U.S election

Blood of the first born? First born of entrepreneurs, the job creators of course. Facilitates the conversation when the conversation is that of seizing the world for Satan.

Can the "Traumatised of Oakland" folks please get their own thread? So the rest of us that don't particularly give a flying fuck about Bay area shit fights don't have to read your moaning.

edit: oh look, there already is one - http://libcom.org/forums/north-america/occupy-oaklands-decomposition-26102012 - can people - that means you Stan - stop bring over arguments from other threads into threads where they don't belong, as it's not only a violation of posting guidelines, but its a good way to get people's backs up and generally be favourable to you being binned. Cease and desist.

Ya no problem, this was just my reaction to being called racist, misogynistic, homophobic and full of hate. It's not like there's no reason for what you see as some off topic tangent but ya, I'll shut up now. In this thread.

You think despite the fact they have totally opposing rhetoric and promises over funding to Planned Parenthood, they would in fact have done the exact same thing? Romney wanted to completely pull the plug on state funding for it, Obama said he would make no cuts to it. You think bureaucracy, etc. would make sure they actually cut it in the exact same way, yeah?

I don't really understand this argument. Why do you believe this? I mean it's next to impossible to empirically test it, and you can always claim 'the other lot would have done the exact same', but why do you think this is necessarily true?

The most interesting thing about this election, in my opinion at least, was the MASSIVE amount of shit thrown at Obama by the far right.

Just look at all the bullcrap 'documentaries' and blogs and shit... it really blew my mind, never seen this stuff happen before. So I consider his re-election a kick to the nads of the loony fundamentalists, but that's about it.

Still, hell would freeze over before you'd see anything like that happen in Europe. Outside WWII anti-bolshevik propaganda, at least...

we know that they lie about nearly everything, and they one all the things where there is a comparison they basically act the same. we also know they the pressures acting on them are the same.
so really the claim that hey would do something different is the one that needs evidence

The pressures on them are pretty much the same (not quite the same - electoral pressures are real, the parties have to appeal to their demographics, and even if most of that comes from spin and meaningless campaigning, it's not crazy to imagine it acts as something of a pressure), yeah. But there is a range of ways they can respond to the same pressures. Also I take it this mainly applies to economic pressures, whereas much of the differences between the parties are pretty independent of economic concerns. So they have more freedom to do what they want, and bureaucratic and democratic forces are the main things holding them back. Those forces are obviously not 100% barriers to doing anything.

Look, nobody says there aren't differences, but the question is are the differences substantial enough that the basic class division can be or should be obscured? You can always point to something: Gore or Kerry might not have used white phosphorus on Fallujah

The problem mons is that the "cost" of lesser evilism is paid by sacrificing the prospects for a class-based movement independent of and opposed to the existing order.

So maybe Obama keeps funding for PP for 2 more years-- although there's no guarantee since states are taking that action under Medicaid funds they control and so far only the federal courts have been able to arrest that in Texas.

But in advocating for Democrats you're advocating for an economy that perpetuates racism, wars, inequality for women, and continued assaults on living standards of the poor and workers. You are, then, as Obama is, simply perpetuating the economy, and the reaction that economy produces in the ruling class, that mobilizes and strengthens attacks on women's access to safe medical procedures; or Iraqis' rights to any medical procedures whatsoever.

To Railyon: Never underestimate the viciousness, the pettiness, and the racism of the white American electorate. It forms the perfect patsy for the Koch Bros.et al manipulations.

Obama has not, and will not, reverse these types of attacks. Indeed, as capital reproduces itself and its conflicts more acutely as more capital, these attacks will increase. 2014 will bring another wave of Koch-funded Ayn Rand jihadists into Congress, state legislatures, governors' mansions.

S. Artesian,

Actually I think most people are saying that "there aren't differences", literally none, but I'm glad you're not. You see there are some small tangible benefits that come up about if a given Party gets in as opposed to another one. So to make voting a waste of time (or worse) you've got to argue that these small tangible benefits are outweighed by the negative effects of voting.

As I understand it you're saying voting: endorses and perpetuates what the Democrats do to fuck up the working class; actively undermines efforts to resist what the politicians do and build working class power. And these are the things that outweigh the small tangible likely benefits of a certain party being elected. I don't think either of those things are true. How is voting an active endorsement, how does it actively perpetuate capitalism? I really don't see it, and I don't think anyone has explained in this thread or in others to do with voting. Also how does voting for a slightly less shitty political party involve "sacrificing the prospects for a class-based movement independent of and opposed to the existing order."? Because I'm pretty confident people are capable of voting for something while knowing they and the whole system they are running is a crock of shit. In fact I think a lot of voters know that already.

I'm not trying to say communists should start campaigning for political parties, or even critically endorse certain parties. I also don't think it's a big deal whether you vote or not, if I was feeling lazy or there were long queues I probably wouldn't bother. My argument is really against anarchists/communists being really into abstaining from voting, and I kinda think it's part of the weirdness of the anarchist movement which has principles that don't come from practise, and is disconnected from ordinary people.

[Also I shouldn't really have to do this, but yes of course I think Democrats, just like Republicans, support an "economy that perpetuates racism, wars, inequality for women, and continued assaults on living standards of the poor and workers." That's a given on libcom I think. ]

We can look to all of previous history, mons, and what you are advocating is essentially how trade unions, and trade union bureaucracies have acted-- supporting "slightly less shitty" parties for minimal tangible benefits. That perpetuates capital, and the benefits, as is everything else with capital, arecyclical within a specific structural or conjuncture of capital. So Clinton might not be as bad as Dole, but when push comes to shove, he's going to be "realistic" go for the "tangible benefit" the "slightly less shitty outcome" and you are going to get children pushed off welfare in the US, and the starvation of children through the sanctions enforced against Iraq.

And when the conjuncture turns down and then the cycle turns down with it? What then? Do you advocate the bailout of the banks, of GM because you think that's slightly less shitty? How do you ever find a moment when you oppose capital as capital when you are repeatedly pursuing "less shitty" alternatives?

At no point do the trade unions engage-- watch out for this word-- the totality of what capitalism is, and the totality of what "tangible benefits" become-- which is in fact the continued sacrifice of many for purposes of immobilizing even more.

You can argue about this in any number of ways: You can say for example back in the 1970s, support for Allende's Unidad Popular was in the "immediate interest" of the working class. After all, look at the tangible benefits, the "progressive elements." And what happened there? The immobilization of the working class-- the opposition of the Allende UP govt. to the workers self-organization; to the workers takeovers and the concomitant strengthening of the opportunity for counterrevolution.

In the extreme as was the case in Chile, and in the "not yet extreme" as is the case in the US, program, advocacy has to oppose endorsement/collaboration with the ruling class and its agents. Without that, the only place you're going to wind up is on your way to being disappeared.

Mons, I think when you say

you have a real misunderstanding about the way things happen in our country. It is a misunderstanding commonly held by many comrades here, even people I consider friends and pretty solid on other issues. You're conflating the real differences between the parties with tangible benefits. But I'd challenge you to point out a historical example where we've secured tangible benefits simply by electing one party or the other. I can't think of any. In my example above about Cleveland's progressive mayors, I tried to point out how structural forces acted on them, forcing them to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have if not in government. I used Tom L. Johnson and the streetcar strike when I should have used Carl Stokes, because talking about Carl Stokes is more long and complicated. Its still too long and complicated. So, I'm going to go ahead and recommend you read this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=KuTpb7HwG8QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=carl+stokes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b8edUOSSJ4-MyAGQkYCYAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=carl%20stokes&f=false Leonard Moore has the benefit of being one of those liberal / social democrat academics who publish a bunch of shit in their own book even though it clearly contradicts their own thesis. He tells you all the facts because he's honest, he has a stupid thesis because he has a fundamental misapprehension of the way shit works. Thomas Sugrue and Piven and Cloward are also this way. I realize that asking you to read an entire book in order to understand my point on a libcom thread is a bit much, but I just can't explain this entire historical example here, which I think is the most instructive I've ever encountered.

While reading, keep these questions in mind:

What relationship did Carl Stokes have with elements of the Cleveland's black community who favored direct action?

What effect did his election have on the movement for civil rights in Cleveland? What concrete gains were made before and after his election; through direct action and through Stokes' political maneuverings?

Being quite conscious of, and indeed campaigning on, the problem of police brutality, why then did Carl Stokes acquiesce to the police dept's wishes so many times, and why did police brutality in the black community get worse during his time as mayor?

Why did the 21st district caucus fail?

What effect did focus on electoral politics have on black city politics in the long term?

Keep in mind while reading that Carl Stokes was very, very sincere. He wasn't a stooge. He grew up in the projects. He was schooled by some of Cleveland's most intelligent and saavy black organizers, like John O. Holly. His opponent in his first mayoral election, Republican Seth Taft, was an evil fucking racist. Can you honestly see things as having gone differently had Seth Taft been elected? Honestly?

Here's my take on shit: The democratic party sees its role as demobilizing protest. Even dems who are sincere about being "progressive" or whatever see protest as ineffective and irresponsible and see the democratic party in and of itself as a better method and goal. So they got everybody off the streets in Wisconsin because getting some more dems in was waaaay more important than our stupid demonstration. Once in office, if they try to act in a positive way at all (they usually don't make the effort, compare Dennis Kucinich's rhetoric with his publicly available congressional record) they get frustrated in those attempts by structural forces, and of course their opposition. Voting for the democrats because you think there's going to be tangible benefits is essentially voting for a misunderstanding. Tom L. Johnson had to smash the streetcar strike. Carl Stokes had to police disobedient elements of the black community. Gore and Lieberman were going to invade Iraq (why would Clinton/Gore spend their entire time in office preparing for it and then not do it?). Barack Obama will not launch a counter-offensive against the war on women. If he does, I will give you 100 American dollars.

Also keep in mind that the Republicans capitulate just as easily as the democrats when we make them do it. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/3992-1 Listen to all the rhetoric about social justice. I especially like the part where Eisenhower talks about why it would be wrong to have used an injunction against the steel workers union, how government should not have taken the side of the steel companies. Thats the same batshit republican party we have today. The guy saying that shit is the same guy who started the cia overthrows.

So it make sense to me to promote abstention for the working class. We get tangible benefits by coercing the capitalists. Both factions of capitalists can be coerced. But vote for the lesser of two evils implicitly implies that in some instances you don't have to go through the hard work of coercing them, but we do. We shouldn't promote the illusion that voting matters, that there's some gain in it.

http://1.seiu.org/page/s/ourchicago

BETTER GIVE THE DNC THE REST OF YOUR STRIKE FUND LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111!!!!!

http://patnoble2012.org/2012/11/07/we-did-it/

I think that there are major differences within the US ruling class that have caused, and probably will continue to cause problems for the state. I don't think that differences, centrifugal forces and so on within the ruling class are confined to the US - witness the massive demonstration in Spain for an independent Catalonia, similar tendencies regarding Belgium, and Scotland and the United Kingdom. These are real differences within the ruling class that are particularly exacerbated by the deepening of the economic crisis. As far as the US is concerned it is not only facing major problems on the economic front but, as the world cop and defender of the (its) status quo, it is facing its historic weakening confronted with multiple diverging forces at the level of imperialism. The question of whether the working class has anything to gain from who is voted in, or who wins a referendum for this or that or an independent state, or who is more of a pacifist than another, can only be answered in the negative in my opinion. Democracy and nationalism are very powerful ideological forces that the bourgeoisie has honed over many decades and can be overwhelming to a working class that has not yet found its feet, let alone its ability to really fight back. I don't think that the working class has anything to gain by, however tenuously, aligning itself with one faction of the ruling class or another.

Apropos of the "threat to peace" Romney represented as opposed to Obama, the Jerusalem Post reported this weekend that the Obama administration announced its first foreign policy initiative of Obama's second term will be............guess what?

If you guessed increasing the sanctions against Iran... you guessed right. That's some peace prize winner, isn't it? I mean Romney's "scary." He might actually start a war, whereas Obama will do things that will actually start a war.

Jesus fuck, can the admins lock this trainwreck of a thread?

S. Artesian, you strike me as a very sad and angry person.

I'm neither. Actually, I'm the happy-go-lucky, carefree, breezin along with the breeze type. Always smiling. Honest. Ask anyone who knows me.

But you on the other hand...

Somebody makes a political assertion-- that Obama is the lesser evil, because Romney might start a war. Those who disagree with that assertion argue that neither Romney or Obama cause wars to start, but that both acting in the interests of a class, their class, will wage war to serve those interests.

Lo and behold, events seem to confirm that cynical jaded view.... and that puts your knickers in a twist.

Well, I have no idea what's going on with this thread. But, the election is over. Again, the ruling class has won. Not surprising. And the people have lost. While 98% of the vote went to either Obama or Romney, there are some positives. Like, for example, voter turnout did plummet (this can be seen as negative). This year, 119 million people voted for either presidential candidate, compared to 131 million in 2008. This in a country that has a eligible voter population far above 200 million. Which means people are becoming more disillusioned with this so-called "representative" political system. Obama barely won the popular vote, 50% or only two percentage votes than Romney. And a portion of that only voted the way they did because they wanted to keep out the worst of the "two evils." No one is buying into his phony progressive rhetoric. They see nothing being offered to them in this managed spectacle. People are looking for alternatives, their looking for movements, and they are looking radical movements. This is the time, the opportunity! They can and will be mobilized. So go out there and get working COMRADES (with the fist in the air)!!!

Another positive, I no longer have to read racist, sexist, fascistic comments on Facebook made by people who never cared about politics in the four-year stretch between presidential election seasons. And also by some pro-Obama supporters who keep boasting about how much things he has done for the "middle class," poor people, and women.

And where's Occupy Wall Street?

Doing this:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/09/1172111/occupy-wall-street-debt-jubilee/

And this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-short-occupy-sandy-was-there.html?pagewanted=all

Aren't at least some of the OWS folks doing this Occupy Sandy thing?

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/5/after_sandy_occupy_movement_re_emerges

well!

For something that's in the "news" section, most of this thread seems to have been about old arguments over the ethics of voting that apply equally to elections in 1847 as to today - i.e. the idea of taking the November 2012 US elections as a contemporary event, a political one even, seems to have disappeared. I think that's unfortunate. It reminds me a little of that story in the Bob Darke pamphlet (Poor Lenin - actually a chapter from Darke's memoirs, reprinted as a pamphlet by Sheffield Anarchists back in the day) where he mentions that for 3 days after the 1956 invasion of Hungary by Soviet tanks, the Communist Party members were the only people in Britain who weren't talking about the event and couldn't express any opinion on it (they were waiting for the party line to arrive from Moscow, which took 3 days).

Here, I think the situation is even worse. We aren't waiting for a party line to arrive from anywhere, we simply refuse to discuss a political event as something that has happened as a current affairs event, and retreat to "invariant" moral discourses on the evils of voting. If we extended that approach to the rest of the news, then the Ultra-Left TV Nightly News would make North Korea's look dynamic and probing by comparison. A good thing Karl Marx never adopted this approach, otherwise his journalist writings wouldn't have sold that well.

At least two things appear of interest, without even looking too hard. First the fact that the Reps won a majority of the "white vote", overwhelmingly of the male white vote, and still lost. The chatterati are already posing the question, can the Reps regain power without addressing the central issue alienating the hispanic vote - i.e. their intransigence over the immigration question? Can they address this issue without causing civil war within the party with the hard-core religious and racist right?

Secondly, the question I think Railyon implicitly posed - all this hate, is it just normal or average, or is it a sign that the socio-cultural divide in the US is escalating in a direction that could lead to crisis proportions at some stage in the near future? Is a level of hate and hysteria that in a European context would be a likely prelude to civil war, just "Normal for Norfolk" (NFN) in the US?

these are indeed questions which are definitely worth to discuss in a deeper way ... and having a closer look at some of the results (an open Socialist polling 54% in a school board election in suburbian NJ, referendums in some states on same-sex-marriage and other issues, high results for independents and third party candidates, etc.) can indeed bring some interesting findings about a deep crisis in the Republican hegemony in the US (and over the Democrats) which was pretty solid during the last 30 years ... but the Democrats probably will never discover, that they do not have to accomodate towards the Republicans

I think that the stepping up of sanctions against Iran - a real act of war given the locking up of Iranian funds and the real damage that they are doing to the population - is a good example above of the continuity and aggression of US foreign policy and demonstates the fact, as SA says above, that there's nothing "lesser evil" about Obama. I don't think that this a "train wreck" of a discussion but that valid political points from a working class perspective are being made here. To call for these to be stopped is odd.

The other major decision that Obama took (the decision was already taken in fact) within 2 days of his election was to set up the contentious SM-3 missile shield in Poland, along with the first, permanent US military base in this country, also holding F-16 fighter jets and C-130 transporters. This too is a real act of US aggression aimed at countering Russian imperialism. This is the reality of US imperialism against the earlier pacifist-type talk about a "reset" in US-Russian relations.

Obama's talk about a deal with the Repubs in Congress means he's probably headed back to more advocacy of austerity, as with the Simpson-Bowles commission, which used the bullshit about "deficit" to proposed major cuts in Social Security & Medicare.

Only about half the potential electorate voted in this election. This is a long-standing pattern. USA has the lowest level of voting of any of the core capitalist countries. Moreover, the non-voting is overwhelmingly among the poor & working class generally. At least half the working class doesn't vote. Various social science types in the past have suggested that voting would be much higher if the USA had a mass social-democratic party of the European type. Of course,those parties now ape the Democrats in their neo-liberalism, to a large extent.

There are also a variety of voter suppression tactics that have a long history in the USA. In many states, especially in the south, people convicted of criminal offenses, even if minor, may permanently lose the right to vote, even after they get out of prison. In this election the Republicans had teams of intimidators to discourage voting, suggesting to people they had to have ID even when they didn't.

Also, the Republicans held on to a large majority in the lower house of Congress even tho the Democrats won about half a million more votes in the local congressional elections. This is because the USA does not have proportional representation, and each state legislature creates the district boundaries for single-member districts. So Republican-controlled state legislatures have gerrymandered congressional districts like crazy the past few years to ensure their majority in the US Congress.

In the states where there is the initiative & referendum process, there were some interesting outcomes. Legalization of gay marriage won in several states. Legalization of marijuana won in two states, Colorado & Washington. A measure for less severe prison penalties won in California and it's estimated about 6,000 people given life sentences based on a minor "third strike" such as drug possession will be released.

In the "swing states" in the north Obama won the election on the basis of working class votes, including white male union members, but also overwhelming votes of Latino & black voters & of working class youth in the 18 to 29 age range. A large part of the population who don't vote are poor whites, so the Republican victory in the white vote is skewed upward in the class structure.

But the actual policies that are likely at the national level are not going to differ hardly at all between Democrats & Republicans, who are bankrolled and vetted by Wall Street & the billionaires. Certainly both parties have had a consensus in favor of maintaining the US imperialist role that it has maintained since World War 2, which is not just about military bases everywhere, but also about the role of US Treasury Dept and the agencies it controls like World Bank and IMF, and "open" capitalist world the US has sponsored since World War 2.

really? lee atwater would be seriously offended. have you been following american politics for long? 2008--obama pals around w terrorists, 2004-john kerry's swiftboating, 2000 primaries--john mccain's black illegitimate baby, etc.

i was just thinking the other day that this was one of the 'cleaner' cycles i've seen in a while.

I agree, JHS.

I mean, obviously it's all bullshit, but the one thing that struck out to me was that the death of Bin Laden barely came up at all. Maybe it was because the Dems wanted to avoid any discussions that could have led to discussion of the drone strikes (althought that's doubtful to be honest), but it was a Rebublican prez I imagine that would have been the theme of the campaign--economic crisis or no economic crisis.

While I agree with what you go on to say about the relative bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, international trade policy, etc., I think there is one sense in that your second paragraph is in tension with the previous one - i.e. regarding the Detroit auto-bailout. Commentators definitely point to Romney's previous stance of "Let Detroit go Bust" as a vote loser amongst union members in the rust-belt. That's a clear domestic policy difference that I suspect you would find a difference of opinion on amongst "Wall Street and the billionaires". Similarly Michael Bloomberg's decision to endorse Obama in the wake of Sandy for, amongst other things, having a different policy agenda on the climate change issue. Bloomberg can hardly be accused of not having good connections to Wall St & co, even if I suspect his position on the climate change thing may be a bit of a minority one at the moment (but who knows, maybe the disruption in NYC has opened a few minds?). In summary, I'm not convinced that the capitalist class are always "perfectly composed" on questions of domestic economic and social (e.g. that immigration question) policy. Surely part of the analysis of what these electoral cycles reveal, is looking at what faultlines or differences of opinion exist amongst the dominant class as well?