I'm an Anarchist, but I'm not hostile to Marxism, and I don't see the contradiction between being in the IWW and being a Marxist. Not all marxists have to believe in the vanguard or workers state.

[Sam_b]

and every effort to organize leftist organizations is anti-Marxist!

To be honest, La Riva's position on China isn't what you'd call Marxist, is it?