Have fun John.
(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:19 am on June 17, 2003)
Results 1 to 20 of 48
[Let me know what you think, what I could add in to make this more effective. Any historical tidbits about the treachery of the Democrats would be appreciated, as well. Thanks.]
After suffering through over two years of George W. Bush's assault on workers at home and abroad, many on the left are waging a campaign to a elect a Democrat, by any means neccessary.
Even people who consider themsevles Greens or socialists are flirting with the idea of "sucking it up" and backing a Democrat to stem the Bush assault. This notion flies in the face of Marxism and the history of the Democratic party in America.
As I see it, there are two ways to stopping Bush's attacks: 1. Vote for a Democrat (so someone else can take over the attack on working-people), or 2. Build a mass movement that forces Bush or his successor to be more accountable to the majority in this country.
For eight years, millions of Americans went without any form of health insurance. Millions languished in minimum wage jobs or in prison (or both!). Hundreds were executed. Thousands deported.
Clinton's military adventures led to the deaths of an estimated 10,000 Somalis, unknown Haitians, Serbians, Croats, Afghans...and of course, all of the Sudanese who suffered after half of their pharmeceutical production capability was destroyed. Then there's the half million in Iraq, along with the billions in Second and Third World countries who lived under eight years of neoliberal IMF imposed austerity measures and World Bank loans.
Gays were not allowed to serve openly in the military, what is in essence government-sponsored discrimination. Nor were they allowed to openly, officially marry in many states. A woman's right to choose was chipped away at and demonized by Clinton.
But Clinton isn't an abberation, before him Kennedy launched the Vietnam War, Truman let the anti-labor law Taft-Hartley pass in Congress and Roosevelt interred thousands of Japanese.
In fact, it was under Nixon that the Supreme Court first gave women the right to choose, because of the huge movement against the Vietnam War (which built off of the Civil Rights movement). The pressure from below was too much, even for a staunch, corrupt conservative.
It is true that the Republicans are more reactionary and probably more vile, but if the Democrats simply represent the "status quo"--a status quo that kills millions yearly--is that acceptable? I believe not.
So, in my opinion, the Democratic Party (including Kucinich, who'll never get the nod anyway--but will end up stumping for Kerry, Dean or Gephardt) is a dead end for people genuinely committed to worker's rights, let alone international socialism.
To fight back against the right in America and internationally will require not deep campaign funds but deep conciousness and tireless organizing and activism. If unions took their money out of Democrat's campaign treasure chests and put it into organizing more workplaces, they'd be able to dictate things to the White House--no matter who occupies it.
Ultimately, socialism will come through the self-activity of the working-class. Sandbagging for Democrats is not only a diversion from our task, it is counter-intuitive.
"Our objective is complete freedom, complete justice, complete equality, by any means necessary."
--Malcolm X, December 20, 1964
--------------------
www.socialistworker.org
Have fun John.
(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:19 am on June 17, 2003)
"...in our kiss we taste revolution." - The (International) Noise Conspiracy
"The world is full of ideologies that claim to offer freedom, but in reality simply offer us bigger cages and longer chains. The demand for an end to cages and chains may seem idealistic to some people, but the real idealists are those who think we can carry on as we are." - Larry Law
Third World Forum
Students for Justice in Palestine - Davis
"So, in my opinion, the Democratic Party (including Kucinich, who'll never get the nod anyway--but will end up stumping for Kerry, Dean or Gephardt) is a dead end for people genuinely committed to worker's rights, let alone international socialism. "
We have a couple of problems here. I think most of us here agree that for the most part, the Democrats represent no real appreciable difference from the Republicans. It is bad enough where it has been suggested (in jest) that the parties consolidate and form one party, called the Republicrats or Demopublicans. Campaign finance has for the most part, ruined any chance of us getting a "free thinker".
However, I think we also can agree that there are candidates out there that represent an improvement over GW. If we are going to proceed with electoral politics, then it is incumbent on us to at least try to endorse the person most closely aligned with our ideals. Change, unfortunately isn't going to come over night, and perhaps the best road to Socialism, is by electing a person closer to those ideals.
It's disheartening that your defeatist statement (and most likely quite realistic), regarding Kucinich is most likely going to play out in exactly the fashion that you have stated. However, Kucinich represents the best opportunity of a "left" president. (You gotta believe that a guy that listed as a residence "the family car" at one point in his life, wants to see some real change) My opinion is that it is worthwhile supporting this kind of candidate regardless of his chances of winning. Perhaps, by voting for people of his ilk, it will send a message to the Democratic party that there is a large block of Democrats on the left that are unhappy with the mediocre choice being given them from the traditional candidates. Especially, if this large voter block is casting ballots for a candidate that borders on being a Socialist. We should accept no substitutes. Kerry and Gephardt represent nothing but the same old, same old.
If we don't make the change through electoral politics (and I seriously doubt we can), then we'll have to come up with a better plan for the country and our futures. Just what is it? I wish I had a clue.
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
John you spoke exactly my mind. It's a shame that people's blind hatred of Bush is leading them to actually consider voting Democrat. Bush is no worse then Clinton, and is probubly better for PR, at least he acts dumber then Joe Dirt.
2006 Still Under Occupation!
You can't get any movement larger than five people without including at least one fucking idiot.
-<span style=\'color:green\'>Green</span> Mars
So is the answer to simply support a fringe candidate? One that realistically has no chance of winning but will make a statement with the electorate?
What's a good leftist to do? Even in the course of the struggle, (protests, strikes etc.) doesn't it make sense to a least try to get someone elected that will be more sympathetic to our cause, rather than call out the National Guard and have us all shot?
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
The fact of the matter is, the Democratic Party would not, and never will be, sympathetic to a Marxist revolutionary movement. There really isn't much else to say about this topic besides that. End of story.
So it makes more sense to do nothing and allow a president that would be more intolerant and would label us as terrorists?
I realize that the Democrats also have a vested interest in keeping things status quo, but isn't in our best interest if we help elect someone in the mean time that is more compassionate to the poor, (welfare programs, unemployment programs) funding for the arts, etc?
Should we abandon these causes as well? Keep in mind, I'm speaking in terms of immediacy. People that need help now, not just people in 25, 50,100 years that will benefit from a socialist or communist revolution.
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
The Democrats had EIGHT years to "help the people", but instead look what we got from them: welfare-deform, NAFTA, the Anti-Terrorism Act (in 1996, the prelude to the Patriot Act), imperialist aggression in Yugoslavia, imperialist economic sanctions against Iraq (which murdered one million people), etc, etc, etc. That is what the 1990s were all about, and those were the Clinton years! At least now when Bush does the SAME things that Clinton did, the people are more resistant to him because he doesn't have a nice safe "D" beside his name!
yes, foreign policy is very much similar, but is economic policy? no. please, look at the link i posted before. also, just look at the FCC ruling recently. the 2 democrats wanted national open hearings, the 3 republicans didnt. the 3 republicans voted for it, the 2 dems voted against it. to say they are the same is silly, to be blunt. i will most likely be voting democract in 2004 for all of the reasons The Muckracker (vox) laid out in the link.
"...in our kiss we taste revolution." - The (International) Noise Conspiracy
"The world is full of ideologies that claim to offer freedom, but in reality simply offer us bigger cages and longer chains. The demand for an end to cages and chains may seem idealistic to some people, but the real idealists are those who think we can carry on as we are." - Larry Law
Third World Forum
Students for Justice in Palestine - Davis
I totally agree with what you're saying. Clinton was a disaster. He unfortuantely ran as a liberal Dem. and conned a lot of people into voting for him. His platform was bought and paid for by the same lobbyists as the Republicans'.
The question remains however. Are you saying we're better off with another 4 years of GW? Is this a case of the "Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't?".
If their truly is a "left" choice for Dem. nomination, wouldn't it be better to have him in office?
Are you advocating not voting at all?
Believe me, I'm not a believer in the electoral process either, but what are we to do in the interim? Isn't it incumbent on us at least to try and get the "leftist leaning" candidate possible? I understand that candidates are not always what they appear to be.
What is the solution?
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
And in what way are the Democrats any different from the Republicans regarding economics?
Lets see Clinton supported Welfare-Deform, and NAFTA, which both hurt American workers!
Where is our universal health care? Where is our living wage? Why does it cost so fucking much to attend university?
The Democrats had their chance, and they really could have done a lot if they had wanted too. However, the Democratic capitalist politicians get their money from the same class that the Republicans do, so to expect anything different from them is just silly and naive. Someone with a Marxist understanding should already know this.
Btw, I already read the link you posted earlier, and all of Redstar2000's posts in it were truly excellent.
Shrug, well I've been following the Democratic primary race for about a year now. And basically there are three candidates that have a real chance at winning: John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Gephart. All of them are useless right-wingers. And Joseph Lieberman seems the most likely to win (he has been leading most of the polls ever since Gore dropped out).
While Kucinich and Sharpton say some nice things they clearly are not going to win the primary (in most polls Sharpton is 5% and Kucinich is 2%). And then there is this other guy, Howard Dean, who is popular among some liberals (and has a "strong" 5% support in the polls), yet he claims to be "fiscally conservative". So basically they are all worthless and the more moderate candidates have no chance of winning anyway.
I will vote for the Green Party's candidate in 2004, because the Socialist Workers Party or Workers World Party presidential candidates are never on the ballot in my state! =(
But right now, we have a choice of a Dem. that wants to get rid of NAFTA and WTO (Kucinich), restoration of Family Farms, Repeal of the Patriot Act, Universal Health, Guaranteed Education, etc, etc....
I realize that these are lofty goals, (many of which will probably never get through Congress) but wouldn't we better off trying?
Are we better off not voting for someone like this than GW? That's the question.
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for. You said that Kucinich has no chance of winning (unfortuntely I think you're probably right) but does he have less of a chance of winning than the Green party?
Sadly, our state is also sadly lacking in Socialist candidates.
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
Shrug, well, we can vote for Kucinich in the primary, but he isn't going to win it.
And as we all know, voting in this country is completely worthless anyway. I only vote for the same reason I occasionally scratch my ass - it feels good.
LOL :biggrin:
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? A democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all
-Emma Goldman
IWW
I'm new here, but thought I'd give my worthy? opinion on this subject.
Firstly, any one that doubts Clinton was a conservative has been living under a rock for the last 8 years. Granted he was more liberal than Reagan and Bush, but he still was a Republican in Dem clothing.
I feel that there are some rebels in the Democratic Party, but sadly their voice doesn't conform to the vast majority of that in the United States. You only get small enclaves of support throughout the country. It's not large enough to elect someone that even has the slightest view points as us.
But does that mean we give up? No, because ultimately we hurt even more. If George DUHbya is re-elected president, we will see another 4 years of tyranny and war. Can we deal with that? Can OUR country deal with an economically irresponsible president? I don't think so.
Even though I really dislike Clinton's conservative views, I think most could agree he isn't as bad as what Duhbya is today.
Firstly, we need a president that will bring equality to EVERY social realm, not just the rich; not just the white. IMO Bush never will do that. A Republican will never do that. While a Republican is in office social freedom will slowly evaporate until there is nothing left.
What even scares me more is Bush will not have to worry about a re-election in his 2nd term. Thus he doesn't need to appease the voters as much as he would if an election were up and coming. I have no doubt that if Bush was re-elected John Ashcroft and that whole administration would chip at our individual freedoms.
Where am I going with this? As much as I hate most of the Democratic hopefuls, I think ALL (except LIEberman) would do a better job than Bush is.
With that said, it's time to start at the grassroots. It's always nice thinking big, but it's just NOT possible right now. Slowly change the look of local politics.
I know here in Salt Lake City our mayor is a Socialist Democrat. He's also VERY popular. If we can garner support there, we can slowly build up onto a national level.
I do think the closest Socialist we've had in the White House was FDR, and he's ranked as one of the best presidents in our nations history. So it CAN happen, but you need educate the public on the matter. And you can only do that at a local base.
Marx. Sounds good!
Fist of all, I'm not that sure how much I understand American politics (that's my disclaimer, at least).
I am reminded of Tony Blair however. Many of the people I've encountered feel that Tony Blair is a good leader, and a man worthy of respect. They admire the fact that he tried to get UN justification for the war in Iraq. However, would it have been a more just war if the UN had sanctified it? No. I fear that Tony Blair is the type who could lead people to believe a situation better than it is. If we truly want the working class to rise up, the majority must be conscious of their oppression. The democrats perhaps apply a veneer of affability, but do they make a solid improvement to the life of Joe Q. Public on the street?
I don't feel that I know the true answer, but I am confident the difference is slight.
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
The Democrats are NOT allies of the Communist Party, or to any anti-capitalist movement.
The American Democrats and Republicans are generally the same capitalist, only difference is that the Democrats pretend to care about the poor in order to generate votes, but they still favor the rich. What about Clinton's help in assaulting our comrades in Chiapas, Mexico? Or his support of Zionist Jews in Israel? Or his constant bombardment of the territory surrounding Yugoslavia?
We forget so easily, although Republicans are obviously much worse than democrats, they are both capitalists, IE, our enemies!
http://www.Hungersite.com Help feed someone that\'s hungry today, for free! Visit the other links too.
\"The modern wage slaves, owing to the conditions of capitalist bourgeois exploitation, are so much crushed by want and poverty that[capitalist] \"democrac
The point is that the democrats are not any more sympathetic to our cause than the republicans. They are not (quite) as odious perhaps but thats about all.
A vote for either Democrat or Republican is a vote for the American system (call it capitalism or Liberal democracy) and as such will help perpetuate it.
Its annoying to feel that your vote wont change anything immediately. But if no-one ever takes the initiative and sacrifices immediate tiny gain for the possibility of ultimate victory you will neber see that ultimate victory.
If you are a socialist vote socialist. It is the only democratic weapon you have, even if it is not an especially lethal one at the moment. What do you think big 'capitalists' would like you to do ?
best would be to vote republican of course
But not far off would be vote Democrat.
So dont.
(Edited by sc4r at 11:00 am on June 18, 2003)
When I die I want to go to heaven, whether there is one or not.
I understand that god judges intentions and it is my intention to convert 5 secs before I die. Hopefully this insurance policy is valid in all states.
