No Its not. I mean, i know some of you are anarchists But this is such an important election that will affect the whole world if the wrong person gets elected. I mean have you seen what Romney wants to do with womens right for example? You must think about all the people he Will hurt not only in the US But the whole world and vote for them i think. Out of solidarity and not principles. Otherwise the whole planet might be at risk IMO.
Well, I'm not an American so I can't vote for anyone in the US, however I'd much prefer it if the US election was settled in a similar fashion to the Australian system of Thunderdome.
Putting aside knee-jerk one liners and snarky video posts, Shebangs you might be interested in a recent forum post where a related question was recently covered and I think has a decent around discussion electoralism/parliamentarism and how it relates to the issues you name:
Voters, desperate and otherwise, are always quick to declare a current election to be "the most important one," while those of us who understand and see through all the silly reasons electoralists come up with already know that the current election is as uninteresting as the last one. Most policy decisions are too important to let "the people" have any say...
In some ways I would say this election is more interesting in terms of what's happening to the ruling class (ie signs that it is more and more losing its grip), but otherwise I agree entirely with Black Badger. The ruling class does not offer us any fundamental choice, nor any power to shape what happens to the planet. Whichever faction wins, the planet (or rather, our survival on it) will remain in danger.
Belated solidarity to those whose streets are flooded or are without electricity etc. Am i right in hearing commentators say that the Hurricane was 'good' for Obama not only because he came across as more responsible and committed than Romney, and was endorsed by local Republican bigwigs, but also because the issue of climate change has been belatedly brought into the election debate by the shock of the 'superstorm', and the Republican position on this ranges from denial on the basis of pseudo-scientific 'climate scepticism' to denial on the basis of the outright crazy (hurricanes caused by homosexuality, etc)
Hi again, Shebangs. I've realised I may have created a bit of negative tone with my first post. However, your OP did read a bit like a SPAM post and as you're an unfamiliar poster with a non-anarcho name (I really like your name, I should add) I legitimately thought it might be SPAM.
In any case, I would suggest reading the link R. Spourgìtis posted above. The voting debates comes up on libcom every couple of months and that thread is one of the more productive and coherent.
FWIW, I don't really care if people want to vote. Personally, I'm concerned with fundamentally transforming society and I think voting legitimises the state, saps energy from productive work, and creates and illusion that anything other than grassroots movements (and the exercise of power) can improve the lives of the working class, women, minorities,oppressed groups, etc.
That said, I don't really care if folks want to vote. But I don't really think it's worth the time of individual anarchists (note I didn't say individualist anarchist) and definitely don't think it's worth the organisational time of anarchist groups to convince people of that.
I don't really give a shit if someone votes. What I want is to band together with my workmates, fellow tenants, and community members to fight for our class interests. If they vote, fine, but I'm far more concerned with getting them organised and participating in direct action.
Many US states has the facility for write-in candidates rather than go for those listed. I believe Jesus Christ has over a million and a half votes pledged for him. If he wins it may result in the second coming as he takes his office in the White House!
Yeah But if Romney is elected he might start a war with Iran. And what about his aggressive tone towards china? Obama is not perfect But if Romney gets elected who knows what will happen.
But what have Obama done towards women? I think he has done alot on social issues like gay rights for example. Im a socialist too But im really freaking out about this election and the possibility that Romney could win!!?!? I dunno what to do about that But im glad that some of you are voting. I still think this migh be one of our most important election in our lifetime. If Romney wins i really dont know what will happen with the country....
Shebangs, if you think that the figurehead of the Commander in Chief is actually the person who decides when/where the next military adventure will take place, then you have a truly shallow critique of American politics. The transnational corporate interests already took the ability to deploy the US military out of the hands of Congress (where it had officially resided for almost 200 years) in 1965. They only need the President to make the speeches and give the orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff; he is the corporate mouthpiece, lapdog, puppet... whatever you want to call it. Nobody gets to vote for the really important policies.
Black Agenda Report, for example, who are not anarchists, have put forward numerous cogent essays in recent days for the thesis that the policies of the Democrats and Republicans are basically the same. This is especially true in regard to foreign policy and management of the empire.
The high concentration of power in the hands of the president under the US Constitution is helpful to keeping the state's foreign activity geared to the defense of the capitalist system because of the great power & independence of action of the executive branch. It would not be quite accurate to say that it is only interested in the interests of the US-based section of capital, tho. The markets & investment relations have become so intertwined that there really is no potential for a revival of the old capitalist inter-imperialist rivalries of the pre-World War 2 era. The American federal state is critical to the whole international capitalist class because for historical reasons socialist tendencies in the working class were weaker here than elsewhere, and its vast internal market and financial systems are a major support for capital elsewhere.
The military butt-kicking role is actually a burden for the economy of USA. But it's a burden undertaken, along with the role of US Treasury Dept, which controls World Bank and IMF, to sustain world capitalism as a whole, while sometimes acting to benefit particular US-based firms. Within this scheme the American state & ruling class also have to maintain various relations with their junior partners in Europe and elsewhere. The Democratic and Republican parties in the USA are equally committed to the defense of this world wide arrangement.
But what have Obama done towards women? I think he has done alot on social issues like gay rights for example.
Shebangs, I'm not really sure you're engaging with a lot of points folks are making.
Women achieved everything from the right to vote (as flawed as anarchists may view that as a goal) to abortion rights not by voting but because a movement which demanded it. The same for gay rights. It wasn't like one day some enlightened liberal politicians decided to give us these sorts of things (in the case of gay rights, Obama has been soft at best in any case).
We gain further rights and defend existing rights, not by voting but by being active as a class, building movements, and being out in the streets. Not by voting for politicians.
Wasted advice, since Black Badger is not being a jerk. He is speaking plainly, directly, bluntly, and....accurately.
Shebangs is reproducing nothing but the CPUSA line, the line they've been practicing for.... almost forever. "We must unite with the 'liberals' to defeat the larger threat of the fascists"-- blah blah blah, this is as close as the CPUSA can get to a popular front, since they are so weak, partly the product of their numerous capitulations to the bourgeoisie.
Romney might start a war? Really? As opposed to whom? Obama and continuing the war in Afghanistan? Expanding the war in Afghanistan? Maintaining occupation forces in Iraq? Arming Israel? Arming Egypt? Arming Saudi Arabia? Arming Turkey? Assassinating scientists in Iran. Using drones and missiles in Yemen?
Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.
That's all there is to this. And please don't trot out the junk about "Supreme Court" justices. If you pay attention to current events, you'll see that the states have effectively eliminated abortions in most of the US. For example only 1 doctor remains in Nebraska who provides such medical care to women. Another single doctor in Kansas. Hospitals do not teach the procedure in most locales anymore, so frightened are they of protests, and having funds cut off.
[The President]...should have communicated instead that we are prepared, that we are considering military action. They're not just on the table, they are in our hands
Even Romney realizes that their positions are so alike that he has to make small rhetorical changes. So, what's the difference between these two, again (aside from difference in the amount of melanin)?
Jesus Christ. Without trying to sound patronizing to Shebangs, I'm pretty sure s/he is fairly new to politics. I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists? Or, is it in fact more likely, they're a younger person navigating that line between lliberalism and more radical politics?
We had a political party in NZ that wanted the weekend to go from Sunday to Saturday instead of Saturday to Sunday. They also wanted to determine foreign policy by pillow fights. They got a lot of votes, but sadly at the time we had a First Past the Post system. They also had an armed wing.
in denmark, one guy was elected in 1994 on a similar platform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Haugaard
Haugaard ran for every election as a joke from 1979 onwards until he won in 1994. After his term expired, he decided not to seek re-election. Among his outrageous campaign promises were: 8 hours of free time, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep, more tailwind on bicycle paths, promises of better weather, right to impotency, Nutella in field rations (was actually implemented) and shorter queues in supermarkets
Wasted advice, since Black Badger is not being a jerk. He is speaking plainly, directly, bluntly, and....accurately.
Except the lapdog, mouthpiece etc stuff, that's maybe blunt but not accurate in the sense that politicians aren't purely robotic 'political agents of capital'. They usually do what's 'in the framework' out of structural necessity but not because they are capital's NWO puppets. That's quite a difference.
S. Artesian
Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.
Aw, come on... not this conspiracy stuff again (we've been over this before if I recall right but I think even then you dodged the issue a bit). I think the burden lies on you to prove there is massive election fraud going on. And I don't mean that one dodgy Bush Jr. thing but a permanent conspiracy of the bourgeoisie, hidden coup d'etats dressed up as 'the voters' will'.
If you don't mean it that way, I guess you should be a bit clearer on that.
I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists?
You're on point here. There is no reason to believe or insinuate that Shebangs is an agent of the CPUSA. As for the bit in bold, the post is about the U.S. election and it was made in the U.S. area of the forum. Do you honestly believe that Shebangs was asking British anarchists who they were voting for in the U.S. election?
Actually, it's in the News section. And even if it wasn't, libcom's users are still predominantly British.
Now I suppose SheBangs probably doesn't know that, but if this was some sort of CP stalwart trying to start a row with US anarchos, they probably wouldn't come to libcom to do it.
On US foreign policy, ie, the needs of US imperialism, there's been complete and seamless continuity between Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. And there will be continuing continuity in the defence of US interests if Romney is elected.
To see Obama as the "lesser evil" is extremely dangerous, as is the idea that workers going into polling booths as isolated citizens is a harmless pursuit.
The war in Iraq is not finished with; witness the continued devastations, the tens of thousands of US mercenaries, "trainers" and special forces still there and active and the massive American fortresses built and being built in this country.
As troops are wound down in Afghanistan, the US is presently "negotiating" with its "allies" about the continued presence of the US military.
It could be said that US/UN sanctions against Iran are an act of war - but that's a technicality. The Persian Gulf is packed is packed with US warships carrying heavy ordnance and Iran is surrounded by US forces on all sides. The US has facilitated the provision of arms and a political set up in Turkey against Iran's main ally Syria and it looks like they will soon begin to provide arms to some opposition forces directly.
The drone attacks continue (only a 2% success rate according to a recent report), the US military is also moving into the Sahel and we have state's massive attack on civil liberties in the USA under the Obama administration.
And the main enemy for the US is China.
None of any of this will change whoever wins the election/
Am i right in hearing commentators say that the Hurricane was 'good' for Obama not only because he came across as more responsible and committed than Romney, and was endorsed by local Republican bigwigs, but also because the issue of climate change has been belatedly brought into the election debate by the shock of the 'superstorm', and the Republican position on this ranges from denial on the basis of pseudo-scientific 'climate scepticism' to denial on the basis of the outright crazy (hurricanes caused by homosexuality, etc)
Oh, my mistake I misread the title of the post (when I was writing my reply) as the section the post was in.
And even if it wasn't, libcom's users are still predominantly British.
Yeah, as I said, the post is about voting in the U.S. election. Could be that Shebangs was maybe, probably, possibly, perhaps asking those few U.S. anarchists on here who they were voting for.
Now I suppose SheBangs probably doesn't know that, but if this was some sort of CP stalwart trying to start a row with US anarchos, they probably wouldn't come to libcom to do it.
Why not? I found out about libcom through comments in anarchistnews and indybay (which I assume are visited by predominantly U.S. American users), so why wouldn't someone looking rile up anarchists eventually end up at libcom? This site isn't hidden in the interwebz, y'know. ;) (In fact it pops up as the second site if I google "anarchist communism").
Let me make it clear that I do think it sounds like Shebangs is genuine in his/her posts (which is why I bothered to provide evidence when addressing the candidates positions on Iran, rather than dismissing his/her post out of hand). We should just keep in mind that the post was made a couple of days from the election, with full knowledge that "...some of you are anarchists" (which implies knowledge that anarchist don't tend to vote) and espousing the importance of this election. I mean, if I was trying to concern-troll some anarchists, that's what I would do.
I mean, whatever, I just think we should honestly engage with folks who are new to politics (as I'm somewhat arrogantly assuming Shebangs is) and not talk down to them, belittle them, or have a go at them because they're espoucing a similar position to the CPUSA (weird...).
Some people on this thread did that. Some definitely didn't.
As I've exchanged in some PMs about this thread, it's one thing to have a go at Chomsky on his tactical voting shit. It's a whole nother to tell a new poster they have a "truly shallow critique".
Also, Black Badger, what's up with your 1965 comment? Seems oddly conspiratorial, not to mention disregarding the facts that US power was consistenly used to defend capitalist interests in both world wars, Latin America, and Indo-China long before that date.
1965 was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (based on a real military/intelligence conspiracy: a fabricated event and a subsequent cover-up), whereby the US Congress effectively gave up its power to declare and make war. They gave that power to the Chief Executive, who has used it ever since. Prior to that, Congress retained the (nominal) power as part of the much-touted mythology of Checks and Balances in the US government. Since then, at least as it relates to foreign policy, Congress has stood aside.
But this is such an important election that will affect the whole world if the wrong person gets elected. I mean have you seen what Romney wants to do with womens right for example? You must think about all the people he Will hurt not only in the US But the whole world and vote for them i think. Out of solidarity and not principles. Otherwise the whole planet might be at risk IMO. Romney war with Iran etc...
Presidents don't make war. Bush didnt make war with Iraq it had been on the ruling classes agenda to get rid of Saddam for some time and 9/11 was simply the open door to do so once and for all (Democrats were on board with it or it wouldn't have happened). The US military entering the Middle East in general has nothing to do with a single politicians world view or 9/11 it has everything to do with market expansion and resource allocation. Much of the Middle East is capitalist, hell, the whole globe is integrated into the capitalist system BUT there's much money to be made for western corporations/capitalists in the Middle East in post war 'restructuring' of the societies, cultures and economies - that and having CONTROL (not necessarily possession) over the resources in the region is the goal. Obama, Bush, Romney whoever is in office this military/economic agenda will continue as will pandering to Israel in regards to Iran. You should watch Obama's AIPAC speech, he makes Bush seem tame by comparison.
Womens rights....identity politics. Here we go. Gay rights, womens rights et al isn't a voting issue or a matter of Republican vs Democrat these are cultural issues to be fought in the streets, workplaces and communities. When organizing workers/people to FIGHT for certain rights it's a mistake to invest all efforts into support for the Democrat party. This has been the ruling class' best weapon against us. It's been our achilles heel since the early 20'th century. There's a reason people say "the Democrat party is the graveyard of all social movements".
If Romney gets elected abortion will not be made illegal even if his silly Mormon views are against abortion. Every election is framed as "the most important election in our lifetime". What the Obama administration should have shown even the most dense is it makes no difference who is in office. What the ruling class wants the ruling class gets - the only issues the people can control are social issues and those battles aren't necessarily political they're cultural. As far as the economy goes, as far as war goes, we have absolutely no control over it. America is a plutocracy in that regard. Even liberal, informed liberals, are aware of this. Watch this:
The plutocracy don't always get everything they want. Having to rule through a system of mass voting and political operatives is a cost to them. Consider the money they spend on elections. A semblance of "democracy" is important for papering over the system with a veneer of legitimacy.
But in the USA the spectrum of issues & views in electoral politics (and in the corporate media) is extremely narrow. Variations on pro-capitalist viewpoints.
Black Badger is wrong about Congress controlling war prior to 1965. In 1966 when Johnson attacked North Vietnam he sent to Congress a list of 125 occasions when the president had sent troops into action abroad without consulting Congress...beginning with an undeclared war with France in 1798. When Woodrow Wilson sent troops into Russia, he didn't consult Congress.
Congress actually is the weaker "branch" of the American federal state compared with the president. Having a powerful, highly independent executive has been very useful to the ability of the American state to act in an imperialist manner. For example, "free trade" deals can be concluded with countries without requiring Congressional approval. They're called "agreements", not "treaties". And the president can end any treaty or agreement with a foreign country on his own, without consulting Congress.
Jesus Christ. Without trying to sound patronizing to Shebangs, I'm pretty sure s/he is fairly new to politics. I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists? Or, is it in fact more likely, they're a younger person navigating that line between lliberalism and more radical politics?
More flies with honey and all that.
Seriously now, stop being dicks.
You're making an unwarranted assumption; actually a whole host of unwarranted assumptions.
Nobody is trotting out any "line." A position is being advocated, the well-known tried and failed "lesser evil" position; the "we must unite with the 'enlightened' bourgeoisie against the fascist danger" position.
The position is being taken seriously, and seriously refuted. Nothing said to Shebangs even counts as harsh language.
Quit pretending others are being dicks so you can appear noble.
What makes this election "more important" than 2008? You think McCain is a more benign person than Romney?
What about 2004? Bush less a threat to the rest of the world than Romney.
Let Shebangs answer those questions and it will tell us a lot about whether this advocacy for class collaboration is coming from a "novice" or from a professional.
Not to be too pedantic, but "sending troops abroad" is not the same as a war. Most of the pre-WWI events where the US military was send places there was simply no declaration of war, no recognition of belligerent status of a state whose territory was invaded, and perhaps more importantly, no move to depose a government or exact economic reparations after the brief conflict. These actions were usually punitive (Pershing's crossing into Mexico in 1914 comes to mind) or involved the ostensible rescuing of allegedly imperiled American citizens. Either that, or US troops were invited to help bolster the current government. Again, none of these military adventures can properly be called a war.
The Korean War was a "Police Action" that took place under the dubious legal authority of the UN (which bypassed Congress); the Bay of Pigs was an invasion of Cuban exiles with US military training, not US troops (it had some congressional approval, but most were in the dark); Eisenhower sent Marines to Lebanon in 1958 because the US and Britain and France were requested by the Lebanese president to protect Lebanon from insurrection and possible invasion by Nasserites.
picking about the legal definition of a war according the the us government really helps no one but liberals who think the problem with the invasion of iraq was the lack of UN mandate.
This thead is pretty depressing. It really shows how incapable many people in the tiny anarchist/ultra-left scene are of communicating with people outside it.
Irrespective of whether Shebangs is new to politics or not, the vast majority of the population in both the U.S. and U.K. does not reject voting or liberal democracy on principle. The concerns Shebangs puts across are incredibly common, and the poster is not a moron for having them, though I may disagree with them. It's pretty sad that the response has been to accuse them of being a member of some other tiny political sect, or to make statements about "the bourgeoisie voting in Democrats" as though there's still a property requirement to vote. Even to me, that's unconvincing.
I've spoken to a number of Americans who are concerned about the implications of another conservative supreme court judge being appointed. I don't think they're simpletons for thinking that. It's of course true that the only true defence against attacks on reproductive rights is a strong movement that demands them, but it's also true that "the bourgeoisie" is not politically monolithic and that its political parties are not identical. Some are more inclined to attack reproductive rights than others.
There's a really telling Senate race here where the Republican candidate actually said that if a woman was raped and became pregnant as a result it was god's will. This wasn't in a secretly captured private conversation but in the televised Senatorial debate.
My lefty-liberal friends use this as an example about how voting against this guy is paramount to defending a woman's right to choose. and while I'd love nothing more than to see this guy embarrassed, what my friends seem to forget is his Democratic opponent is actually pro-life himself.
One interesting thing that seems to be happening nationally is that a lot of the lefty-ish news mag comments sections are FULL of people saying they won't vote for Obama because of the drone strikes/health care sell-out/etc. So maybe there is something of a shift going on . . .
in denmark, one guy was elected in 1994 on a similar platform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Haugaard
Haugaard ran for every election as a joke from 1979 onwards until he won in 1994. After his term expired, he decided not to seek re-election. Among his outrageous campaign promises were: 8 hours of free time, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep, more tailwind on bicycle paths, promises of better weather, right to impotency, Nutella in field rations (was actually implemented) and shorter queues in supermarkets
I haven't voted since the 2004 presidential elections and I haven't decided whether I'm going to vote or not yet. Any motivation comes from wanting to vote no on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which isn't legal anyway in Minnesota), but I'm not sure that's enough motivation for me. I can't bring myself to vote for 'the lesser of two evils', so would probably write in some historical figure/slogan/full communism/some small socialist sect as a protest vote. I'm pretty sure spoiling the ballot is impossible if its electronic.
Yeah, no shit. I'm not the one who said "Shebangs is reproducing nothing but the CPUSA line..." In fact that was, huh, you.
Nothing said to Shebangs even counts as harsh language.
Quit pretending others are being dicks so you can appear noble.
Telling a newbie that they have "have a truly shallow critique of American politics" is pretty harsh.
But you know what, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Shebangs is a 35 year old self-identified socialist who believes in voting for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. So the fuck what? I have an idea: let's berate and talk down to the liberals who make up probably a majority of the US population. Because I know that in my liberal days, that's what would have convinced me. Not someone engaging patiently with me, but having a go at me. Good approach guys. :roll:
This thead is pretty depressing. It really shows how incapable many people in the tiny anarchist/ultra-left scene are of communicating with people outside it.
Irrespective of whether Shebangs is new to politics or not, the vast majority of the population in both the U.S. and U.K. does not reject voting or liberal democracy on principle. The concerns Shebangs puts across are incredibly common, and the poster is not a moron for having them, though I may disagree with them. It's pretty sad that the response has been to accuse them of being a member of some other tiny political sect, or to make statements about "the bourgeoisie voting in Democrats" as though there's still a property requirement to vote. Even to me, that's unconvincing.
I've spoken to a number of Americans who are concerned about the implications of another conservative supreme court judge being appointed. I don't think they're simpletons for thinking that. It's of course true that the only true defence against attacks on reproductive rights is a strong movement that demands them, but it's also true that "the bourgeoisie" is not politically monolithic and that its political parties are not identical. Some are more inclined to attack reproductive rights than others.
I don't think voting is so much an issue more so when it gets to the point of spending time, money and investing emotionally in the Democrat party. If a socialist wants to vote do so, walk into the booth and vote then leave it at that. Any organizing at the work place or in the community with the goal of garnering votes for Democrats is a whole other story though. Sure there are a few differences on social issues but do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran? Christ, if I thought that were true I'd be in the streets waving Obama signs and volunteering for his campaign. I'm of the opinion social issues are more cultural and less political. Religion in America doesn't have the same strangle hold on society as it did 20, 30, 75 years ago. Most large capitalists are big on population control anyhow, they don't want millions of poor people "leeching" (their mind frame) off of their profits. Abortion is here to stay which leaves us with issues such as education, healthcare and social programs. Obama has cut more social programs than Bush or Reagan, has pushed a mandate for workers to buy private insurance in a time of economic crisis - it's basically the extreme opposite of any sort of "socialistic" healthcare. Education has been slashed in a grotesque manner under the Obama administration and the military expansion speaks for itself.
I don't think it's condescending or patronizing to point out the absurdity that is American "democracy", in fact, the momentum the "left" had after the outrage of 8 years of Bush was all but completely halted by Obama's election in 2008. Being loyal to Democrats forces workers to accept all of the right wing policies of Democrats which in many cases, as Obama has shown, are more devastating than any Republican administration. Again, do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran?
The Obama administration has overseen some of the worst attacks on the working class in our lifetime and we're suppose to be telling people to stand in line and vote for him....it all sounds so masochistic.
I agree completely that it's only really a problem when people invest lots of individual or organisational time and energy in supporting the Democratic party (or Labour here).
Stan Milgram
Sure there are a few differences on social issues but do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran?
Are you asking me this? I didn't claim that either of these things were likely.
Talking about an abortion ban is really a red herring. No American I have spoken to thinks legislation banning abortion at a federal level is a remote possibility. Romney himself is on record saying that he'd like to see such legislation, but that it is not possible due to American public opinion opposing it.
The real issue is that if he has an opportunity to appoint a supreme court juedge, Romney is pretty likely to appoint a conservative. Obama is not likely to appoint a conservative. This would open the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade and therefore the ability for states to directly prohibit abortion.
Like I said, it's not irrational for people to be concerned about this. It's also clear that it's totally possible to have bourgeois politics that support or oppose the right to choose, or support or oppose gay marriage, and that there are differences within "the bourgeoisie" on these issues which are genuine.
Iran is different issue and a direct attack is unlikely due to the huge impact war would have on the world and US economy, irrespective of who is president.
Stan Milgram
The Obama administration has overseen some of the worst attacks on the working class in our lifetime and we're suppose to be telling people to stand in line and vote for him....it all sounds so masochistic.
To be clear I'm telling no-one to vote for anyone. I'm saying that there are problems with the way the issue is approached by anarchists and the ultra-left, from the "all political parties are exactly the same" line I've seen from anarchists to "the bourgeoisie vote in x" line of Marxists. Both are ludicrously simplistic and look completely barmy to anyone outside of the ultra-left scene.
I agree completely that it's only really a problem when people invest lots of individual or organisational time and energy in supporting the Democratic party (or Labour here).
Stan Milgram
Sure there are a few differences on social issues but do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran?
Are you asking me this? I didn't claim that either of these things were likely.
Stan Milgram
Just pointing out why people in this thread may be taking jabs at the OP
Talking about an abortion ban is really a red herring. No American I have spoken to thinks legislation banning abortion at a federal level is a remote possibility. Romney himself is on record saying that he'd like to see such legislation, but that it is not possible due to American public opinion opposing it.
The real issue is that if he has an opportunity to appoint a supreme court juedge, Romney is pretty likely to appoint a conservative. Obama is not likely to appoint a conservative. This would open the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade and therefore the ability for states to directly prohibit abortion.
Stan Milgram
Supreme court nominations are used every election to push support for Democrats. Again, the judgments in the judicial branch aren't made in a vacuum, on social issues it boils down to how much effort people put in on the streets/within the community to make it happen.
. It's also clear that it's totally possible to have bourgeois politics that support or oppose the right to choose, or support or oppose gay marriage, and that there are differences within "the bourgeoisie" on these issues which are genuine.
Stan Milgram
Thats what the gay community was fooled into thinking in 2007 when Obama was campaigning. They sure weer in for a rude awakening.
Iran is different issue and a direct attack is unlikely due to the huge impact war would have on the world and US economy, irrespective of who is president.
Stan Milgram
The Obama administration has overseen some of the worst attacks on the working class in our lifetime and we're suppose to be telling people to stand in line and vote for him....it all sounds so masochistic.
To be clear I'm telling no-one to vote for anyone. I'm saying that there are problems with the way the issue is approached by anarchists and the ultra-left, from the "all political parties are exactly the same" line I've seen from anarchists to "the bourgeoisie vote in x" line of Marxists. Both are ludicrously simplistic and look completely barmy to anyone outside of the ultra-left scene.
It's the very small differences on social issues that are touted every four years as an excuse for people to invest so much time, energy and emotion into it all. It's only natural for socialists to show hostility towards the process that has served to castrate our efforts. We're in direct competition with politicians for the "hearts and minds" of the people. We're losing. Embracing and or legitimizing our enemies system has time and again been at the root of our inability to form a mass movement. Democrats coop any substantial movement and integrate it into the capitalist system where our efforts can do no harm. Old story like a skipping CD or a marry go round. We should be trying to get people off that ride.
I kinda messed up the quotes in this post. Sorry about that.
Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.
Aw, come on... not this conspiracy stuff again (we've been over this before if I recall right but I think even then you dodged the issue a bit). I think the burden lies on you to prove there is massive election fraud going on. And I don't mean that one dodgy Bush Jr. thing but a permanent conspiracy of the bourgeoisie, hidden coup d'etats dressed up as 'the voters' will'.
If you don't mean it that way, I guess you should be a bit clearer on that.
I think Artesian's point might seem less conspiratorial if we think about it terms of campaign finance. Because its pretty exceptional for a candidate to raise less money but still win an election in the US. And almost all sectors of the economy donate to both parties in the same campaign, they just give more to one party or the other. So I think getting more money might be seen as a kind of endorsement of capital or at least of particular economic sectors. I think that the defense industry gave more money to Barak than to McCain in 2008 (though I'm not sure). So, I think if when we talk about the bourgeoisie voting in a new party we're talking about vote with their dollars there's a case to be made. But if we mean election fraud and coup d'etats then I agree this seems conspiratorial.
As regards the other important point being made on this thread: When I saw the OP my first thought was that I should ridicule. In fact, I had some zingers typed up before deciding to hit the back button. I think that libcom is one of the few places that people like us can find other people like us and then ridicule people who are not like us, which is fun. And I still think its okay when it comes to an appleton or an END THE FED. I agree with what Chilli and Django are saying, but sometimes its also difficult to distinguish between an honest inquiry and trolling. Especially when its election day, we're all fucking sick of the campaign, we're all fucking sick of alarmist admonitions to vote Barak, and the OP (probably unintentionally) repeats the CPUSA line that we all hate so much. In that context, I (and guessing others) wasn't thinking of giving a reasoned defense of anti-parliamentarism which would be accessible to and respectful of the newcomer. I was thinking hate.
I guess I'm saying, Shebangs I hope we haven't scared you away, but please try to understand that this is an anarchist site, where we are used to talking with those who more-or-less agree with us. It might be helpful if you shared your politics more fully with us. If we knew where you were coming from, we might be able to have a more substantive exchange with you.
I admit that im pretty new to politics and prolly dont know about it as you do. Im a socialist in the broad sense. Thats about as much as i know. All i know is that im pissedoff at the state of the country and the world and My own situation. But im also pretty f-ing scared so... I dunno. I guess what it really comes down to is that i really really needs someone to talk me down and tell me that everything is going to be okey tomorrow. Sorry if that sounds stupid. But im really worried about My future and the future of everyone i know and even the country. I dunno what to do about that. I even kinda wish i could be as cynical as you guys. But i cant. I care too much.
Okey, i know this isnt a therapy group.....
As for the questions about why mitt Romney would be so terrible let me qoute Michael Moore:
...a letter from Michael Moore
Monday, November 5th, 2012
Friends,
Tomorrow, the bankers and corporate chiefs are planning an historic victory party. With the election of Mitt Romney, their takeover of American democracy would be complete.
They thought they had accomplished that four years ago when they backed Barack Obama (he received more money from Wall Street than McCain; Goldman Sachs was his #1 private contributor). And even though he never put a single one of them of any consequence in jail and never signed any bill that would truly stop their out-of-control greed; and even though he placed two of Wall Street's favorite operatives – Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers – in charge of the Treasury and economic policy; and even though he let them use bailout money – our money – to give themselves lavish bonuses after they wrecked our economy; and even though he didn't go for a single-payer health care system and made sure that under "Obamacare" no insurance company would be fined more than $100 a day for denying a person with a pre-existing condition (thus removing many of the teeth the new law had); and even though he let them keep their Bush tax cut for another four years – yes, even after doing all of that for the wealthiest 1%, it still wasn't enough for them, so they decided to turn on him in a vicious way. They decided that they could literally buy an election and toss him to the curb. Why? Because he enacted a little "reform." Because he wants them to pay just a tiny bit more in taxes. Because, deep down, they know what we know deep down – that Barack Obama, if given a second term, is going to put the brakes on them. They know that Barack Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And they know that next time they crash our economy, some of them will, hopefully, be going to jail.
And they believe they can stop him tomorrow by having bamboozled enough of those "47%", those moochers, to vote for one of their own – Mitt Romney. A man who, like them, believes big business should have no restraints. A man who pays next to nothing in taxes. A man who has destroyed the livings of thousands of working Americans. A man who hides his money in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and won't show us what's on his tax returns for the past decade.
This is who they want elected president tomorrow – and if this happens, their goal of complete corporate control of the three branches of government will be complete.
Trust me, if they succeed, we may never get it back.
There were two things in the news these past couple weeks that unfortunately got little attention. But these two stories say it all about the America we will have unless these people are stopped.
One was a story in The Nation that exposed how Romney, while publicly opposing the auto company bailout, secretly got in on the action with his Wall Street donors – and made over $15 million, a 4,000% return on his investment (which he hid in a blind trust in his wife's name) by buying up the Delphi auto parts company, the former Delco/AC Spark Plug division of GM where my dad worked. He then – get this – grabbed billions in bailout cash to "transform" it from bankrupt to a "viable business." Except what he really did was slash retiree pensions, shut down 24 U.S. factories, and ship all 25,200 union jobs to China. You'd think he'd keep quiet about Delphi – but no, he's got his supporters running ads in Ohio blaming Barack Obama for terminating the Delphi pensions – I kid you not. (When I opposed the Iraq War, Romneyites and the like called me a "traitor"; when Romney does this traitorous act destroying jobs and sending them to China, his reward, in addition to the millions he pocketed, may be the presidency tomorrow.)
The other story was a bill passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that would allow businesses to take the state income taxes they withhold from their employees' paychecks and KEEP THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES! That's right. Your taxes that you pay to the state won't go to the state anymore – they'll just go right into the pockets of your bosses. I was stunned to find out that other states are already doing this as an "incentive" to lure or keep businesses in their states. Let's be clear what this is about: the final merging that's taking place between the corporate and political power structures, coming together as one, and making the workers (serfs) pay tribute to their employer (the overlord). Welcome to the New Feudalism.
So tomorrow it's High Noon in the USA, a literal showdown on the Main Streets of America between the rich and everyone else. The 1% truly believe they can defeat the 99%. As the conservative commentator Stephen Moore (who sits on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal) said, "Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I'm not even a big believer in democracy." Citibank, in an internal memo, said that the only thing that stands in the way of the plutocrats is, well, elections: "[T]he rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash...Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was – one person, one vote…[W]e are keeping a close eye on developments."
We have the chance tomorrow to defeat them. They're counting on us not even showing up. The line in the sand has been drawn. Please do whatever you can today and tomorrow to get everyone you know to the polls – especially any relatives or friends in swing states. Even if you don't live in a swing state, you need to make a loud statement that you won't let this happen. And you need to take the House away from the Republicans so some work in Washington can get done.
To volunteer to walk precincts and get out the vote near where you live, go here. Or make calls to swing state voters. And don't forget that I need each of you to convince just one non-voter to vote tomorrow so that we can deliver the million-vote margin that could make all the difference.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Now go act as if your democracy depended on it – because it does.
I didn't want to get involved in this, I'm so sick of the election, most places manage to get their elections done and dusted in a few weeks, in the US it seems almost perpetual, only that sounded a little plaintive, so yes everything is going to be OK tomorrow, or Thursday or whenever they work out which way the chads are hanging. It's always the most important election ever, whichever year, whichever country. No politician is going to run a campaign on a meh, vote if you feel like it, it doesn't much matter this time. Apparently the fiery pits of hell will always open up if the other guy gets in. And whoever wins, nothing very much will change, it never does. If POTUS had nearly as much actual power as the job description and the PR suggest, then they would actually be able to do all those things they promise their hopeful electorate in their campaigns.
If you vote or not in the election it's entirely your call, but it really won't be the most important decision you ever take, and I wouldn't let it freak you out.
I admit that im pretty new to politics and prolly dont know about it as you do. Im a socialist in the broad sense. Thats about as much as i know.
I was there once. Its really not a bad place to be.
Shebangs
All i know is that im pissedoff at the state of the country and the world and My own situation. But im also pretty f-ing scared so...
You can say "fucking" if you like. I often do. Try it on, see if it fits you.
Shebangs
I dunno. I guess what it really comes down to is that i really really needs someone to talk me down and tell me that everything is going to be okey tomorrow.
We might be looking at continuing economic crisis, global political instability, catastrophic environmental failure. Whoever wins the US Presidential election won't have too much of an impact on any of these. On the other hand, what we do in our workplaces and communities matters a lot.
Shebangs
Sorry if that sounds stupid. But im really worried about My future and the future of everyone i know and even the country. I dunno what to do about that. I even kinda wish i could be as cynical as you guys. But i cant. I care too much.
Okey, i know this isnt a therapy group.....
I don't think its stupid to be scared of whats up ahead, especially if you're buying into US presidential politics, which is a non-stop fear generating machine. The subject of fear and control has been explored by a bunch of sociologists as well as a guy named George Orwell if you're ever interested. Taken as a whole, the problems of the entire world seem pretty terrifying to me too. But I find I feel a lot better when I focus on what I can do organizing-wise in my workplace and neighborhood.
I looked up cynicism on wikipedia to make sure I wasn't as cynical irl as I am on libcom message boards. Turns out that, unfortunately, I AM pretty cynical:
Cynicism is an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' apparent motives or ambitions, or a general lack of faith or hope in the human race or in individuals with desires, hopes, opinions, or personal tastes that a cynic perceives as unrealistic or inappropriate, therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment.
Cept I think I'm moreso this way when it comes to politicians and bosses and the like, but when it comes to fellow proles I like to consider myself trusting and optimistic. Don't know if I'm always that way, but that's how I am in my mind. I really got tagged with that last part about "ridicule and admonishment" though. A lot of us do care, a bunch, and that's why we organize. A lot of us spend a bunch of our time and energy doing free labor for shit we believe in (contrast this with the democratic party, which relies on armies of paid staff). There is an "organize" section on the boards.
And here's this thing: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012. I don't agree with all of the shit in their little article, but the graph I think is spot on, and puts things in perspective.
Great post from Laborbund. Shebangs, also glad you told us a bit more about your politics, I think it'll help orient the thread in a more productive direction. (That said, you're not gonna find much love for Michael Moore on this site, either...).
I think that the defense industry gave more money to Barak than to McCain in 2008
He certainly rec'd more money from finance capital.
Laborbund gets the point. I'm talking money: they pay, they call the tune. There's no need for fraud, or let's just say, fraud is a constant, not a variable in these matters, so the issue isn't conspiracy, its class interests. It's no conspiracy to correlate what has happened in every election since 1960.
Does anybody think it's an accident that certain parties get elected at certain specific conjunctures?
Does anybody think that popular fronts simply occur as an expression of "mass will" and military dictatorships are nothing but the subversion of mass will? Railyon and others can be my guest and then explain why parties get the power they get, and when they get it.
First question for Railyon; what got Reagan elected twice, Bush once and what was the condition of the economy after that 12 year span.
What got Clinton elected and reelected, and what was the condition of the economy through those 8 years.
The point is money talks and bullshit is a marathon jogger.
As for the election I still would like to know what makes this election more important than the 2008, 2004, 2000 elections?
And just one other point for Chili and those who are so upset that some here actually called the "lesser evil" bullshit exactly that... I find it hilarious that the mere suggestion that the Russian Revolution was and is a great moment in history, the mere hint that maybe Lenin wasn't the devil incarnate, draped in German gold brings full bore attacks, complaints, insults etc etc with people referring those who take great pains to show both convergence and divergence of the social movement of the revolution with the Bolsheviks, as "Lenin lovers," as pimps, racketeers blahblahblah-- while this phony issue of "real differences" between Tweedledum War Criminal and Tweedledee War Criminal are given such a tender, benevolent hearing.
No, I don't buy Shebangs being a political neophyte based on his/her own language describing this as "the most important election ever." That's a political slogan use by professionals.
And before I forget.......Michael Moore? Michael Fucking Moore? Michael Moore is the guy who supported General Wesley Clark for president? That Michael Moore who supported that US general? Or is it some other Michael Moore?
I admit that im pretty new to politics and prolly dont know about it as you do. Im a socialist in the broad sense. Thats about as much as i know. All i know is that im pissedoff at the state of the country and the world and My own situation. But im also pretty f-ing scared so... I dunno. I guess what it really comes down to is that i really really needs someone to talk me down and tell me that everything is going to be okey tomorrow.
no it won't be ok, the world is completely fucked up and it will be the same tomorrow, you should be pissed off, and being scared is completely rational, but sadly voting for the "right" candidate cant fix that, its much harder than that and we have to actual go and change things our selves rather than hopping someone will save us
Shebangs
Sorry if that sounds stupid. But im really worried about My future and the future of everyone i know and even the country. I dunno what to do about that. I even kinda wish i could be as cynical as you guys. But i cant. I care too much.
Okey, i know this isnt a therapy group.....
As for the questions about why mitt Romney would be so terrible let me qoute Michael Moore:
...a letter from Michael Moore
Monday, November 5th, 2012
Friends,
Tomorrow, the bankers and corporate chiefs are planning an historic victory party. With the election of Mitt Romney, their takeover of American democracy would be complete.
As if the capitalists don't control "American democracy" Michael Moore knows better than this and so should you, every candidate with the slightest chance of winning is bought and paid for by capitalists, not just bankers, they are just a small part of it. and any candidate that wins must support the interests of those capitalists. the onely real freedom that the president has is how they present this.
S.A. You're a jerk. Shebangs, please ignore him and don't take him as representative of anarchism.
As for the Leninists, there's a big difference between someone who thinks voting is useful and a Leninist who will actively interfere with working class self-organisation. I think a similar dynamic applies to say, primmos, who actively misrepresent anarchism. Those people deserve the sort of scorn you're throwing at Shebangs. As for newbie liberals who are still finding their political feet, Jesus man, take a fucking chill pill.
the mere hint that maybe Lenin wasn't the devil incarnate, draped in German gold brings full bore attacks, complaints, insults etc etc with people referring those who take great pains to show both convergence and divergence of the social movement of the revolution with the Bolsheviks, as "Lenin lovers," as pimps, racketeers blahblahblah--
What is going on here?!?!? :lol: It's a right shame that nobody on this thread was part of your little ultra-left bun fight. Never mind though. That axe is gonna keep on grindin'! :mrt:
S. Artesian
No, I don't buy Shebangs being a political neophyte based on his/her own language describing this as "the most important election ever." That's a political slogan use by professionals.
Yeah don't believe (or buy [sic!]) what Shebangs says about her/him - self. Probably backed by american gold or something. Amirite?
I agree with people's skepticism toward Moore, but as Chilli has been trying to suggest, maybe we need to be a bit more generous with why we say certain things?
N.B. Another problem with engaging our ideas past our sect. The incessant need to bring up the Russian Rev. and it's intricacies into every conversation. No matter how tenuous.
Tomorrow, the bankers and corporate chiefs are planning an historic victory party. With the election of Mitt Romney, their takeover of American democracy would be complete.
They thought they had accomplished that four years ago when they backed Barack Obama (he received more money from Wall Street than McCain; Goldman Sachs was his #1 private contributor). And even though he never put a single one of them of any consequence in jail and never signed any bill that would truly stop their out-of-control greed; and even though he placed two of Wall Street's favorite operatives – Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers – in charge of the Treasury and economic policy; and even though he let them use bailout money – our money – to give themselves lavish bonuses after they wrecked our economy; and even though he didn't go for a single-payer health care system and even though he let them keep their Bush tax cut for another four years – yes, even after doing all of that for the wealthiest 1%, it still wasn't enough for them, so they decided to turn on him in a vicious way. They decided that they could literally buy an election and toss him to the curb. Why? Because he enacted a little "reform." Because he wants them to pay just a tiny bit more in taxes. Because, deep down, they know what we know deep down – that Barack Obama, if given a second term, is going to put the brakes on them. They know that Barack Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And they know that next time they crash our economy, some of them will, hopefully, be going to jail.
You gotta love this guys dedication to Democrats. He sure is loyal, I'll give him that much. Obama isn't putting the brakes on anything, Micheal Moore was one of the biggest blow horns for Obama in 2007 leading up the the election and now he's at it again even in the face of what the Obama administration has done for the rich and against the poor. This is all a joke.
Michael Moore
And they believe they can stop him tomorrow by having bamboozled enough of those "47%", those moochers, to vote for one of their own – Mitt Romney. A man who, like them, believes big business should have no restraints. A man who pays next to nothing in taxes. A man who has destroyed the livings of thousands of working Americans. A man who hides his money in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and won't show us what's on his tax returns for the past decade.
The Obama administration oversaw/cosigned the biggest hand out to big business in American history while at the same time oversaw some of the biggest attacks on the working class that made Reagan look tame. No restraints? The democrats, other than the trillions of dollars given with no strings attached, are using the coercive power of the state to force workers to buy private healthcare plans at a time when people have no money for housing and food. During the worst crisis in our lifetime. The damage is already done. Romney can't get away with half of the nonsense the Democrats have done in the last four years. Education is already cut, social programs are already cut, Medicare/Medicaid is already cut. Trillions of dollars are already up in smoke. The military is already killing people in 5 different countries. The Bush tax cuts have already been extended for the 4 years Obama has been in office. Wages and the standard of living for the working class is already at a lifetime low while large capitalists continue to rake in profits. Big business and finance is happy, content and comfortable with what Democrats have been doing and with what they plan to do (more of the same). Micheal Moore is delusional.
Michael Moore
This is who they want elected president tomorrow – and if this happens, their goal of complete corporate control of the three branches of government will be complete.
Capitalists/the rich have always controlled the three branches of government. This is nothing new. He's resorting to scare tactics. It's pathetic. Again, Democrats and Obama have attacked workers more than Reagan and the Republicans under the Reagan administration. Obama and Democrats have handed "corporations" (capitalists) more money than any Republican administration. Capitalist control of the state is the system the founding fathers set up. Moore needs a history lesson.
Michael Moore
Trust me, if they succeed, we may never get it back.
They succeeded in 1776. The system in the USA was always meant to represent the most wealthy. The founding fathers explicitly say this. In 1776 it was white rich land owners/mercantile traders/slave owners and now it's corporations. America's system was never meant to put power in the average persons hands. The system is working the way it is suppose to work. Any gains the working class have made were fought in the streets and in the communities with blood sweat and tears, in many cases even death. When we stop fighting in favor of putting all out HOPE into the Democrat party is when the system wins.
Michael Moore
There were two things in the news these past couple weeks that unfortunately got little attention. But these two stories say it all about the America we will have unless these people are stopped.
One was a story in The Nation that exposed how Romney, while publicly opposing the auto company bailout, secretly got in on the action with his Wall Street donors – and made over $15 million, a 4,000% return on his investment (which he hid in a blind trust in his wife's name) by buying up the Delphi auto parts company, the former Delco/AC Spark Plug division of GM where my dad worked. He then – get this – grabbed billions in bailout cash to "transform" it from bankrupt to a "viable business." Except what he really did was slash retiree pensions, shut down 24 U.S. factories, and ship all 25,200 union jobs to China. You'd think he'd keep quiet about Delphi – but no, he's got his supporters running ads in Ohio blaming Barack Obama for terminating the Delphi pensions – I kid you not. (When I opposed the Iraq War, Romneyites and the like called me a "traitor"; when Romney does this traitorous act destroying jobs and sending them to China, his reward, in addition to the millions he pocketed, may be the presidency tomorrow.)
Is Micheal Moore a nationalist or a socialist? American jobs? Anyway, talk about slashing pensions, cutting wages and attacking the standard of living for the working class and students. What do we think democrats have been doing since the onset of the financial crisis? This is just one attack in California but it's the norm nation wide :
The other story was a bill passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that would allow businesses to take the state income taxes they withhold from their employees' paychecks and KEEP THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES! That's right. Your taxes that you pay to the state won't go to the state anymore – they'll just go right into the pockets of your bosses. I was stunned to find out that other states are already doing this as an "incentive" to lure or keep businesses in their states. Let's be clear what this is about: the final merging that's taking place between the corporate and political power structures, coming together as one, and making the workers (serfs) pay tribute to their employer (the overlord). Welcome to the New Feudalism.
Again, how many trillions did Obama give to big business and finance? Some say 16 trillion some say almost 30 trillion.
When exactly were the lines between the state and capital blurred? Long before any piddly state taxes were handed over to capitalists. Get your head out of your ass Moore. Obama bailed out the very corporations that were outsourcing jobs, gave the CEO's trillions. Even the so called socialist (liberal) Sanders knows this. The democrats also knew these corporations weren't paying any federal taxes which far outweighs state taxes:
So tomorrow it's High Noon in the USA, a literal showdown on the Main Streets of America between the rich and everyone else. The 1% truly believe they can defeat the 99%.
That was Obama's job, to defeat the 99% while people like you want us to line up and beg for more. No thanks.
Michael Moore
As the conservative commentator Stephen Moore (who sits on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal) said, "Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy.
Maintaining the interests of the rich first and foremost was the goal of the founding fathers. Everything is working as it is suppose to work.
Michael Moore
We have the chance tomorrow to defeat them. They're counting on us not even showing up. The line in the sand has been drawn. .
By voting for the Democrats who have overseen the largest attacks on working class in our lifetime over the last four years.
Stockholm Syndrome and masochism. This is what you're suffering when you think Democrats are our saviors. Micheal Moore is a propagandist, a liar and a fool.
Michael Moore
Now go act as if your democracy depended on it – because it does.
Voting takes very little energy thus it is proportionate to do so in order achieve very small social gains. Campaigning to vote is a waste of time and resources as are political parties but I don't see how anyone can think that Obama is not marginally better than Romney thus worth voting for if you can be bothered.
This obviously will not increase working class power and is obv not the most important election ever but it very minorly change the circumstances in which the american working class take collective action.
In California the things worth voting for on the ballot are the three strikes law, death penalty etc. Years back we successfully repealed many of the draconian drug laws Obama's vice president helped put in place that filled California prisons. Sentencing reform should also go to a vote sometime soon which would make drug possession, property damage and check forgery type crimes non jail offenses. These are some of the sort of things votes can change that have an immediate impact in the community.
Voting takes very little energy thus it is proportionate to do so in order achieve very small social gains. Campaigning to vote is a waste of time and resources as are political parties but I don't see how anyone can think that Obama is not marginally better than Romney thus worth voting for if you can be bothered.
This obviously will not increase working class power and is obv not the most important election ever but it very minorly change the circumstances in which the american working class take collective action.
i've been seeing people on twitter saying the queues are an hour long, its totally not worth he effort
Chili got one thing right... I am certainly not a representative of anarchism. And if he/she is, so much the worse for anarchism.
Here's the point: the way you show "respect" for someone's positions is to answer them directly, concretely, plainly, and by pointing to the the class connections implicit/explicit in those "positions."
So when someone points out that slogans being used are the stock in trade of professional left-liberals trotted out to justify capitulation to the continued rule of capital, even if the term "bullshit" is applied, that's being absolutely respectful and comradely.
OTOH, being mealy-mouthed, and not calling things be their right name doesn't do anything for anyone.
So, Shebangs-- Romney might start a war? No shit, so might Obama, as he has given concrete evidence of maintaining and expanding the wars that he had overseen in the last 4 years, unless of course you thing the so-called withdrawal of certain numbers of combat troops from Iraq amounts to a "cessation of hostilities," leaving a broken, impoverished society with eruptions of violence a monument to peace.
So Shebangs-- Romney might make abortion illegal? Or appoint a SC justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Roe v. Wade has already been overturned de facto.
And that's the bottom line, social changes always occur before their legal formalization. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade were made real, concrete because of movements, actions, not SC decisions.
Obama was simply put in power by capitalists to continue profits at the working classes expense in a time of crisis. To implement bail outs and austerity in a way that would have voters begging for more in 2012. If a Republican administration implemented all the shit the Obama administration/Democrats just implemented 2008-2012 there would have been riots in the streets that make the 1990's LA riots look like child's play. He was/is the perfect hit man for the ruling class and we're the target. At least with Romney, when he implements the same policies, we will have a better chance at forming more serious opposition and thus a more radicalized working class.
The OWS "movement" would have been so much more potent if Bush were in office (magical third term?). Shit woulda hit the fan. Seeing Obama was in office we were left with the goal of "pressuring Obama" to "do the right thing" (all the while he and Democrats were firmly stabbing the working class in the back). The reformists ruled the day at Occupy events "all we need to do is pressure Obama". We were castrated from the start. This is the purpose the Democrat party serves. It takes any revolutionary potential the working class has and morphs it into useless sludge. Micheal Moore is a Democrat Party operative. A class traitor. A fucking Orwellian master of doublethink. Post revolution I'd like to see him be shot into space in a capsule full of ho ho's and ding dongs.
In California the things worth voting for on the ballot are the three strikes law, death penalty etc. Years back we successfully repealed many of the draconian drug laws Obama's vice president helped put in place that filled California prisons. Sentencing reform should also go to a vote sometime soon which would make drug possession, property damage and check forgery type crimes non jail offenses. These are some of the sort of things votes can change that have an immediate impact in the community.
Sorry CRUD, but this is just plain factually incorrect. As for Prop. 34, the "The SAFE California Act to end California’s death penalty," even three California death row inmates (Jarvis Jay Masters, Kevin Cooper, and Correll Thomas) are urging people not to vote for it. The reason? In Correll Thomas' words:
Thomas
the people responsible for the SAFE California Act don’t give a damn about those of us affected by their decision or, more importantly, about the fact that what they are proposing possibly pits us against one another.
There are at least 14 men who have exhausted all of their appeals. For a few of them, this initiative preserves their lives, for now – only to torture them slowly. There are hundreds of us condemned men as well as several condemned women awaiting representation who have never had an opportunity to have our cases reviewed for possible innocence, constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of council or any other circumstances that would demonstrate justice was not served.
The authors of this initiative know that, combined with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the courthouse doors will be slammed forever. They are attempting to force us condemned men and women to accept another death penalty without any habeas corpus review of our sentences. And the few condemned men and women who currently have representation today, unless they have the funds to retain council for representation, would automatically be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and lose their representation.
Stan Milgram, a.k.a. CRUD, please stop spreading disinformation.
Also, it's strange that you edited your post to remove mention that you were going to vote for Romney. Go on dude, vote your conscience!
And just one other point for Chili and those who are so upset that some here actually called the "lesser evil" bullshit exactly that... I find it hilarious that the mere suggestion that the Russian Revolution was and is a great moment in history, the mere hint that maybe Lenin wasn't the devil incarnate, draped in German gold brings full bore attacks, complaints, insults etc etc with people referring those who take great pains to show both convergence and divergence of the social movement of the revolution with the Bolsheviks, as "Lenin lovers," as pimps, racketeers blahblahblah-- while this phony issue of "real differences" between Tweedledum War Criminal and Tweedledee War Criminal are given such a tender, benevolent hearing.
Is there a Russia/Lenin thread on this site? If so can you point me to it? Thanks.
One boss may be nicer than the other.... and it doesn't matter.
Although I would agree it doesn't matter in terms of the actual structural role they are expected to perform and fulfill, I think sometimes one being nicer than the other does matter just in terms of having somewhat reduced stress and humiliation. For instance, I work in retail, and I have a manager who’s an asshole and yelled at me the other day because, after my shift was done, I didn’t ring up every customer who was waiting in my line – that is, I only rang up 2 who were waiting in my line after my shift was done and not 3. On the other hand, there are the “nice” managers at the store who wouldn’t even care at all that I did this since it was incredibly petty and they don’t try to maintain absolute power – only just enough power to continue being a manager. Personally, I would have felt better without being yelled at for something like that.
That said, when it comes to heads of state, I can’t admittedly see how the same applies. Maybe the limousine drivers feel better not having to drive an über asshole. :) But for the majority of workers, it doesn’t matter and it certainly doesn’t matter when it comes to their role as functionaries. The "lesser evil" argument has always been nothing but naive and part of capitalism's false ideologies.
In California the things worth voting for on the ballot are the three strikes law, death penalty etc. Years back we successfully repealed many of the draconian drug laws Obama's vice president helped put in place that filled California prisons. Sentencing reform should also go to a vote sometime soon which would make drug possession, property damage and check forgery type crimes non jail offenses. These are some of the sort of things votes can change that have an immediate impact in the community.
Sorry CRUD, but this is just plain factually incorrect. As for Prop. 34, the "The SAFE California Act to end California’s death penalty," even three California death row inmates (Jarvis Jay Masters, Kevin Cooper, and Correll Thomas) are urging people not to vote for it. The reason? In Correll Thomas' words:
Thomas
the people responsible for the SAFE California Act don’t give a damn about those of us affected by their decision or, more importantly, about the fact that what they are proposing possibly pits us against one another.
There are at least 14 men who have exhausted all of their appeals. For a few of them, this initiative preserves their lives, for now – only to torture them slowly. There are hundreds of us condemned men as well as several condemned women awaiting representation who have never had an opportunity to have our cases reviewed for possible innocence, constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of council or any other circumstances that would demonstrate justice was not served.
The authors of this initiative know that, combined with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the courthouse doors will be slammed forever. They are attempting to force us condemned men and women to accept another death penalty without any habeas corpus review of our sentences. And the few condemned men and women who currently have representation today, unless they have the funds to retain council for representation, would automatically be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and lose their representation.
Stan Milgram, a.k.a. CRUD, please stop spreading disinformation.
Also, it's strange that you edited your post to remove mention that you were going to vote for Romney. Go on dude, vote your conscience!
I find it strange that you think I'm someone I'm not but ya, I edited out the Romney vote thing because I felt someone like you would have a go at warping my point. The point is we'd be better off with a Republican in office. The point was Obama and Democrats being in power right now crippled the social movement that was OWS.
So to continue the death penalty means people WILL BE put to death. To vote to end it means a handful of people will do life in prison with no parole, with no case review. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the subject. You can "prove me wrong" in that thread.
Something tells me you didn't like my criticisms of Occupy Oakland. Did something hit home? Perhaps you're one of the people responsible for the whole "decolonize Oakland" nonsense? Activist culture in the Bay Area is indeed working class repellent. We proved that the day of the Port shut down but rather than an introspective look into our strange culture we'd rather keep repeating the same mistakes into a state of total insignificance. You are aware how workers outside of the small activist community view us aren't you? Connecting with the broader working class isn't your goal though is it? I suspect you have a fetish for identity politics, drum circles and dancing with glow sticks. Keep spraying that repellent around town. I'll be shaking my head in disgust as usual.
Obama is officially re-elected. Now we can sit by and watch as he dismantles more social programs, expands wars and forces all of us to spend money we don't have on private for profit medial insurance while he and democrats implement draconian austerity measures. Lets see if any meaningful social movements to oppose all of this form. Not likely.
So to continue the death penalty means people WILL BE put to death. To vote to end it means a handful of people will do life in prison with no parole, with no case review. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the subject. You can "prove me wrong" in that thread.
Sorry CRUD, people will NOT be put to death until the lifting of the ruling by Judge Faye D’Opal of Marin County Superior Court in December 2011. She ruled that the State of California had failed to justify the decision to put in place a three-drug lethal injection method because "experts" said it carries a risk of “excruciating pain.” This legal limbo could change soon. Or maybe it might be a de facto moratorium for the time being. Your guess is as good as mine.
In the 1980s at a panel discussion in Berkeley, Alexander Cockburn, Christopher Hitchens and Gore Vidal talked about the political climate in the U.S. The latter summed up the "lesser evil" argument best:
Vidal
In the U.S. we have one party with two right wings.
So to continue the death penalty means people WILL BE put to death. To vote to end it means a handful of people will do life in prison with no parole, with no case review. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the subject. You can "prove me wrong" in that thread.
Sorry CRUD, people will NOT be put to death until the lifting of the ruling by Judge Faye D’Opal of Marin County Superior Court in December 2011. She ruled that the State of California had failed to justify the decision to put in place a three-drug lethal injection method because "experts" said it carries a risk of “excruciating pain.” This legal limbo could change soon. Or maybe it might be a de facto moratorium for the time being. Your guess is as good as mine.
I take it labeling me this person is meant to be slanderous, I get it now. The overall point is we can vote on local issues, prop this or that law and it is indeed a pretty democratic process (although the props are made to fool voters much of the time with misleading language) . Electoral politics is a whole other ball of wax. Especially investing in the federal legislative and executive campaigns and elections. This is the point.
Now that Obama is reelected do you think there's a strong possibility a mass movement will form in opposition to the coming austerity he and Democrats will be facilitating on behalf of the overall capitalist system? Will we see the same anti war protests as we saw when Bush was in office? Do you think part of the reason OWS was so ineffectual had something to do with leftist loyalty to Obama/democrats? That organizers and unions, even many socialists, didn't want to rock the boat too hard? If you think an Obama administration is good for the working class can you explain why please?
Ogion: Your nice boss will lay you off when told to just as quickly as your mean boss will. Maybe he'll tell you how sad he feels about it, and how much he appreciates your loyalty, but you'll still be on the street.
OK, now Obama is reelected, so does anybody feel better now? Relieved? The only thing I feel better about is that I'd rather have Michelle and the girls in the White House than Romney's Children of the Damned sons.
Ogion: Your nice boss will lay you off when told to just as quickly as your mean boss will. Maybe he'll tell you how sad he feels about it, and how much he appreciates your loyalty, but you'll still be on the street.
Definitely so. :) And there are plenty of other examples as well. However, I don't think it changes the fact that, on the job, one can still have somewhat reduced stress, humiliation, etc.
Sometimes I find leftists (understandably) wish to emphasize workers’ experiences of “mean” bosses or whatever more than the “nice” because they feel it strengthens their arguments. But it actually doesn’t, because it implies there’s a need to point out the “mean” bosses in order to more convincingly argue against capitalism. As a communist, I don’t think this is the case.
Anyway, as far as the election result, I'd say I feel even more like I live in a simulated dark comedy play where everyone's unknowingly repeating their lines than relieved at all.
take your knuckle-dragging misogyny elsewhere, you need to check yourself and your attitude.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little depressed by this whole affair, never mind though. I'm sure as long as there's been radical workers there have been debates just like this and the referendum thread over and over, just par for the course at this time in the electoral cycle. Either way we end up with a total shit.
Voting takes very little energy thus it is proportionate to do so in order achieve very small social gains. Campaigning to vote is a waste of time and resources as are political parties but I don't see how anyone can think that Obama is not marginally better than Romney thus worth voting for if you can be bothered.
This obviously will not increase working class power and is obv not the most important election ever but it very minorly change the circumstances in which the american working class take collective action.
i've been seeing people on twitter saying the queues are an hour long, its totally not worth he effort
Even without the queues, the argument is fairly absurd, given that ina situation like this, your individual vote is de facto statistically insignificant. I don't really care if someone votes or not, but to just do so because it's a good use of time simply doesn't make sense. It's not do much that voting for 'small social gains' is wrong, as literally pointless.
It is very easy to forget that it wasn't purely about Obama and Romney
http://www.upworthy.com/map-you-wont-believe-what-these-states-did-tonight?g=2&c=ufb1
Worth a look I think
Another long ass thread on voting ? Really.....really ?
The OP was a new poster. Believe it or not, once a thread is finished on libcom, it isn't transmitted to the world hive mind. The non-voting argument is one your going to probably have to have for the rest of your life :cry: .
I'd rather see black women living as the "first family" in a house built by slaves for white males than see a swarm of white males anytime. Has nothing to do with the politics, but it sure drives the racists nuts.
You ever look at Romney's kids? Those boys all have that "burnt behind the eyes" look.
As for starting new wars... well here's what the AP is reporting:
From Associated Press
November 07, 2012 8:18 AM EST
ZAATARI, Jordan (AP) — Western efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad shifted dramatically Wednesday, with Britain announcing it will deal directly with rebel military leaders and Turkey saying NATO members have discussed using Patriot missiles to protect a safe zone inside Syria.
The developments came within hours of Barack Obama's re-election, with U.S. allies anticipating a new, bolder approach from the American president to end the deadlocked civil war that has killed more than 36,000 people since an uprising against Assad began in March 2011....
The Turkish official who reported Patriot missile discussions between his nation and its allies, including the United States, said planning for the safe zone inside Syria had been put on hold pending the U.S. election.
The foreign ministry official spoke on condition of anonymity because of ministry prohibitions on contact with the media.
He also said any missile deployment might happen under a "NATO umbrella," though NATO has insisted it will not intervene without a clear United Nations mandate.
"With the re-election of Obama, what you have is a strong confidence on the British side that the U.S. administration will be engaged more on Syria from the get-go," said Shashank Joshi, an analyst at London's Royal United Services Institute, a military and security think tank.
Oh yeah there's a real difference between the president you elect and the president you don't elect.
I stand by my description of the dangers of the "lesser evil", SA's defence of it and think that it's somewhat insulting to suggest that people who are non-political couldn't understand it. Personally, I know plenty of workers that wouldn't be dragged into polling booths by wild horses, clearly seeing - not with any profound political perspective - that there is absolutely no fundamental difference from a working class point of view, between the "contending" elements. I also know a lot of workers that willingly get dragged into the polling booths and herein the dangers lie, ie, atomised individuals fooling themselves into thinking that they are part of a real democratic political process for change. Whatever the result of elections, it's always the bourgeoisie that wins, the working class that loses.
Alf above points the difficulties and differences within the American bourgeoisie and how this presents some weakness in the line-up of the ruling class and its political teams. I think that the first thing that we have to say about this election is that it and its turn-out is a major victory for the ruling class - for the most part the latter want the workers mobilised on the electoral terrain, whoever they vote for because it is democracy itself that is the most effective weapon against class struggle. Prior to the last election of Obama, participation in voting was, as far as I remember, falling. The whole "black guy as president" gave an enormous boost to democracy and it continues to do so. Rather than showing the weakness of the US ruling class, I tend to think that it shows its strength. It's certainly been picked up by the bourgeoisie world-wide in order to boost the illusion of democracy.
I stand by my description of the dangers of the "lesser evil", SA's defence of it and think that it's somewhat insulting to suggest that people who are non-political couldn't understand it. Personally, I know plenty of workers that wouldn't be dragged into polling booths by wild horses, clearly seeing - not with any profound political perspective - that there is absolutely no fundamental difference from a working class point of view, between the "contending" elements..
Given that nobody has suggested people vote it seems a bit odd to stand by SA in a debate which isn't happening (CRUD has some convoluted reasons for why one should vote but has been proven pretty wrong by H).
You are right to point at that it is condescending to say 'non-political' [sic] people don't understand it though. Most people i know 'non-political' if you will understand it very plainly. 'They are all as bad as each other' has been a standard trope on the british political landscape for years now....
We might want to pause a moment for accuracy. For one, I did not claim that Shebangs is a CPUSA plant, beard, troll etc. etc. I said that what he/she has proposed as the critical/determining issue is nothing but a repeat of the line the CPUSA has been advertising for years-- "This is the most election in X number of years. We must unite with Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama to defeat the apocalyptic assaults of the ultra-rightists," the line that has been used to make sure the stakes never get any higher for the bourgeoisie.
When some pointed out how absolutely nonsensical Shebang's advocacy is-- "Romney might start a war"-- as opposed to Obama who continues, maintains, expands and plans wars; "Romney will take away women's rights to abortion; immigrants rights"--as opposed to the current situation where no federal money for healthcare can be used to absorb any of the costs of an abortion; as opposed to the current administration which, prior to the election year of course, increased raids on workplaces, arrests and deportations of workers in the workplace well above the number conducted by the Bush administration-- we get the kinder, gentler types telling the critics to quit being dicks and show some empathy for a political innocent trying to negotiate his/her way to anarchism through the debris of US politics.
Personally, I don't believe the stuff about political neophytes, not that it matters one bit. Neophyte, professional.. the issue is the class content behind the advocacy.
This is supposed to be a site, a forum of some critical insight and straight talk. If somebody comes here and says "I think I should vote for Obama because the stakes are so high," and responses are made that say "bullshit;" pointing out that everything viewed as the "stakes" has already been swept off the table and into the bourgeoisie's pockets-- that's not being crude, insensitive, sectarian, hostile, nor even particularly harsh. That's just being accurate.
The site calls itself "libcom"-- with the "com" standing for communist-- that denotes an established, already agreed upon understanding that supporting any of the bourgeois parties is simply unacceptable, and is a waste of time. My only regret, knuckle-dragger that I am, is that I wasted time thinking the comments required a serious response. To those who dismissed the OP from the getgo with the one-liners and the "snarky" videos-- good for you. You were right.
Somebody wants to waste time having "reasoned" discussions with those who think that the "stakes are too high" to not oppose the bourgeoisie as a class, try Henwood's LBO (can't remember if that stands for "leveraged buy out," or "left business observer") list.
that's not being crude, insensitive, sectarian, hostile, nor even particularly harsh
Your imperious and patronising tone might be acceptable in a meeting full of other political hacks, but most people do not spend their time in that sort of company and find such language totally alienating. There is a time and a place for aggressive political put-downs, and that time is after you've established that the other party is operating on the same level. If they are open to debate, you debate in a comradely fashion.
How on earth you ever expect to persuade anyone of anything if this is your usual pattern of behaviour baffles me.
1. noticing Shebangs hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and now that the election is over and results are in, interested to talk with them again.
2. we really should have a libcommunity thread where we shit-talk each other endlessly, provided that the regular rules about sexist racist and oppressive language are still observed, we can just throw out everything else and have full flame wars. that way, we might have a healthy outlet for all our rage at stupid comrades who "just don't get" our enlightened point of view, and that thread would also serve as a kind of spawning ground for witty snarkyness and zingers. in all other areas of the forums we would pretend that thread doesn't exist, never refer to it, and of course we would be good at being understanding and respectful with one another, having spent the majority of our rage in another thread.
2. we really should have a libcommunity thread where we shit-talk each other endlessly, provided that the regular rules about sexist racist and oppressive language are still observed, we can just throw out everything else and have full flame wars. that way, we might have a healthy outlet for all our rage at stupid comrades who "just don't get" our enlightened point of view, and that thread would also serve as a kind of spawning ground for witty snarkyness and zingers.
only been actively posting on this site for two or so years, so i don't know too much about how it used to be. i meant my suggestion primarily in jest. was this an actual thing at one point? i'm super curious now!
only been actively posting on this site for two or so years, so i don't know too much about how it used to be. i meant my suggestion primarily in jest. was this an actual thing at one point? i'm super curious now!
Yeah, it was. First the forums, every single one of them, were pretty much infused with shit talk and flaming, then it was relegated to libcommunity, and now it seems to happen less and less even there. Though occasionally the old ways of discoursing will shine through (e.g. S. Artesian and Heieronymous in this thread).
Obama is officially re-elected. Now we can sit by and watch as he dismantles more social programs, expands wars and forces all of us to spend money we don't have on private for profit medical insurance while he and democrats implement draconian austerity measures. Lets see if any meaningful social movements to oppose all of this form. Not likely.
I like the "up down" options you guys have on this site. Can whoever "downed" this post kinda explain why. Thanks.
Congratulations to you all. 4 more years of Obama!
I posted here once as Glennbeckfan1776, but apparently, my knowledge of truth has a gotten me banned. Anyways, it’s been a long time since ive been here but I wanted to tip my hat to you guys 1 last time for destroying everything America stands. You communist are relentless. I don’t know how you pulled it off again, but you did it. The free man is left with nothing but redistribution of his tax dollars. I hope your happy, I really do. But I have to ask, whats REALLY in it for you. You do realize these communist experiences have left millions dead and yet you spend hours and hours promoting your socialist agenda. Do you hate the human race? Do you actually hate Jesus? I mean really?
Capitalism has long been a system of efficiency and markets. Its the creative entrepreneur of American Business which has lead to this Country to be the Greatest Country ever. Ever heard of Nike, Microsoft, Apple? Yeah, we did that. But you want to take it all away with your progressivism policies that drive America Bankrupt? Let me ask you this…DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH AMERICAS DEBT IS? Do you wan’t to keep borrowing money from China? Have you heard a housing crises? With the Government in the banks hands, instead of the free market at work, weve turned this country upside down.
Have I lost faith though? Hardly! We need revolutionary heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (which I’m sure you commies forgot he was a republican) to stand up to everything that has happened in America society. The Liberal Media and its elitest club, the corrupt mafia unions (You heard of Jimmy Hoffa, right?), the left professor-hood of the university (which by the sound of everyone here, is nothing but a FACT), Big banks (which is what your hero Marx wanted), Big Government….I can go on.
But you all are just the 99% and need a hand out from uncle sam and live of my tax dollars. Well I got a different tune for you guys. I got 99 problems, but the public sector aint one of them. If we let the market do its work and let problem business fail, than the invisible hand has done its job (and more importantly IT CREATES JOBS). Its been done in the past and it can happen again. But thats not how you guys like to do business right? You like to play politics.
Well all I can say is congratulations, you’ve pulled the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World.
Imperious, patronizing, knuckle-dragging, and shit-talk all at once? I feel like a Renaissance Man.
There nothing "political hack" like in calling bullshit by its real name, even when it comes from such heroes as Michael Moore.
The issue is precisely not one of trying to "honestly persuade" anyone not to, or to for that matter, vote for anyone.
The point is identifying the the bullshit that informs the notions of "voting" "historically important election" "lesser evil" and......."honest persuasion."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! How we missed you. And yeah, secretly libcom is actually a front for the Obama campaign and for the New World Order he wants to establish, with the seat of said order placed in Kenya (after all it is Obama's correct birthplace). Obama will sit on a throne made out of all the fake birth certificates and college transcripts. It will be beautiful. I will certainly go and worship at the feet of Comrade Obama. Long live! Not four more year, but FOR ETERNITY!
Ah, I was going to say on another thread how few trolls I have actually seen on this forum since I came, but that one really made my day :). I mean, you put a lot of thought into that big pile of bollocks. BECAUSE WE ARE JUST SOOOO HAPPY that Obama gets to carry on secretly drone striking children in Pakistan, exactly we what we were after, pretty clear all over the forum really.
;)
Imperious, patronizing, knuckle-dragging, and shit-talk all at once? I feel like a Renaissance Man.
There nothing "political hack" like in calling bullshit by its real name, even when it comes from such heroes as Michael Moore.
The issue is precisely not one of trying to "honestly persuade" anyone not to, or to for that matter, vote for anyone.
The point is identifying the the bullshit that informs the notions of "voting" "historically important election" "lesser evil" and......."honest persuasion."
You need to listen to what Micheal Moore has to say. He's a socialist. Ya. I think within most online forums if a person or group of people don't like what you have to say and or your overall views (in your case Marxist-Leninism?) you're pretty much doomed from the start. A person who defends Lenin on an anarchist site isn't going to get very far neither is a person who criticizes the anarchist community in the Bay Area as I have done. Thus far on this site I've been castigated into some DOOM/CRUD organization for criticizing ultra leftist activist culture in the Bay Area. I've had worse thrown my way within the community whenever I question whether or not activist culture connects with the broader working class. The answer I receive is usually a condescending "the broader working class is racist,sexist and reactionary". I'm more of the opinion the sort of knee jerk name calling as just happened to you is in part responsible for the almost total inconsequential nature of the socialist left in America and beyond. I guess this post is off topic but not really.
Well I guess glennbeck1776 agrees that this was a historically important election. You know, on acertain professional forum, some management executives were actually flogging the same tired bullshit: "This is the most important election in our lifetimes. This election will decide whether the US goes the way of Greece, or the way of Germany. This election is our last chance to defend freedom from the slide to socialism."
Which shows exactly how all this mumbo-jumbo about "historical importance" "freedom" "democracy" "rights" "war" "progress" "future" has absolutely NO content, but is simply a vector, advertising for whatever bourgeois clique makes use of it.
Elections are nothing other than a virus for disabling class struggle with chronic fatigue syndrome.
To SM: Nope not a Marxist-Leninist. I'm a marxist communist. Small m small c.
Michael Moore is nothing but a repo man for the bourgeoisie. He's a socialist like Michael Harrington was a socialist. His socialism is conspicuous only in its absence.
Obama is officially re-elected. Now we can sit by and watch as he dismantles more social programs, expands wars and forces all of us to spend money we don't have on private for profit medical insurance while he and democrats implement draconian austerity measures. Lets see if any meaningful social movements to oppose all of this form. Not likely.
I like the "up down" options you guys have on this site. Can whoever "downed" this post kinda explain why. Thanks.
That would be me. I downed it because it was boring and boredom is counter-revolutionary. What specifically is boring about it is your affect of self-righteous, sarcastic, ressentiment. The purpose of your statement is not to communicate, it is to hector, to bully and to assert your sense of self-worth through finding an adversary to denounce and decry. It is "straight talking" in that peculiarly unpleasant character so beloved of American shock-jocks - the ostensible political content does not change the basic content in terms of affect.
Now, something less boring. A quote from Gilles Deleuze's piece on Neitzsche in Pure Immanence.
Spider (or Tarantula): It is the spirit of revenge or resentment. Its power of contagion is its venom. Its will is a will to punish and judge. Its weapon is the thread, the thread of morality. It preaches morality (that everyone become like it!)
But sure, if you're looking for someone to pick on, try me. Good luck with that.
[Though occasionally the old ways of discoursing will shine through (e.g. S. Artesian and Heieronymous in this thread).
What's "old" about following the money trail and seeing that the pseudo-reformist anti-death penalty initiative in California (prop. 34) was written by a former San Quentin warden and basically throws away the key on life-sentence prisoners along with denying them any possibility of an appeal of their sentences. So in exchange for ending the death penalty the pigs get an extra $100,000,000 for "anti-crime" activity and the already well-funded prison-industrial-complex would get a huge new windfall. Thankfully it didn't pass.
It's not the content Hieronymous, but the form the content takes. In this thread you've not been very diplomatic.
Come on, Stan Milgram is doing exactly what CRUD did on Occupy Oakland threads.
And this is personal. On post #10 of the "Occupy Oakland's Decomposition" thread, CRUD posted a contentless series of YouTube videos. One includes my neighbor, a Kiowa active in the International Treaty Council. I don't see eye-to-eye about everything with this comrade, but I know he will continue to have my back in local struggles. I will not tolerate CRUD's contempt towards "factions of minorities (women, gay, and people of color) who want a bigger piece of the capitalist pie (identity politics)."
I think this barely-veiled hatred should never be allowed on libcom. Stan Milgram/CRUD should be banned -- again -- and his racist, sexist, homophobic screeds should never be tolerated.
There obviously is a difference between Obama and Romney, and I'm glad Obama won. There are quite a lot of reasons I can think of. But one which shouldn't be too controversial is that Romney would have been likely to cut funding for organisations that provide abortions, and allow states to do the same thing.
This thread is something else... glennbeck1776 is obvs the best poster in it.
Besides the whole labeling me a person I'm not, my name is Mike by the way, I chose Milgram for his studies on obedience to authority, besides all that I knew it was only a matter of time before I was called racist, sexist and homophobic for questioning the atmosphere at Occupy events in the Bay Area. There's no contempt for women, the gay community or people of color my criticisms center around, and you know it, the tendency to spotlight identity issues at the cost of, well, pretty much anything that has do do with socialism. This isn't to say we don't NEED to be fighting to end (right now, under capitalism) racism/sexism/homophobia my point is all too often people are doing so without the goal of socialism in mind.
Explain for the people in this thread the thinking behind changing the name from Occupy Oakland to Decolonize Oakland. Lets start with that.
I mean, it went as far as the term "wage slavery" being called racist. Occupy Oakland turned into a circus of identity politics. You know it, I know it and the ruling class knows it and loves it.
Obama is officially re-elected. Now we can sit by and watch as he dismantles more social programs, expands wars and forces all of us to spend money we don't have on private for profit medical insurance while he and democrats implement draconian austerity measures. Lets see if any meaningful social movements to oppose all of this form. Not likely.
I like the "up down" options you guys have on this site. Can whoever "downed" this post kinda explain why. Thanks.
That would be me. I downed it because it was boring and boredom is counter-revolutionary. What specifically is boring about it is your affect of self-righteous, sarcastic, ressentiment. The purpose of your statement is not to communicate, it is to hector, to bully and to assert your sense of self-worth through finding an adversary to denounce and decry. It is "straight talking" in that peculiarly unpleasant character so beloved of American shock-jocks - the ostensible political content does not change the basic content in terms of affect.
Now, something less boring. A quote from Gilles Deleuze's piece on Neitzsche in Pure Immanence.
Spider (or Tarantula): It is the spirit of revenge or resentment. Its power of contagion is its venom. Its will is a will to punish and judge. Its weapon is the thread, the thread of morality. It preaches morality (that everyone become like it!)
But sure, if you're looking for someone to pick on, try me. Good luck with that.
The point isn't to pick on anyone or uplift myself to Revolutionary Jesus status it was to point out how Democrats have the ability to pour water on the flame of social movements. I think maybe bringing Deleuze and Neitzsche into a thread about voting/supporting democrats accomplished exactly what you just accused me of :) Good show mate!
There obviously is a difference between Obama and Romney, and I'm glad Obama won. There are quite a lot of reasons I can think of. But one which shouldn't be too controversial is that Romney would have been likely to cut funding for organisations that provide abortions, and allow states to do the same thing.
This thread is something else... glennbeck1776 is obvs the best poster in it.
Nope, you're the best poster, because now Chili and others can demonstrate how patient, respectful, embracing friendly discourse is going to honestly persuade you how wrong you are.
Oh sure there's an obvious difference-- l like there was between Gore and Bush, Kerry and Bush, McCain and Obama....... the difference between malaria and dengue fever.
We should be allowed to keep glennbeck1776. Please don't ban him. His knowledge of truth has already gotten him banned once, but like the good martyr he is, he has come here again to preach to the heathens, though we may reject him.
glennbeck1776
Congratulations to you all. 4 more years of Obama!
EVERYONE but one person on this thread has argued the futility of electoral politics. We thought, in our stupidity, that we had abstained from the election. BUT BEHOLD, glennbeck1776 exposes the TRUTH: we have all been an integral part of reelecting Obama. For while we conspired to try to promote working class self-activity and direct action and argue the futility of electoral politics our audience only became MORE CONVINCED in THE KENYAN ONE, THAT IMPOSTOR CHRIST WHO IS NOT GLENN BECK!
glennbeck1776
Anyways, it’s been a long time since ive been here but I wanted to tip my hat to you guys 1 last time for destroying everything America stands. You communist are relentless. I don’t know how you pulled it off again, but you did it.
It could only be through our sneak thievery and conspiratorial nature that we accomplished such a feat, for we are weak in mind and will and can only do what we have done through underhandedness, so terrified are we to confront the TRUTH of our enemies claims in the light of day.
glennbeck1776
The free man is left with nothing but redistribution of his tax dollars. I hope your happy, I really do.
You see, even though we scorn him, glennbeck1776 still wishes us only well, for he wishes to save us from our evil nature! Why must we insist on redistributing the tax dollars of the FREE MAN? Has not the FREE MAN endured enough insults and treachery? Must he now also pay taxes to live in a society with roads and fire departments?
glennbeck1776
But I have to ask, whats REALLY in it for you.
GOLD. WE'RE AFTER THE GOLD! ALL OF IT! Communists need gold because its magical powers allow us to deceive the FREE MAN through our control of the media and the FED.
glennbeck1776
You do realize these communist experiences have left millions dead and yet you spend hours and hours promoting your socialist agenda.
Not only do we realize that communist experiences have left millions dead, we wish for millions more! We accomplish this every day, in the most insidious of ways you see. For instance, one time I took a homeless guy to Subway and got him a sandwich. Upon eating it, the homeless guy died. He didn't even realize that by denying my rational self interest and recognizing the affinity I shared with him as a human being that I had sucked him into a communist experience. And so, the INVISIBLE HAND struck him down for his collaboration with me. And we're creating more and more communist experiences everyday; feeding LSD to your kids, using bad language in the presence of the elderly, putting fluoride in your water....
glennbeck1776
Do you hate the human race? Do you actually hate Jesus? I mean really?
How could we NOT hate Christ? We are, by our nature, of the devil. We crucified him. His blood is upon us and upon our children!
glennbeck1776
Capitalism has long been a system of efficiency and markets. Its the creative entrepreneur of American Business which has lead to this Country to be the Greatest Country ever. Ever heard of Nike, Microsoft, Apple? Yeah, we did that.
BE SILENT LIBCOM POSTERS AND HEAR THE WORDS OF GLENNBECK1776: The entrepreneurship of American Business springs forth in a vacuum apart from history and the political and legal apparatus which make things like property rights possible. It comes, as from the mind of GOD himself, to make America the Greatest Country ever. No frame of reference is needed, nor a critique of the nation-state and its historical development for who can argue against glennbeck1776? He possesses the TRUTH.
glennbeck1776
But you want to take it all away with your progressivism policies that drive America Bankrupt? Let me ask you this…DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH AMERICAS DEBT IS? Do you wan’t to keep borrowing money from China? Have you heard a housing crises? With the Government in the banks hands, instead of the free market at work, weve turned this country upside down.
Oh our progressivism policies and forcing America into Chinese debt peonage are only the first step in our long term plan to KILL CHRIST and destroy the FREE MAN.
glennbeck1776
Have I lost faith though? Hardly! We need revolutionary heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (which I’m sure you commies forgot he was a republican) to stand up to everything that has happened in America society.
glenbeck1776 holds THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH lights THE WAY: the only hope is to find a wealthy slave owner with a mediocre military career and delusions of grandeur or a cynical career politician to stand up to everything that has happened in America society. EVERYTHING. If you were in the dry goods store and somebody told you about the over 100 year existence of the food and drug administration what could you do? Nothing! You would be powerless to repel the actions of past historical actors and keep BIG GOVERNMENT away from your tummy! But if only you could find a wealthy slave owner with a mediocre military career and delusions of grandeur! He would relieve you of your misery by employing his magics to destroy the FDA and historians thus restoring balance to the market! Continue searching fellow libcom posters, for we must find THE ONE before the likes of glennbeck1776 does, that we may strike him down while still an infant and powerless against us!
glennbeck1776
The Liberal Media and its elitest club, the corrupt mafia unions (You heard of Jimmy Hoffa, right?), the left professor-hood of the university (which by the sound of everyone here, is nothing but a FACT), Big banks (which is what your hero Marx wanted), Big Government….I can go on.
PLEASE do not go on, for we cannot bear THE TRUTH!
glennbeck1776
But you all are just the 99% and need a hand out from uncle sam and live of my tax dollars. Well I got a different tune for you guys. I got 99 problems, but the public sector aint one of them.
How strong is glennbeck1776 that though he bears the burden of supporting all of our lascivious, indolent lives, we are NOT one of the 99 problems he endures through his manly fortitude and shield of THE TRUTH! For he knows that for the neo-liberal capitalist ideologue the public sector is no problem, only a nuisance.
glennbeck1776
If we let the market do its work and let problem business fail, than the invisible hand has done its job (and more importantly IT CREATES JOBS). Its been done in the past and it can happen again. But thats not how you guys like to do business right? You like to play politics.
Oh yes, we like to play politics because were jobs created, we might have to get jobs. And nothing terrifies us more than jobs. Why, as communists, we don't even like to think about work, nor do we ever talk about or investigate it. We'd much rather spend the welfare checks you so graciously provide us on dress suits and haircuts so that we can have more realism when playing politics. I myself usually play Strom Thurmond or Michelle Bachmann.
glennbeck1776
Well all I can say is congratulations, you’ve pulled the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World.
See how graciously he concedes the battle!!! We have truly pulled the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World!
There obviously is a difference between Obama and Romney, and I'm glad Obama won. There are quite a lot of reasons I can think of. But one which shouldn't be too controversial is that Romney would have been likely to cut funding for organisations that provide abortions, and allow states to do the same thing.
This thread is something else... glennbeck1776 is obvs the best poster in it.
Nope, you're the best poster, because now Chili and others can demonstrate how patient, respectful, embracing friendly discourse is going to honestly persuade you how wrong you are.
Oh sure there's an obvious difference-- l like there was between Gore and Bush, Kerry and Bush, McCain and Obama....... the difference between malaria and dengue fever.
So have at it, comrades.
Okay, I'll bite. Comrade mons, I really feel like you're trying to pull the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World on this one. You mention Romney's threats to reproductive rights, which was one of the issues the Obama campaign really pumped this election. And indeed, there can't be any doubt that the zany wing of the republican party has gotten into office in some places and is waging a war on women. But what was the democratic party response? Nothing. These attacks on reproductive rights ought to have been met by mass direct action imo. After all, legal abortion was a concession won and not a gift given in the first place. But in this case, the dems were better at preempting protest than they were in wisconsin, and quickly launched a pr campaign. Because they'd rather have reproductive rights as a wedge issue to run on and win elections than have actual reproductive rights - and that's interesting because until like 5 years ago this was the republican strategy - run on social "wedge issues" to get elected but never do anything about them while in office (cuz if you fulfilled promises in this regard, you wouldn't have anything to run on come next election). The dems know how to play this game too. After helping to pass taft-hartley, they kept promising, every election, to repeal it for forty something years. They just stopped promising after a while. Obama / the dems might hold things where they are (and remember, things are pretty bad on the reproductive rights front right now), but I'd be very surprised if they actually tried to push back in the other direction. Not saying its impossible or something, but only that if past behavior of the democratic party indicates anything its that their schtick is to campaign like San Fransisco hippies (no offense meant hippies) and rule like the New England blue bloods they most often are.
Now, you might say that I'm depicting the two parties as having no essential differences and in so doing, I'm pulling the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World. But I'm totally willing to concede that there are differences between the two parties - one is history's most enthusiastic capitalist party, the other is history's second most enthusiastic capitalist party. Have you ever tried to explain the ideological differences between trot groups to a college republican? Its like trying to explain the differences between America's two parties to Anarchists. I used to toy with the idea that from our end it might be better to have history's second most enthusiastic capitalist party because it might be easier for us to wring concessions out of them, or their being in power long enough would demonstrate that electing them doesn't solve the essential problems of capitalism. But now I'm all like "fuck it". I think from the perspective the ruling class though, the differences between the two parties matter a lot more, and the ruling class votes with their dollars during these campaigns. Rich people, like us, don't always agree on shit, aren't always the most class conscious (though they seem to be moreso than us), and don't always know whats good for their class interests. So, I think having two parties, which are both essentially pro-capitalist ideologically but have practical disagreements is useful for the ruling class, because through those two parties they can promulgate new ideas, debate them, and test them out. The two parties are also great ways of aggregating different capitalist interests so they may compete with each other without slitting each other's throats. A good example is the fossil fuel industry favoring the republicans and the renewable energy industry favoring the dems. Both are capitalist industries, but we can see that they want to edge each other out. Or business unions supporting the dems (or being nothing more than a fundraising apparatus for the dems in some cases) and union busting firms supporting the republicans.
That's my take on this shit anyway. And mons, you and Shebangs ARE the best posters on this thread because you had the courage to disagree with the rest of us, which forces us to more fully think out and explain our own views. That's a useful process for everyone involved IMO.
But one which shouldn't be too controversial is that Romney would have been likely to cut funding for organisations that provide abortions, and allow states to do the same thing.
But that's exactly what Obama did! (unless by cut funding you mean end funding- in which case, if he would try it, the usual 'political process' and a divided legislature/other-institutions would have prevented it).
Also on the subject of difference between the two parties:
Mons mentions real differences having to do with reproductive and gay rights.
I think there is a zany, crazy, nearly fascist end of the republican party which is sincere in its hatred of women and lgbt people.
I think there is a "progressive" wing of the dems that is sincere in its wish to be our dad and do all the other things associated with "progressive"
I just don't think the sincere wing of either party is enough to warrant voting. So you can vote out the sincere republicans in a state, but the best you can do is to replace them with regular dems, who aren't going to un-do the stuff the sincere republicans did while in office. I honestly think the best way to get these people to capitulate is good ole fashioned direct action, and I often hear the argument "but I'd just rather vote, cuz its easier" or something, and I can see that its easier, but its not nearly as practical as DA, and certainly not as reliable IMO.
Or you can elect sincere dems and then when they get into office they realize the structural forces that make capitalist politicians shitty work on them too. My city has a tradition of progressive mayors. Really, really sincere progressive mayors. Like the socialist Tom L. Johnson who started public bath houses since nobody back then had running water. He also put up signs in the public parks telling people they were public parks and poor people were allowed to use them. He even took iww agitator elizabeth gurley flynn out to lunch and gave her dad a city job. But when there was streetcar strike, Johnson had to fight against the workers because he was the mayor. (http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=010424.html&StartPage=24&EndPage=41&volume=104&newtitle=Volume%20104%20Page%2024).
The Carl Stokes story is way more tragic.
And I think the farther up chain you are, the less the sincere wing of either party matters. They certainly don't matter in presidential elections.
Voting is, as Howard Zinn put it, only"marginally useful." What really matters is the level of mass resistance, working class self-activity.
I usually do vote on ballot measures, tho, because it's a form of direct democracy, even tho totally distorted by money power, corporate media etc, that is, the capitalist context. I voted against Prop 32 in California which would have banned unions using dues money for political purposes. This measure went down. Even tho the unions bankroll the capitalist Democrats in a kneejerk fashion, I don't want the state making these kinds of limitations on worker organization.
I voted for the right to know measure (Prop 37) for genetically modified food because the chemical industry saw this as a badge of dishonor, that would discourage use of their seeds. Monsanto is a seed monopolist that modifies seeds to make the plants adaptive to its poisons, pesticides & herbicides, which poison farm workers & pollute water & air. but in this case the vast money the chemical industry spent defeated the measure.
In this election two states voted to legalize marijuana. Three states approved gay marriage. This still sets up a conflict between these states and the federal state.
I miss him. He was a good ballast on the generic left. One of the folks who knew how to sift through the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia but somehow was still connected to it.
While voting is clearly an inefficient use of libertarian communists' time and resources, this thread makes me think that debating why voting is a waste of time is a far greater drain on our time and resources.
I think there's the potential for a good article comparing the nearly concurrent renewing/re-endorsing of the political leadership in China and the US. Of course from the bourgeois standpoint the two have nothing in common, but from a more sceptical viewpoint the compare and contrast exercise could be interesting. Within the CCP there appear to be two main factions - the "Princelings" or "Elitist" faction and the Tuanpai (League Faction, from Communist Youth League) or "Populist" faction*. In a funny kind of way there's a degree to which these factions are analogous to the Rep/Dem or other two-party systems of the "democratic" West. The need to represent demographic groupings (The elitists represent the coastal development areas, the Tuanpai the interior), the appeal to "trickle-down" vs welfare economics, blue collar vs finance, etc, etc, all have parallels between both states. Anyway, I think it'd be interesting. And get beyond the "but the US is a democracy..." knee-jerk ideological responses. If the Tea Party, hard-core Reps are claiming that Obama's re-election is "four more years of communism", why not take them (jokingly!) at their word and compare and contrast the two "communist" leadership transitions in Chimerica?**
* If we give credence to Li Cheng of the Brookings Institute's categorisation, which is not a given.
** To use (that vile tory) Niall Ferguson's portmanteau
While voting is clearly an inefficient use of libertarian communists' time and resources, this thread makes me think that debating why voting is a waste of time is a far greater drain on our time and resources.
YESSS!!!!!
Also, just for the record, I still think GlennBeck is a joke account. My money's on Nate. Seriously.
teh has the right answer for mons. The point isn't to "persuade." It's to point out that the rationale used for preventing some action becomes in fact the justification, the facilitation, of those very actions. That's what capitalism is.
Anyone here remember LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964: "I will not send American boys 10,000 miles away to do what Vietnamese boys should be doing for themselves."????? You can look it up.
On the peace-loving, lesser-evil Obama against warmonger Romney (or whatever bogeyman you like):
Just over a year ago, using its British, French and Arab pawns, the Obama administration launched a war in Libya. Thousands were killed, many by Nato bombardments and the devastation and destabilisation of the country has been massive. Today, unemployment, misery and threats to the greater population are far greater than they were before and great parts of the country are being run by armed gangs, jihadists and bandits of all stripes. The US administration, acting here on behalf of US imperialism, has actually boasted of the "success" of the "liberation" of Libya.
Out of the chaos and carnage of Libya has poured thousands of tonnes of weaponry along with gangsters, jihadists and bandits who have now destabilised and terrorised the whole region of the Sahel. They have spread down to Nigeria, killed thousands of helpless civilians and brought the terror of fundamentalist Sharia to millions in this once easy-going, strong in music region. Just like the Bushes, Clinton, et al, the actions of the Obama administration have conjured up the reactionary forces of jihadism, in or outside of the loose al-Qa'ida franchise, by its own actions. And just like these previous administrations, US forces will now work alongside local gangsters, drug dealers, traffickers, etc., in trying to clear up the messthat it has created. But just like previous administrations, it will only make it worse.
One of the successes of the ruling class in this election in my opinion, is how the poor and youth has been mobilised onto this poisonous terrain of being a "citizen democrat". This looks like a major change from say ten years ago, when US elections were treated with cynical contempt for the most part (though cynicism is obviously not enough). In Europe, faced with unprecedented economic attacks, the working class has found it very difficult to see itself as a class which has opposing interests to capital. It's a problem that the workers themselves have to confront and overcome. In the US election, youth, the poor, black and Hispanic elements have been targetted and mobilised onto the grounds of the democratic process of the nation. This further tends to strip them of any class identity. A special mention should be made of the role of the trade unions in the US here which, as good defenders of the national interest, fully played their role in the mobilisation for the "lesser-evil".
...because now Chili and others can demonstrate how patient, respectful, embracing friendly discourse is going to honestly persuade you how wrong you are.
S. Artesian
The point isn't to "persuade."
More insidious communist trickery. Tell me where the gold is Artesian.
...because now Chili and others can demonstrate how patient, respectful, embracing friendly discourse is going to honestly persuade you how wrong you are.
S. Artesian
The point isn't to "persuade."
More insidious communist trickery. Tell me where the gold is Artesian.
It's hidden within LBJ's plan to disengage from Vietnam.
One of the successes of the ruling class in this election in my opinion, is how the poor and youth has been mobilised onto this poisonous terrain of being a "citizen democrat".
not really. most of the poor don't vote in the USA. actually most of the working class don't vote. they perceive that neither party is interested in them.
Well I see the libcom communist party has banned my account 1 last time in order to sensor the truth again. If this isn’t a consiperacy, I don’t know what is. But you guys enjoy ignoring the truth, don’t you. Shame on the libcom communist party!
Oh I see, are we still making up things like I’m not a REAL American again. I don’t understand why I have to keep argueing with this. You do realize half of America didn’t vote for Obama right? You guys still don’t get that most Americans are aware that he is a principled communist and can only introduce his programs are through Stalin like progressivism. Stalin can get away with them with one clean sweep, but Americans are wiser than the ruskies and know what real freedom means. The only way obama can do this is through socialized medicine that gives away free insurance, acts like a Christian (even though everyone knows he is a faker liberation theoligist), and does PR campains like shaking veterans hands without serving a single day in the DoD. Honestly, my taxes have gone up tons since 2008. I had to forclose on my home due to the Obama housing crisis. And yet there is no sign of any turn around. He doesn’t care about you or me. And yet Obama is the unanimous victor amongst libcom.org opinion. Mitt Romney was no perfect candidate but at least he loves his country enough to talk up Capitalism and understands economics better. We might not have a Castro Communist Country yet, but its becoming a growing force in the culture.
Why is it so hard to admit to this because you know its true?
I’m not going to bother with a website that sensors what real americans think and fell. This is my last post until next big socialist agenda creeps through the cracks and I will be there to expose the truth once again.
. The only way obama can do this is through socialized medicine that gives away free insurance
The democrats copied what Rpmney did with healthcare in his state and the new federal healthcare law, as is the case in Romneys state, forces everyone to buy private for profit healthcare while massively cutting medicare/medicaid and even funding for abortions. The people who wrote this legislation are capitalists, namely, insurance companies. Those damn communist insurance companies are in collusion with the communist banks and communist corporations to force global communism communist commie pornography onto the children.Ron Paul.
It's not the content Hieronymous, but the form the content takes. In this thread you've not been very diplomatic.
Come on, Stan Milgram is doing exactly what CRUD did on Occupy Oakland threads.
And this is personal. On post #10 of the "Occupy Oakland's Decomposition" thread, CRUD posted a contentless series of YouTube videos. One includes my neighbor, a Kiowa active in the International Treaty Council. I don't see eye-to-eye about everything with this comrade, but I know he will continue to have my back in local struggles. I will not tolerate CRUD's contempt towards "factions of minorities (women, gay, and people of color) who want a bigger piece of the capitalist pie (identity politics)."
I think this barely-veiled hatred should never be allowed on libcom. Stan Milgram should be banned -- again -- and his racist, sexist, homophobic screeds should never be tolerated.
Besides the whole labeling me a person I'm not, my name is Mike by the way, I chose Milgram for his studies on obedience to authority, besides all that I knew it was only a matter of time before I was called racist, sexist and homophobic for questioning the atmosphere at Occupy events in the Bay Area. There's no contempt for women, the gay community or people of color my criticisms center around, and you know it, the tendency to spotlight identity issues at the cost of, well, pretty much anything that has do do with socialism. This isn't to say we don't NEED to be fighting to end (right now, under capitalism) racism/sexism/homophobia my point is all too often people are doing so without the goal of socialism in mind.
Explain for the people in this thread the thinking behind changing the name from Occupy Oakland to Decolonize Oakland. Lets start with that. I mean, it went as far as the term "wage slavery" being called racist. Occupy Oakland turned into a circus of identity politics. You know it, I know it and the ruling class knows it and loves it.
Addition/edit: To the original poster and anyone who thumbs upped his/her post which consisted of throwing around insults, explicitly, saying I'm racist/homophobic/misogynist and full of hate for my questioning of the environment at Occupy Oakland - the person who wrote that and the people who agree with him should expand on that please. Explain yourselves if you can. Thanks. (this reminds me of 2007 when I was called racist for poking at 'socialists' who were suffering Obama fever, the same sort of people in the Bay Area pushing identity politics,clears throat, certain lifestylist anarchsts and ISO members).
The tendency for people on the socialist left to do this sort of thing is common and alienates HUGE portions of the population. Besides what was just done to me in this thread there's another example of it happening on this forum. A poster in the thread concerning some idiots on facebook here:
There's another 'anarchist' on the youtubes, mr1001nights, who engages in this sort of misogyny - of course, his is based on a pop reading of evolutionary psychology mixed with anti-civ garbage and Noam Chomsky. If this is a 'trend' then it needs to be combated as much as the BNP and other fascists.
Here is the channel in question: http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights
I've criticized his sophomoric criticisms of feminism for about two years, I deleted my youtube account a few months back, youtube=yuck, but my criticisms centered around his total lack of Marxist/socialist/materialist analysis, his use of evolutionary psychology and as with the poster Transcona Slim have chipped away at his silly primitivist views but to call him a fascist is so off base I don't even know where to begin. Yes he's criticizing feminism and his criticisms are lame but does this make him a fascist? Should we oppose all criticisms by labeling people fascist, racist, misogynistic and full of hate? Do you not see the absurdity in that? Thats the path to total and complete irrelevance in my opinion.
Shouting people down with such labels/slander only serves to....well, what does it accomplish? The same thing was pushed on the poster "Mr Jolly after post 10 in this thread although much more civil, in that case actual discussion took place.
Also, on the topic of "Decolonize Oakland" which was used to label me a racist, I'd be interested if any of the mods on libcom can resurrect the thread discussed here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libcom-anarchism-people-t147585/index.html?t=147585&highlight=Libcom+native+americans
From what I gather, according to the poster who was defending "Of Martial Traditions & The Art of Rebellion" the majority of posters on libcom are also racist because they see national liberation of indigenous peoples under capitalism to have fuck all to do with socialism/anarchism. Soo...Hieronymous, what are you doing to fight this evil axis of hate and racism on libcom?
When you're done being a coward you can also address why you're trying to give me the label of misogynist and homophobic. In lieu of just "downing" my posts come at me with some content please. It's chicken shit as chicken shit can get to just label someone "racist, misogynistic/homophobic and full of hate" then just crawl into some hole and hide. Pretty easy thing to do on the internet. Anyone who's upping his posts and downing mine on the subject is free to explain to me why I'm racist,homophobic, misogynistic and full of hate. as you can tell I'm somewhat pissed off. Thanks.
Also, on the topic of "Decolonize Oakland" which was used to label me a racist, I'd be interested if any of the mods on libcom can resurrect the thread discussed here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libcom-anarchism-people-t147585/index.html?t=147585&highlight=Libcom+native+americans
From what I gather, according to the poster who was defending "Of Martial Traditions & The Art of Rebellion" the majority of posters on libcom are also racist because they see national liberation of indigenous peoples under capitalism to have fuck all to do with socialism/anarchism. Soo...Hieronymous, what are you doing to fight this evil axis of hate and racism on libcom?
When you're done being a coward you can also address why you're trying to give me the label of misogynist and homophobic. In lieu of just "downing" my posts come at me with some content please. It's chicken shit as chicken shit can get to just label someone "racist, misogynistic/homophobic and full of hate" then just crawl into some hole and hide. Pretty easy thing to do on the internet. Anyone who's upping his posts and downing mine on the subject is free to explain to me why I'm racist,homophobic, misogynistic and full of hate. as you can tell I'm somewhat pissed off. Thanks.
CRUD, you're one to talk of content. Also, you act as if you were born yesterday, like we haven't been discussing some of these topics for years.
Also, on the topic of "Decolonize Oakland" which was used to label me a racist, I'd be interested if any of the mods on libcom can resurrect the thread discussed here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libcom-anarchism-people-t147585/index.html?t=147585&highlight=Libcom+native+americans
From what I gather, according to the poster who was defending "Of Martial Traditions & The Art of Rebellion" the majority of posters on libcom are also racist because they see national liberation of indigenous peoples under capitalism to have fuck all to do with socialism/anarchism. Soo...Hieronymous, what are you doing to fight this evil axis of hate and racism on libcom?
When you're done being a coward you can also address why you're trying to give me the label of misogynist and homophobic. In lieu of just "downing" my posts come at me with some content please. It's chicken shit as chicken shit can get to just label someone "racist, misogynistic/homophobic and full of hate" then just crawl into some hole and hide. Pretty easy thing to do on the internet. Anyone who's upping his posts and downing mine on the subject is free to explain to me why I'm racist,homophobic, misogynistic and full of hate. as you can tell I'm somewhat pissed off. Thanks.
CRUD, you're one to talk of content. Also, you act as if you were born yesterday, like we haven't been discussing some of these topics for years.
I looked up the poster 'crud's' comments surrounding Native American struggles and sorry to tell you that poster, from what I read, would be on board with "Decolonize Oakland". Plus anyone with the name 'crud' by definition is probably going to be full of shit.
crud (krd)
n.
1. Slang
a. A coating or an incrustation of filth or refuse.
b. Something loathsome, despicable, or worthless.
c. One who is contemptible or disgusting.
2. A disease or ailment, imaginary or real, especially one affecting the skin.
3. Sports Heavy, sticky snow that is unsuitable for skiing.
By definition the guy is an idiot or at the least "contemptible or disgusting". Now, lets move past your strange fixation on this crud poster (red herring much?) and get to my point. Why am I , Mike, racist sexist, homophobic, full of hate as you said? All you have to do is explain that and if you recived my PM I'd also like to know who you are and which organizations you work with here in the Bay Area. A little less anonymity might go a long way as it's quite easy to slander a person when you have no real world answering to do. Do you go around here in the Bay Area accusing everyone of racism/sexism/homophobia and hate or is this simply limited to people who don't agree with failed approaches to organizing/guiding a mass movement?
Take the wage slavery issue, you do remember that correct? Things got so absurd that the term wage slavery and the people who use it weer labeled racist. Getting ahead of myself here, why don't we start with explaining the thinking behind "Decolonize" Oakland?
The larger point here Hieronymous is what I was saying in the 'death of occupy" thread, that attitudes like yours are responsible for the fizzling away of participation in occupy events. You and people like you are "working class repellent". Your mindframe is that the working class is so racist, so misogynistic and full of hate that at all mass actions against capitalism identity issues need to take CENTER stage. Even workers with an advanced understanding of socialism are reactionary (according to Decolonize Oakland). This was the stance of "Decolonize Oakland". That the white activists have no clue and all see/experience the world through the eyes of imperialism and need to take a back seat to the women and people of color as they lead us to a new society. It's pretty divisive stuff. It pits men against women, gays against straights, trans against feminist, women of color feminists against white feminists, super poor against the marginally poor working class so on and so forth. Decolonize Oakland went as far as to criticize workers who have a place to live, as in a small rental. Decolonize Oakland went as far as to criticize home ownership. Criticized the racist white' mentality of socialist organizers/participants in Occupy Oakland. Turned every assembly into a joke. Made the labor day march a fucking mess and mixed with the gutter punk lifestylist anarchists who think they're a sort of Leninist vanguard are solely responsible for working class participation in Occupy Oakland events dwindling down to nothing. You/they will blame cops and the city, two actors who do share responsibility in the dwindling of working class support but as I said in the other thread a serious look inward is needed before we go forward with any more prolonged or even short term "mass actions". The working class saw what we had to offer and they said NO THANKS. You know this deep down but aren't willing to admit it. Either that or you're so infused with this specific sub culture in the Bay Area activist community that you can't see it.
The above article/rant is just one small example. My answer to that is YES, the initial goal of mobilizing workers/people in direct action against capitalism WAS for you. It was for women, it was for people of color, it was for the gay community and it was for the homeless, the students, the factory workers, the garbageman, the janitors and air plain pilots. Hell you can even throw the astronauts into the mix. What YOU wanted was a movement ALL ABOUT YOU. Specifically you. The YOU MOVEMENT. The movement that is all 100% of the time solely focused on your identity of a homeless can collector.
Look, she writes for "POOR" led by poor indigenous people. They are the "most oppressed" and deserve a movement 100% about the issues that the poor people of color face. This all branches out with each identity issue a person latches onto and each faction ends up fighting with the other factions for control of the larger overall movement which SHOULD be about ending capitalism. It's all a fucking mess and I'm racist sexist, homophobic and full of hate for pointing this out?
Will someone already ban glennbeck for revealing libcom's true motives?
I concur. We can't just have glennbeck telling the whole world what we're up to on the internet. That might wreck our whole 5,000 year plan for world domination. Instead of discussing this on the thread, lets just talk to one another at the next elders of zion meeting. I made a casserole, we just need a volunteer to bring drinks.
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.
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.
But that's exactly what Obama did! (unless by cut funding you mean end funding- in which case, if he would try it, the usual 'political process' and a divided legislature/other-institutions would have prevented it).
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...
But that's exactly what Obama did! (unless by cut funding you mean end funding- in which case, if he would try it, the usual 'political process' and a divided legislature/other-institutions would have prevented it).
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?
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.
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.
You see there are some small tangible benefits that come up about if a given Party gets in as opposed to another one.
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.
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.
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.
Jesus fuck, can the admins lock this trainwreck of a thread?
S. Artesian, you strike me as a very sad and angry person.
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.
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?
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.
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.
.
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 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.
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.[...]
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?
I agree about domestic tensions between the parties but a further, brief point on imperialism:
Just one hour after Obama claimed his election victory, British Prime Minister Cameron announced a new, aggressive policy initiative aimed against the present Syrian state. In the following days, this policy, that goes towards the direct arming of Syrian factions, has been bolstered by statements made by British generals to the effect that British military "assets" are ready to be deployed "in a humanitarian context", ie, against the Assad regime. Similar statements have been made by French political leaders over the same time period.
This escalation of threats follows the dumping of the discredited SNC (Syrian National Council) by the US and its setting up of a more "friendly", Syrian-based opposition coalition.
This is looking very similar to Libya where Britain and France were "led from behind" by the US war machine.
Is this Spam?
Is this Spam?
No Its not. I mean, i know
No Its not. I mean, i know some of you are anarchists But this is such an important election that will affect the whole world if the wrong person gets elected. I mean have you seen what Romney wants to do with womens right for example? You must think about all the people he Will hurt not only in the US But the whole world and vote for them i think. Out of solidarity and not principles. Otherwise the whole planet might be at risk IMO.
Shebangs wrote: But this is
Shebangs
true, if obama is elected innocents all over the world will continue to have their brains blown out by drones.
Well, I'm not an American so
Well, I'm not an American so I can't vote for anyone in the US, however I'd much prefer it if the US election was settled in a similar fashion to the Australian system of Thunderdome.
[youtube]pmRAiUPdRjk[/youtube]
(No subject)
[youtube]moxD0A1R7qM[/youtube]
Quote: have you seen what
Have you seen what Obama's done/doing to womens rights? Fuck them both. Fuck voting.
Putting aside knee-jerk one
Putting aside knee-jerk one liners and snarky video posts, Shebangs you might be interested in a recent forum post where a related question was recently covered and I think has a decent around discussion electoralism/parliamentarism and how it relates to the issues you name:
http://www.libcom.org/forums/general/referendums-06102012
Voters, desperate and
Voters, desperate and otherwise, are always quick to declare a current election to be "the most important one," while those of us who understand and see through all the silly reasons electoralists come up with already know that the current election is as uninteresting as the last one. Most policy decisions are too important to let "the people" have any say...
In some ways I would say this
In some ways I would say this election is more interesting in terms of what's happening to the ruling class (ie signs that it is more and more losing its grip), but otherwise I agree entirely with Black Badger. The ruling class does not offer us any fundamental choice, nor any power to shape what happens to the planet. Whichever faction wins, the planet (or rather, our survival on it) will remain in danger.
Belated solidarity to those whose streets are flooded or are without electricity etc. Am i right in hearing commentators say that the Hurricane was 'good' for Obama not only because he came across as more responsible and committed than Romney, and was endorsed by local Republican bigwigs, but also because the issue of climate change has been belatedly brought into the election debate by the shock of the 'superstorm', and the Republican position on this ranges from denial on the basis of pseudo-scientific 'climate scepticism' to denial on the basis of the outright crazy (hurricanes caused by homosexuality, etc)
Hi again, Shebangs. I've
Hi again, Shebangs. I've realised I may have created a bit of negative tone with my first post. However, your OP did read a bit like a SPAM post and as you're an unfamiliar poster with a non-anarcho name (I really like your name, I should add) I legitimately thought it might be SPAM.
In any case, I would suggest reading the link R. Spourgìtis posted above. The voting debates comes up on libcom every couple of months and that thread is one of the more productive and coherent.
FWIW, I don't really care if people want to vote. Personally, I'm concerned with fundamentally transforming society and I think voting legitimises the state, saps energy from productive work, and creates and illusion that anything other than grassroots movements (and the exercise of power) can improve the lives of the working class, women, minorities,oppressed groups, etc.
That said, I don't really care if folks want to vote. But I don't really think it's worth the time of individual anarchists (note I didn't say individualist anarchist) and definitely don't think it's worth the organisational time of anarchist groups to convince people of that.
I don't really give a shit if someone votes. What I want is to band together with my workmates, fellow tenants, and community members to fight for our class interests. If they vote, fine, but I'm far more concerned with getting them organised and participating in direct action.
Many US states has the
Many US states has the facility for write-in candidates rather than go for those listed. I believe Jesus Christ has over a million and a half votes pledged for him. If he wins it may result in the second coming as he takes his office in the White House!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
http://www.ehow.com/how_5962394_write-candidate-presidential-elections.html
Am I correct in thinking
Am I correct in thinking Nebraska has a "none of the above" option?
Yeah But if Romney is elected
Yeah But if Romney is elected he might start a war with Iran. And what about his aggressive tone towards china? Obama is not perfect But if Romney gets elected who knows what will happen.
But what have Obama done towards women? I think he has done alot on social issues like gay rights for example. Im a socialist too But im really freaking out about this election and the possibility that Romney could win!!?!? I dunno what to do about that But im glad that some of you are voting. I still think this migh be one of our most important election in our lifetime. If Romney wins i really dont know what will happen with the country....
lol as if obama wouldn't
lol as if obama wouldn't start a war if it made strategic sense with americas goals
you seem to really over estimate how much control the president has
Shebangs, if you think that
Shebangs, if you think that the figurehead of the Commander in Chief is actually the person who decides when/where the next military adventure will take place, then you have a truly shallow critique of American politics. The transnational corporate interests already took the ability to deploy the US military out of the hands of Congress (where it had officially resided for almost 200 years) in 1965. They only need the President to make the speeches and give the orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff; he is the corporate mouthpiece, lapdog, puppet... whatever you want to call it. Nobody gets to vote for the really important policies.
Black Agenda Report, for
Black Agenda Report, for example, who are not anarchists, have put forward numerous cogent essays in recent days for the thesis that the policies of the Democrats and Republicans are basically the same. This is especially true in regard to foreign policy and management of the empire.
The high concentration of power in the hands of the president under the US Constitution is helpful to keeping the state's foreign activity geared to the defense of the capitalist system because of the great power & independence of action of the executive branch. It would not be quite accurate to say that it is only interested in the interests of the US-based section of capital, tho. The markets & investment relations have become so intertwined that there really is no potential for a revival of the old capitalist inter-imperialist rivalries of the pre-World War 2 era. The American federal state is critical to the whole international capitalist class because for historical reasons socialist tendencies in the working class were weaker here than elsewhere, and its vast internal market and financial systems are a major support for capital elsewhere.
The military butt-kicking role is actually a burden for the economy of USA. But it's a burden undertaken, along with the role of US Treasury Dept, which controls World Bank and IMF, to sustain world capitalism as a whole, while sometimes acting to benefit particular US-based firms. Within this scheme the American state & ruling class also have to maintain various relations with their junior partners in Europe and elsewhere. The Democratic and Republican parties in the USA are equally committed to the defense of this world wide arrangement.
Quote: But what have Obama
Shebangs, I'm not really sure you're engaging with a lot of points folks are making.
Women achieved everything from the right to vote (as flawed as anarchists may view that as a goal) to abortion rights not by voting but because a movement which demanded it. The same for gay rights. It wasn't like one day some enlightened liberal politicians decided to give us these sorts of things (in the case of gay rights, Obama has been soft at best in any case).
We gain further rights and defend existing rights, not by voting but by being active as a class, building movements, and being out in the streets. Not by voting for politicians.
Also, Black Badger, no need
Also, Black Badger, no need to be a jerk.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Also,
Chilli Sauce
Wasted advice, since Black Badger is not being a jerk. He is speaking plainly, directly, bluntly, and....accurately.
Shebangs is reproducing nothing but the CPUSA line, the line they've been practicing for.... almost forever. "We must unite with the 'liberals' to defeat the larger threat of the fascists"-- blah blah blah, this is as close as the CPUSA can get to a popular front, since they are so weak, partly the product of their numerous capitulations to the bourgeoisie.
Romney might start a war? Really? As opposed to whom? Obama and continuing the war in Afghanistan? Expanding the war in Afghanistan? Maintaining occupation forces in Iraq? Arming Israel? Arming Egypt? Arming Saudi Arabia? Arming Turkey? Assassinating scientists in Iran. Using drones and missiles in Yemen?
Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.
That's all there is to this. And please don't trot out the junk about "Supreme Court" justices. If you pay attention to current events, you'll see that the states have effectively eliminated abortions in most of the US. For example only 1 doctor remains in Nebraska who provides such medical care to women. Another single doctor in Kansas. Hospitals do not teach the procedure in most locales anymore, so frightened are they of protests, and having funds cut off.
Shebangs wrote: Yeah But if
Shebangs
Just in case you're genuine and not just a CPUSA troll, here's Obama on Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/obama-cites-window-for-diplomacy-on-iran-bomb.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Obama
Here's Romney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiU8mfAoet8
Romney
Even Romney realizes that their positions are so alike that he has to make small rhetorical changes. So, what's the difference between these two, again (aside from difference in the amount of melanin)?
Jesus Christ. Without trying
Jesus Christ. Without trying to sound patronizing to Shebangs, I'm pretty sure s/he is fairly new to politics. I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists? Or, is it in fact more likely, they're a younger person navigating that line between lliberalism and more radical politics?
More flies with honey and all that.
Seriously now, stop being dicks.
We had a political party in
We had a political party in NZ that wanted the weekend to go from Sunday to Saturday instead of Saturday to Sunday. They also wanted to determine foreign policy by pillow fights. They got a lot of votes, but sadly at the time we had a First Past the Post system. They also had an armed wing.
Simon
in denmark, one guy was
in denmark, one guy was elected in 1994 on a similar platform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Haugaard
S. Artesian wrote: Wasted
S. Artesian
Except the lapdog, mouthpiece etc stuff, that's maybe blunt but not accurate in the sense that politicians aren't purely robotic 'political agents of capital'. They usually do what's 'in the framework' out of structural necessity but not because they are capital's NWO puppets. That's quite a difference.
S. Artesian
Aw, come on... not this conspiracy stuff again (we've been over this before if I recall right but I think even then you dodged the issue a bit). I think the burden lies on you to prove there is massive election fraud going on. And I don't mean that one dodgy Bush Jr. thing but a permanent conspiracy of the bourgeoisie, hidden coup d'etats dressed up as 'the voters' will'.
If you don't mean it that way, I guess you should be a bit clearer on that.
Good post from R.
Good post from R.
Chili Sauce wrote: I mean, do
Chili Sauce
You're on point here. There is no reason to believe or insinuate that Shebangs is an agent of the CPUSA. As for the bit in bold, the post is about the U.S. election and it was made in the U.S. area of the forum. Do you honestly believe that Shebangs was asking British anarchists who they were voting for in the U.S. election?
Actually, it's in the News
Actually, it's in the News section. And even if it wasn't, libcom's users are still predominantly British.
Now I suppose SheBangs probably doesn't know that, but if this was some sort of CP stalwart trying to start a row with US anarchos, they probably wouldn't come to libcom to do it.
On US foreign policy, ie, the
On US foreign policy, ie, the needs of US imperialism, there's been complete and seamless continuity between Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. And there will be continuing continuity in the defence of US interests if Romney is elected.
To see Obama as the "lesser evil" is extremely dangerous, as is the idea that workers going into polling booths as isolated citizens is a harmless pursuit.
The war in Iraq is not finished with; witness the continued devastations, the tens of thousands of US mercenaries, "trainers" and special forces still there and active and the massive American fortresses built and being built in this country.
As troops are wound down in Afghanistan, the US is presently "negotiating" with its "allies" about the continued presence of the US military.
It could be said that US/UN sanctions against Iran are an act of war - but that's a technicality. The Persian Gulf is packed is packed with US warships carrying heavy ordnance and Iran is surrounded by US forces on all sides. The US has facilitated the provision of arms and a political set up in Turkey against Iran's main ally Syria and it looks like they will soon begin to provide arms to some opposition forces directly.
The drone attacks continue (only a 2% success rate according to a recent report), the US military is also moving into the Sahel and we have state's massive attack on civil liberties in the USA under the Obama administration.
And the main enemy for the US is China.
None of any of this will change whoever wins the election/
Alf wrote: Am i right in
Alf
yes
Chilli Sauce wrote: Actually,
Chilli Sauce
Oh, my mistake I misread the title of the post (when I was writing my reply) as the section the post was in.
Yeah, as I said, the post is about voting in the U.S. election. Could be that Shebangs was maybe, probably, possibly, perhaps asking those few U.S. anarchists on here who they were voting for.
Why not? I found out about libcom through comments in anarchistnews and indybay (which I assume are visited by predominantly U.S. American users), so why wouldn't someone looking rile up anarchists eventually end up at libcom? This site isn't hidden in the interwebz, y'know. ;) (In fact it pops up as the second site if I google "anarchist communism").
Let me make it clear that I do think it sounds like Shebangs is genuine in his/her posts (which is why I bothered to provide evidence when addressing the candidates positions on Iran, rather than dismissing his/her post out of hand). We should just keep in mind that the post was made a couple of days from the election, with full knowledge that "...some of you are anarchists" (which implies knowledge that anarchist don't tend to vote) and espousing the importance of this election. I mean, if I was trying to concern-troll some anarchists, that's what I would do.
Poe's law, I guess...
I mean, whatever, I just
I mean, whatever, I just think we should honestly engage with folks who are new to politics (as I'm somewhat arrogantly assuming Shebangs is) and not talk down to them, belittle them, or have a go at them because they're espoucing a similar position to the CPUSA (weird...).
Some people on this thread did that. Some definitely didn't.
As I've exchanged in some PMs about this thread, it's one thing to have a go at Chomsky on his tactical voting shit. It's a whole nother to tell a new poster they have a "truly shallow critique".
Also, Black Badger, what's up with your 1965 comment? Seems oddly conspiratorial, not to mention disregarding the facts that US power was consistenly used to defend capitalist interests in both world wars, Latin America, and Indo-China long before that date.
1965 was the Gulf of Tonkin
1965 was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (based on a real military/intelligence conspiracy: a fabricated event and a subsequent cover-up), whereby the US Congress effectively gave up its power to declare and make war. They gave that power to the Chief Executive, who has used it ever since. Prior to that, Congress retained the (nominal) power as part of the much-touted mythology of Checks and Balances in the US government. Since then, at least as it relates to foreign policy, Congress has stood aside.
Shebangs wrote: But this is
Shebangs
Presidents don't make war. Bush didnt make war with Iraq it had been on the ruling classes agenda to get rid of Saddam for some time and 9/11 was simply the open door to do so once and for all (Democrats were on board with it or it wouldn't have happened). The US military entering the Middle East in general has nothing to do with a single politicians world view or 9/11 it has everything to do with market expansion and resource allocation. Much of the Middle East is capitalist, hell, the whole globe is integrated into the capitalist system BUT there's much money to be made for western corporations/capitalists in the Middle East in post war 'restructuring' of the societies, cultures and economies - that and having CONTROL (not necessarily possession) over the resources in the region is the goal. Obama, Bush, Romney whoever is in office this military/economic agenda will continue as will pandering to Israel in regards to Iran. You should watch Obama's AIPAC speech, he makes Bush seem tame by comparison.
Womens rights....identity politics. Here we go. Gay rights, womens rights et al isn't a voting issue or a matter of Republican vs Democrat these are cultural issues to be fought in the streets, workplaces and communities. When organizing workers/people to FIGHT for certain rights it's a mistake to invest all efforts into support for the Democrat party. This has been the ruling class' best weapon against us. It's been our achilles heel since the early 20'th century. There's a reason people say "the Democrat party is the graveyard of all social movements".
If Romney gets elected abortion will not be made illegal even if his silly Mormon views are against abortion. Every election is framed as "the most important election in our lifetime". What the Obama administration should have shown even the most dense is it makes no difference who is in office. What the ruling class wants the ruling class gets - the only issues the people can control are social issues and those battles aren't necessarily political they're cultural. As far as the economy goes, as far as war goes, we have absolutely no control over it. America is a plutocracy in that regard. Even liberal, informed liberals, are aware of this. Watch this:
http://vimeo.com/20355767
The plutocracy don't always
The plutocracy don't always get everything they want. Having to rule through a system of mass voting and political operatives is a cost to them. Consider the money they spend on elections. A semblance of "democracy" is important for papering over the system with a veneer of legitimacy.
But in the USA the spectrum of issues & views in electoral politics (and in the corporate media) is extremely narrow. Variations on pro-capitalist viewpoints.
Black Badger is wrong about Congress controlling war prior to 1965. In 1966 when Johnson attacked North Vietnam he sent to Congress a list of 125 occasions when the president had sent troops into action abroad without consulting Congress...beginning with an undeclared war with France in 1798. When Woodrow Wilson sent troops into Russia, he didn't consult Congress.
Congress actually is the weaker "branch" of the American federal state compared with the president. Having a powerful, highly independent executive has been very useful to the ability of the American state to act in an imperialist manner. For example, "free trade" deals can be concluded with countries without requiring Congressional approval. They're called "agreements", not "treaties". And the president can end any treaty or agreement with a foreign country on his own, without consulting Congress.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Jesus
Chilli Sauce
You're making an unwarranted assumption; actually a whole host of unwarranted assumptions.
Nobody is trotting out any "line." A position is being advocated, the well-known tried and failed "lesser evil" position; the "we must unite with the 'enlightened' bourgeoisie against the fascist danger" position.
The position is being taken seriously, and seriously refuted. Nothing said to Shebangs even counts as harsh language.
Quit pretending others are being dicks so you can appear noble.
Error
Error
Question for Shebangs: What
Question for Shebangs:
What makes this election "more important" than 2008? You think McCain is a more benign person than Romney?
What about 2004? Bush less a threat to the rest of the world than Romney.
Let Shebangs answer those questions and it will tell us a lot about whether this advocacy for class collaboration is coming from a "novice" or from a professional.
Not to be too pedantic, but
Not to be too pedantic, but "sending troops abroad" is not the same as a war. Most of the pre-WWI events where the US military was send places there was simply no declaration of war, no recognition of belligerent status of a state whose territory was invaded, and perhaps more importantly, no move to depose a government or exact economic reparations after the brief conflict. These actions were usually punitive (Pershing's crossing into Mexico in 1914 comes to mind) or involved the ostensible rescuing of allegedly imperiled American citizens. Either that, or US troops were invited to help bolster the current government. Again, none of these military adventures can properly be called a war.
The Korean War was a "Police Action" that took place under the dubious legal authority of the UN (which bypassed Congress); the Bay of Pigs was an invasion of Cuban exiles with US military training, not US troops (it had some congressional approval, but most were in the dark); Eisenhower sent Marines to Lebanon in 1958 because the US and Britain and France were requested by the Lebanese president to protect Lebanon from insurrection and possible invasion by Nasserites.
picking about the legal
picking about the legal definition of a war according the the us government really helps no one but liberals who think the problem with the invasion of iraq was the lack of UN mandate.
This thead is pretty
This thead is pretty depressing. It really shows how incapable many people in the tiny anarchist/ultra-left scene are of communicating with people outside it.
Irrespective of whether Shebangs is new to politics or not, the vast majority of the population in both the U.S. and U.K. does not reject voting or liberal democracy on principle. The concerns Shebangs puts across are incredibly common, and the poster is not a moron for having them, though I may disagree with them. It's pretty sad that the response has been to accuse them of being a member of some other tiny political sect, or to make statements about "the bourgeoisie voting in Democrats" as though there's still a property requirement to vote. Even to me, that's unconvincing.
I've spoken to a number of Americans who are concerned about the implications of another conservative supreme court judge being appointed. I don't think they're simpletons for thinking that. It's of course true that the only true defence against attacks on reproductive rights is a strong movement that demands them, but it's also true that "the bourgeoisie" is not politically monolithic and that its political parties are not identical. Some are more inclined to attack reproductive rights than others.
There's a really telling
There's a really telling Senate race here where the Republican candidate actually said that if a woman was raped and became pregnant as a result it was god's will. This wasn't in a secretly captured private conversation but in the televised Senatorial debate.
My lefty-liberal friends use this as an example about how voting against this guy is paramount to defending a woman's right to choose. and while I'd love nothing more than to see this guy embarrassed, what my friends seem to forget is his Democratic opponent is actually pro-life himself.
One interesting thing that seems to be happening nationally is that a lot of the lefty-ish news mag comments sections are FULL of people saying they won't vote for Obama because of the drone strikes/health care sell-out/etc. So maybe there is something of a shift going on . . .
Entdinglichung wrote: in
Entdinglichung
I haven't voted since the
I haven't voted since the 2004 presidential elections and I haven't decided whether I'm going to vote or not yet. Any motivation comes from wanting to vote no on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which isn't legal anyway in Minnesota), but I'm not sure that's enough motivation for me. I can't bring myself to vote for 'the lesser of two evils', so would probably write in some historical figure/slogan/full communism/some small socialist sect as a protest vote. I'm pretty sure spoiling the ballot is impossible if its electronic.
Good post from
Good post from Django.
Yeah, no shit. I'm not the one who said "Shebangs is reproducing nothing but the CPUSA line..." In fact that was, huh, you.
Telling a newbie that they have "have a truly shallow critique of American politics" is pretty harsh.
But you know what, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Shebangs is a 35 year old self-identified socialist who believes in voting for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. So the fuck what? I have an idea: let's berate and talk down to the liberals who make up probably a majority of the US population. Because I know that in my liberal days, that's what would have convinced me. Not someone engaging patiently with me, but having a go at me. Good approach guys. :roll:
Django wrote: This thead is
Django
I don't think voting is so much an issue more so when it gets to the point of spending time, money and investing emotionally in the Democrat party. If a socialist wants to vote do so, walk into the booth and vote then leave it at that. Any organizing at the work place or in the community with the goal of garnering votes for Democrats is a whole other story though. Sure there are a few differences on social issues but do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran? Christ, if I thought that were true I'd be in the streets waving Obama signs and volunteering for his campaign. I'm of the opinion social issues are more cultural and less political. Religion in America doesn't have the same strangle hold on society as it did 20, 30, 75 years ago. Most large capitalists are big on population control anyhow, they don't want millions of poor people "leeching" (their mind frame) off of their profits. Abortion is here to stay which leaves us with issues such as education, healthcare and social programs. Obama has cut more social programs than Bush or Reagan, has pushed a mandate for workers to buy private insurance in a time of economic crisis - it's basically the extreme opposite of any sort of "socialistic" healthcare. Education has been slashed in a grotesque manner under the Obama administration and the military expansion speaks for itself.
I don't think it's condescending or patronizing to point out the absurdity that is American "democracy", in fact, the momentum the "left" had after the outrage of 8 years of Bush was all but completely halted by Obama's election in 2008. Being loyal to Democrats forces workers to accept all of the right wing policies of Democrats which in many cases, as Obama has shown, are more devastating than any Republican administration. Again, do you seriously think a Romney administration would end up in abortion being made illegal and war with Iran?
The Obama administration has overseen some of the worst attacks on the working class in our lifetime and we're suppose to be telling people to stand in line and vote for him....it all sounds so masochistic.
I agree completely that it's
I agree completely that it's only really a problem when people invest lots of individual or organisational time and energy in supporting the Democratic party (or Labour here).
Stan Milgram
Are you asking me this? I didn't claim that either of these things were likely.
Talking about an abortion ban is really a red herring. No American I have spoken to thinks legislation banning abortion at a federal level is a remote possibility. Romney himself is on record saying that he'd like to see such legislation, but that it is not possible due to American public opinion opposing it.
The real issue is that if he has an opportunity to appoint a supreme court juedge, Romney is pretty likely to appoint a conservative. Obama is not likely to appoint a conservative. This would open the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade and therefore the ability for states to directly prohibit abortion.
Like I said, it's not irrational for people to be concerned about this. It's also clear that it's totally possible to have bourgeois politics that support or oppose the right to choose, or support or oppose gay marriage, and that there are differences within "the bourgeoisie" on these issues which are genuine.
Iran is different issue and a direct attack is unlikely due to the huge impact war would have on the world and US economy, irrespective of who is president.
Stan Milgram
To be clear I'm telling no-one to vote for anyone. I'm saying that there are problems with the way the issue is approached by anarchists and the ultra-left, from the "all political parties are exactly the same" line I've seen from anarchists to "the bourgeoisie vote in x" line of Marxists. Both are ludicrously simplistic and look completely barmy to anyone outside of the ultra-left scene.
Yes Django, speaking sense! I
Yes Django, speaking sense! I could've used your help on the referendums thread!
Django wrote: I agree
Django
It's the very small differences on social issues that are touted every four years as an excuse for people to invest so much time, energy and emotion into it all. It's only natural for socialists to show hostility towards the process that has served to castrate our efforts. We're in direct competition with politicians for the "hearts and minds" of the people. We're losing. Embracing and or legitimizing our enemies system has time and again been at the root of our inability to form a mass movement. Democrats coop any substantial movement and integrate it into the capitalist system where our efforts can do no harm. Old story like a skipping CD or a marry go round. We should be trying to get people off that ride.
I kinda messed up the quotes in this post. Sorry about that.
Railyon wrote: S. Artesian
Railyon
I think Artesian's point might seem less conspiratorial if we think about it terms of campaign finance. Because its pretty exceptional for a candidate to raise less money but still win an election in the US. And almost all sectors of the economy donate to both parties in the same campaign, they just give more to one party or the other. So I think getting more money might be seen as a kind of endorsement of capital or at least of particular economic sectors. I think that the defense industry gave more money to Barak than to McCain in 2008 (though I'm not sure). So, I think if when we talk about the bourgeoisie voting in a new party we're talking about vote with their dollars there's a case to be made. But if we mean election fraud and coup d'etats then I agree this seems conspiratorial.
As regards the other important point being made on this thread: When I saw the OP my first thought was that I should ridicule. In fact, I had some zingers typed up before deciding to hit the back button. I think that libcom is one of the few places that people like us can find other people like us and then ridicule people who are not like us, which is fun. And I still think its okay when it comes to an appleton or an END THE FED. I agree with what Chilli and Django are saying, but sometimes its also difficult to distinguish between an honest inquiry and trolling. Especially when its election day, we're all fucking sick of the campaign, we're all fucking sick of alarmist admonitions to vote Barak, and the OP (probably unintentionally) repeats the CPUSA line that we all hate so much. In that context, I (and guessing others) wasn't thinking of giving a reasoned defense of anti-parliamentarism which would be accessible to and respectful of the newcomer. I was thinking hate.
I guess I'm saying, Shebangs I hope we haven't scared you away, but please try to understand that this is an anarchist site, where we are used to talking with those who more-or-less agree with us. It might be helpful if you shared your politics more fully with us. If we knew where you were coming from, we might be able to have a more substantive exchange with you.
I admit that im pretty new to
I admit that im pretty new to politics and prolly dont know about it as you do. Im a socialist in the broad sense. Thats about as much as i know. All i know is that im pissedoff at the state of the country and the world and My own situation. But im also pretty f-ing scared so... I dunno. I guess what it really comes down to is that i really really needs someone to talk me down and tell me that everything is going to be okey tomorrow. Sorry if that sounds stupid. But im really worried about My future and the future of everyone i know and even the country. I dunno what to do about that. I even kinda wish i could be as cynical as you guys. But i cant. I care too much.
Okey, i know this isnt a therapy group.....
As for the questions about why mitt Romney would be so terrible let me qoute Michael Moore:
I didn't want to get involved
I didn't want to get involved in this, I'm so sick of the election, most places manage to get their elections done and dusted in a few weeks, in the US it seems almost perpetual, only that sounded a little plaintive, so yes everything is going to be OK tomorrow, or Thursday or whenever they work out which way the chads are hanging. It's always the most important election ever, whichever year, whichever country. No politician is going to run a campaign on a meh, vote if you feel like it, it doesn't much matter this time. Apparently the fiery pits of hell will always open up if the other guy gets in. And whoever wins, nothing very much will change, it never does. If POTUS had nearly as much actual power as the job description and the PR suggest, then they would actually be able to do all those things they promise their hopeful electorate in their campaigns.
If you vote or not in the election it's entirely your call, but it really won't be the most important decision you ever take, and I wouldn't let it freak you out.
That is beautiful.
That is beautiful.
Shebangs wrote: I admit that
Shebangs
I was there once. Its really not a bad place to be.
Shebangs
You can say "fucking" if you like. I often do. Try it on, see if it fits you.
Shebangs
We might be looking at continuing economic crisis, global political instability, catastrophic environmental failure. Whoever wins the US Presidential election won't have too much of an impact on any of these. On the other hand, what we do in our workplaces and communities matters a lot.
Shebangs
I don't think its stupid to be scared of whats up ahead, especially if you're buying into US presidential politics, which is a non-stop fear generating machine. The subject of fear and control has been explored by a bunch of sociologists as well as a guy named George Orwell if you're ever interested. Taken as a whole, the problems of the entire world seem pretty terrifying to me too. But I find I feel a lot better when I focus on what I can do organizing-wise in my workplace and neighborhood.
I looked up cynicism on wikipedia to make sure I wasn't as cynical irl as I am on libcom message boards. Turns out that, unfortunately, I AM pretty cynical:
Cept I think I'm moreso this way when it comes to politicians and bosses and the like, but when it comes to fellow proles I like to consider myself trusting and optimistic. Don't know if I'm always that way, but that's how I am in my mind. I really got tagged with that last part about "ridicule and admonishment" though. A lot of us do care, a bunch, and that's why we organize. A lot of us spend a bunch of our time and energy doing free labor for shit we believe in (contrast this with the democratic party, which relies on armies of paid staff). There is an "organize" section on the boards.
And here's this thing: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012. I don't agree with all of the shit in their little article, but the graph I think is spot on, and puts things in perspective.
Great post from Laborbund.
Great post from Laborbund. Shebangs, also glad you told us a bit more about your politics, I think it'll help orient the thread in a more productive direction. (That said, you're not gonna find much love for Michael Moore on this site, either...).
He certainly rec'd more money from finance capital.
Laborbund gets the point.
Laborbund gets the point. I'm talking money: they pay, they call the tune. There's no need for fraud, or let's just say, fraud is a constant, not a variable in these matters, so the issue isn't conspiracy, its class interests. It's no conspiracy to correlate what has happened in every election since 1960.
Does anybody think it's an accident that certain parties get elected at certain specific conjunctures?
Does anybody think that popular fronts simply occur as an expression of "mass will" and military dictatorships are nothing but the subversion of mass will? Railyon and others can be my guest and then explain why parties get the power they get, and when they get it.
First question for Railyon; what got Reagan elected twice, Bush once and what was the condition of the economy after that 12 year span.
What got Clinton elected and reelected, and what was the condition of the economy through those 8 years.
The point is money talks and bullshit is a marathon jogger.
As for the election I still would like to know what makes this election more important than the 2008, 2004, 2000 elections?
And just one other point for Chili and those who are so upset that some here actually called the "lesser evil" bullshit exactly that... I find it hilarious that the mere suggestion that the Russian Revolution was and is a great moment in history, the mere hint that maybe Lenin wasn't the devil incarnate, draped in German gold brings full bore attacks, complaints, insults etc etc with people referring those who take great pains to show both convergence and divergence of the social movement of the revolution with the Bolsheviks, as "Lenin lovers," as pimps, racketeers blahblahblah-- while this phony issue of "real differences" between Tweedledum War Criminal and Tweedledee War Criminal are given such a tender, benevolent hearing.
No, I don't buy Shebangs being a political neophyte based on his/her own language describing this as "the most important election ever." That's a political slogan use by professionals.
And before I forget.......Michael Moore? Michael Fucking Moore? Michael Moore is the guy who supported General Wesley Clark for president? That Michael Moore who supported that US general? Or is it some other Michael Moore?
Shebangs wrote: I admit that
Shebangs
no it won't be ok, the world is completely fucked up and it will be the same tomorrow, you should be pissed off, and being scared is completely rational, but sadly voting for the "right" candidate cant fix that, its much harder than that and we have to actual go and change things our selves rather than hopping someone will save us
Shebangs
As if the capitalists don't control "American democracy" Michael Moore knows better than this and so should you, every candidate with the slightest chance of winning is bought and paid for by capitalists, not just bankers, they are just a small part of it. and any candidate that wins must support the interests of those capitalists. the onely real freedom that the president has is how they present this.
S.A. You're a jerk.
S.A. You're a jerk. Shebangs, please ignore him and don't take him as representative of anarchism.
As for the Leninists, there's a big difference between someone who thinks voting is useful and a Leninist who will actively interfere with working class self-organisation. I think a similar dynamic applies to say, primmos, who actively misrepresent anarchism. Those people deserve the sort of scorn you're throwing at Shebangs. As for newbie liberals who are still finding their political feet, Jesus man, take a fucking chill pill.
S. Artesian wrote: the mere
S. Artesian
What is going on here?!?!? :lol: It's a right shame that nobody on this thread was part of your little ultra-left bun fight. Never mind though. That axe is gonna keep on grindin'! :mrt:
S. Artesian
Yeah don't believe (or buy [sic!]) what Shebangs says about her/him - self. Probably backed by american gold or something. Amirite?
I agree with people's skepticism toward Moore, but as Chilli has been trying to suggest, maybe we need to be a bit more generous with why we say certain things?
N.B. Another problem with engaging our ideas past our sect. The incessant need to bring up the Russian Rev. and it's intricacies into every conversation. No matter how tenuous.
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
You gotta love this guys dedication to Democrats. He sure is loyal, I'll give him that much. Obama isn't putting the brakes on anything, Micheal Moore was one of the biggest blow horns for Obama in 2007 leading up the the election and now he's at it again even in the face of what the Obama administration has done for the rich and against the poor. This is all a joke.
Michael Moore
The Obama administration oversaw/cosigned the biggest hand out to big business in American history while at the same time oversaw some of the biggest attacks on the working class that made Reagan look tame. No restraints? The democrats, other than the trillions of dollars given with no strings attached, are using the coercive power of the state to force workers to buy private healthcare plans at a time when people have no money for housing and food. During the worst crisis in our lifetime. The damage is already done. Romney can't get away with half of the nonsense the Democrats have done in the last four years. Education is already cut, social programs are already cut, Medicare/Medicaid is already cut. Trillions of dollars are already up in smoke. The military is already killing people in 5 different countries. The Bush tax cuts have already been extended for the 4 years Obama has been in office. Wages and the standard of living for the working class is already at a lifetime low while large capitalists continue to rake in profits. Big business and finance is happy, content and comfortable with what Democrats have been doing and with what they plan to do (more of the same). Micheal Moore is delusional.
Michael Moore
Capitalists/the rich have always controlled the three branches of government. This is nothing new. He's resorting to scare tactics. It's pathetic. Again, Democrats and Obama have attacked workers more than Reagan and the Republicans under the Reagan administration. Obama and Democrats have handed "corporations" (capitalists) more money than any Republican administration. Capitalist control of the state is the system the founding fathers set up. Moore needs a history lesson.
Michael Moore
They succeeded in 1776. The system in the USA was always meant to represent the most wealthy. The founding fathers explicitly say this. In 1776 it was white rich land owners/mercantile traders/slave owners and now it's corporations. America's system was never meant to put power in the average persons hands. The system is working the way it is suppose to work. Any gains the working class have made were fought in the streets and in the communities with blood sweat and tears, in many cases even death. When we stop fighting in favor of putting all out HOPE into the Democrat party is when the system wins.
Michael Moore
Is Micheal Moore a nationalist or a socialist? American jobs? Anyway, talk about slashing pensions, cutting wages and attacking the standard of living for the working class and students. What do we think democrats have been doing since the onset of the financial crisis? This is just one attack in California but it's the norm nation wide :
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/californias-budget-an-attack.html
Michael Moore
Again, how many trillions did Obama give to big business and finance? Some say 16 trillion some say almost 30 trillion.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/09/trillions-of-dollars-in-bank-b.html
When exactly were the lines between the state and capital blurred? Long before any piddly state taxes were handed over to capitalists. Get your head out of your ass Moore. Obama bailed out the very corporations that were outsourcing jobs, gave the CEO's trillions. Even the so called socialist (liberal) Sanders knows this. The democrats also knew these corporations weren't paying any federal taxes which far outweighs state taxes:
http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html
Michael Moore
That was Obama's job, to defeat the 99% while people like you want us to line up and beg for more. No thanks.
Michael Moore
Maintaining the interests of the rich first and foremost was the goal of the founding fathers. Everything is working as it is suppose to work.
Michael Moore
By voting for the Democrats who have overseen the largest attacks on working class in our lifetime over the last four years.
Stockholm Syndrome and masochism. This is what you're suffering when you think Democrats are our saviors. Micheal Moore is a propagandist, a liar and a fool.
Michael Moore
Listen to what the founding fathers have to say:
[youtube]RAgJs9anhw8[/youtube]
Voting takes very little
Voting takes very little energy thus it is proportionate to do so in order achieve very small social gains. Campaigning to vote is a waste of time and resources as are political parties but I don't see how anyone can think that Obama is not marginally better than Romney thus worth voting for if you can be bothered.
This obviously will not increase working class power and is obv not the most important election ever but it very minorly change the circumstances in which the american working class take collective action.
FWIW, I wrote in "revol68
FWIW, I wrote in "revol68 from libcom.org."
Shebangs, did you get to read
Shebangs, did you get to read that referendum thread that was linked to on the first page?
It's a bit long, but it's really good for giving you an idea about an anarchist perception of voting.
In California the things
In California the things worth voting for on the ballot are the three strikes law, death penalty etc. Years back we successfully repealed many of the draconian drug laws Obama's vice president helped put in place that filled California prisons. Sentencing reform should also go to a vote sometime soon which would make drug possession, property damage and check forgery type crimes non jail offenses. These are some of the sort of things votes can change that have an immediate impact in the community.
sawa wrote: Voting takes very
sawa
i've been seeing people on twitter saying the queues are an hour long, its totally not worth he effort
Chili got one thing right...
Chili got one thing right... I am certainly not a representative of anarchism. And if he/she is, so much the worse for anarchism.
Here's the point: the way you show "respect" for someone's positions is to answer them directly, concretely, plainly, and by pointing to the the class connections implicit/explicit in those "positions."
So when someone points out that slogans being used are the stock in trade of professional left-liberals trotted out to justify capitulation to the continued rule of capital, even if the term "bullshit" is applied, that's being absolutely respectful and comradely.
OTOH, being mealy-mouthed, and not calling things be their right name doesn't do anything for anyone.
So, Shebangs-- Romney might start a war? No shit, so might Obama, as he has given concrete evidence of maintaining and expanding the wars that he had overseen in the last 4 years, unless of course you thing the so-called withdrawal of certain numbers of combat troops from Iraq amounts to a "cessation of hostilities," leaving a broken, impoverished society with eruptions of violence a monument to peace.
So Shebangs-- Romney might make abortion illegal? Or appoint a SC justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Roe v. Wade has already been overturned de facto.
And that's the bottom line, social changes always occur before their legal formalization. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade were made real, concrete because of movements, actions, not SC decisions.
One boss may be nicer than
One boss may be nicer than the other but they both want to eat your cake.
One boss may be nicer than
One boss may be nicer than the other.... and it doesn't matter.
Obama was simply put in power
Obama was simply put in power by capitalists to continue profits at the working classes expense in a time of crisis. To implement bail outs and austerity in a way that would have voters begging for more in 2012. If a Republican administration implemented all the shit the Obama administration/Democrats just implemented 2008-2012 there would have been riots in the streets that make the 1990's LA riots look like child's play. He was/is the perfect hit man for the ruling class and we're the target. At least with Romney, when he implements the same policies, we will have a better chance at forming more serious opposition and thus a more radicalized working class.
The OWS "movement" would have been so much more potent if Bush were in office (magical third term?). Shit woulda hit the fan. Seeing Obama was in office we were left with the goal of "pressuring Obama" to "do the right thing" (all the while he and Democrats were firmly stabbing the working class in the back). The reformists ruled the day at Occupy events "all we need to do is pressure Obama". We were castrated from the start. This is the purpose the Democrat party serves. It takes any revolutionary potential the working class has and morphs it into useless sludge. Micheal Moore is a Democrat Party operative. A class traitor. A fucking Orwellian master of doublethink. Post revolution I'd like to see him be shot into space in a capsule full of ho ho's and ding dongs.
Stan Milgram wrote: In
Stan Milgram
Sorry CRUD, but this is just plain factually incorrect. As for Prop. 34, the "The SAFE California Act to end California’s death penalty," even three California death row inmates (Jarvis Jay Masters, Kevin Cooper, and Correll Thomas) are urging people not to vote for it. The reason? In Correll Thomas' words:
Thomas
Stan Milgram, a.k.a. CRUD, please stop spreading disinformation.
Also, it's strange that you edited your post to remove mention that you were going to vote for Romney. Go on dude, vote your conscience!
S. Artesian wrote: And just
S. Artesian
Is there a Russia/Lenin thread on this site? If so can you point me to it? Thanks.
S. Artesian wrote: One boss
S. Artesian
Although I would agree it doesn't matter in terms of the actual structural role they are expected to perform and fulfill, I think sometimes one being nicer than the other does matter just in terms of having somewhat reduced stress and humiliation. For instance, I work in retail, and I have a manager who’s an asshole and yelled at me the other day because, after my shift was done, I didn’t ring up every customer who was waiting in my line – that is, I only rang up 2 who were waiting in my line after my shift was done and not 3. On the other hand, there are the “nice” managers at the store who wouldn’t even care at all that I did this since it was incredibly petty and they don’t try to maintain absolute power – only just enough power to continue being a manager. Personally, I would have felt better without being yelled at for something like that.
That said, when it comes to heads of state, I can’t admittedly see how the same applies. Maybe the limousine drivers feel better not having to drive an über asshole. :) But for the majority of workers, it doesn’t matter and it certainly doesn’t matter when it comes to their role as functionaries. The "lesser evil" argument has always been nothing but naive and part of capitalism's false ideologies.
Hieronymous wrote: Stan
Hieronymous
I find it strange that you think I'm someone I'm not but ya, I edited out the Romney vote thing because I felt someone like you would have a go at warping my point. The point is we'd be better off with a Republican in office. The point was Obama and Democrats being in power right now crippled the social movement that was OWS.
So to continue the death penalty means people WILL BE put to death. To vote to end it means a handful of people will do life in prison with no parole, with no case review. Maybe we should start a separate thread on the subject. You can "prove me wrong" in that thread.
Something tells me you didn't like my criticisms of Occupy Oakland. Did something hit home? Perhaps you're one of the people responsible for the whole "decolonize Oakland" nonsense? Activist culture in the Bay Area is indeed working class repellent. We proved that the day of the Port shut down but rather than an introspective look into our strange culture we'd rather keep repeating the same mistakes into a state of total insignificance. You are aware how workers outside of the small activist community view us aren't you? Connecting with the broader working class isn't your goal though is it? I suspect you have a fetish for identity politics, drum circles and dancing with glow sticks. Keep spraying that repellent around town. I'll be shaking my head in disgust as usual.
Obama is officially
Obama is officially re-elected. Now we can sit by and watch as he dismantles more social programs, expands wars and forces all of us to spend money we don't have on private for profit medial insurance while he and democrats implement draconian austerity measures. Lets see if any meaningful social movements to oppose all of this form. Not likely.
Stan Milgram wrote: So to
Stan Milgram
Sorry CRUD, people will NOT be put to death until the lifting of the ruling by Judge Faye D’Opal of Marin County Superior Court in December 2011. She ruled that the State of California had failed to justify the decision to put in place a three-drug lethal injection method because "experts" said it carries a risk of “excruciating pain.” This legal limbo could change soon. Or maybe it might be a de facto moratorium for the time being. Your guess is as good as mine.
[double post removed]
[double post removed]
In the 1980s at a panel
In the 1980s at a panel discussion in Berkeley, Alexander Cockburn, Christopher Hitchens and Gore Vidal talked about the political climate in the U.S. The latter summed up the "lesser evil" argument best:
Vidal
I'd make an addendum:
One is pro-business, the other is anti-labor
The media just called it for
The media just called it for Obama.
Hieronymous wrote: Stan
Hieronymous
I take it labeling me this person is meant to be slanderous, I get it now. The overall point is we can vote on local issues, prop this or that law and it is indeed a pretty democratic process (although the props are made to fool voters much of the time with misleading language) . Electoral politics is a whole other ball of wax. Especially investing in the federal legislative and executive campaigns and elections. This is the point.
Now that Obama is reelected do you think there's a strong possibility a mass movement will form in opposition to the coming austerity he and Democrats will be facilitating on behalf of the overall capitalist system? Will we see the same anti war protests as we saw when Bush was in office? Do you think part of the reason OWS was so ineffectual had something to do with leftist loyalty to Obama/democrats? That organizers and unions, even many socialists, didn't want to rock the boat too hard? If you think an Obama administration is good for the working class can you explain why please?
Quote: Is there a
I was referring to this: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenins-what-be-done-analysis-28072012
Ogion: Your nice boss will lay you off when told to just as quickly as your mean boss will. Maybe he'll tell you how sad he feels about it, and how much he appreciates your loyalty, but you'll still be on the street.
OK, now Obama is reelected, so does anybody feel better now? Relieved? The only thing I feel better about is that I'd rather have Michelle and the girls in the White House than Romney's Children of the Damned sons.
The Obama women are easier on the eyes.
S. Artesian wrote: Ogion:
S. Artesian
Definitely so. :) And there are plenty of other examples as well. However, I don't think it changes the fact that, on the job, one can still have somewhat reduced stress, humiliation, etc.
Sometimes I find leftists (understandably) wish to emphasize workers’ experiences of “mean” bosses or whatever more than the “nice” because they feel it strengthens their arguments. But it actually doesn’t, because it implies there’s a need to point out the “mean” bosses in order to more convincingly argue against capitalism. As a communist, I don’t think this is the case.
Anyway, as far as the election result, I'd say I feel even more like I live in a simulated dark comedy play where everyone's unknowingly repeating their lines than relieved at all.
Quote: The Obama women are
take your knuckle-dragging misogyny elsewhere, you need to check yourself and your attitude.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little depressed by this whole affair, never mind though. I'm sure as long as there's been radical workers there have been debates just like this and the referendum thread over and over, just par for the course at this time in the electoral cycle. Either way we end up with a total shit.
radicalgraffiti wrote: sawa
radicalgraffiti
Even without the queues, the argument is fairly absurd, given that ina situation like this, your individual vote is de facto statistically insignificant. I don't really care if someone votes or not, but to just do so because it's a good use of time simply doesn't make sense. It's not do much that voting for 'small social gains' is wrong, as literally pointless.
Well this thread has
Well this thread has basically gone to shit.
Indigo you beat my to it, but..
http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011
On a lighter note "I can't
On a lighter note "I can't stop crying, America died" and I LOLED.
It is very easy to forget
It is very easy to forget that it wasn't purely about Obama and Romney
http://www.upworthy.com/map-you-wont-believe-what-these-states-did-tonight?g=2&c=ufb1
Worth a look I think
Another long ass thread on
Another long ass thread on voting ? Really.....really ?
the croydonian anarchist
the croydonian anarchist
The OP was a new poster. Believe it or not, once a thread is finished on libcom, it isn't transmitted to the world hive mind. The non-voting argument is one your going to probably have to have for the rest of your life :cry: .
I'd rather see black women
I'd rather see black women living as the "first family" in a house built by slaves for white males than see a swarm of white males anytime. Has nothing to do with the politics, but it sure drives the racists nuts.
You ever look at Romney's kids? Those boys all have that "burnt behind the eyes" look.
As for starting new wars... well here's what the AP is reporting:
Oh yeah there's a real difference between the president you elect and the president you don't elect.
I stand by my description of
I stand by my description of the dangers of the "lesser evil", SA's defence of it and think that it's somewhat insulting to suggest that people who are non-political couldn't understand it. Personally, I know plenty of workers that wouldn't be dragged into polling booths by wild horses, clearly seeing - not with any profound political perspective - that there is absolutely no fundamental difference from a working class point of view, between the "contending" elements. I also know a lot of workers that willingly get dragged into the polling booths and herein the dangers lie, ie, atomised individuals fooling themselves into thinking that they are part of a real democratic political process for change. Whatever the result of elections, it's always the bourgeoisie that wins, the working class that loses.
Alf above points the difficulties and differences within the American bourgeoisie and how this presents some weakness in the line-up of the ruling class and its political teams. I think that the first thing that we have to say about this election is that it and its turn-out is a major victory for the ruling class - for the most part the latter want the workers mobilised on the electoral terrain, whoever they vote for because it is democracy itself that is the most effective weapon against class struggle. Prior to the last election of Obama, participation in voting was, as far as I remember, falling. The whole "black guy as president" gave an enormous boost to democracy and it continues to do so. Rather than showing the weakness of the US ruling class, I tend to think that it shows its strength. It's certainly been picked up by the bourgeoisie world-wide in order to boost the illusion of democracy.
baboon wrote: I stand by my
baboon
Given that nobody has suggested people vote it seems a bit odd to stand by SA in a debate which isn't happening (CRUD has some convoluted reasons for why one should vote but has been proven pretty wrong by H).
You are right to point at that it is condescending to say 'non-political' [sic] people don't understand it though. Most people i know 'non-political' if you will understand it very plainly. 'They are all as bad as each other' has been a standard trope on the british political landscape for years now....
We might want to pause a
We might want to pause a moment for accuracy. For one, I did not claim that Shebangs is a CPUSA plant, beard, troll etc. etc. I said that what he/she has proposed as the critical/determining issue is nothing but a repeat of the line the CPUSA has been advertising for years-- "This is the most election in X number of years. We must unite with Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama to defeat the apocalyptic assaults of the ultra-rightists," the line that has been used to make sure the stakes never get any higher for the bourgeoisie.
When some pointed out how absolutely nonsensical Shebang's advocacy is-- "Romney might start a war"-- as opposed to Obama who continues, maintains, expands and plans wars; "Romney will take away women's rights to abortion; immigrants rights"--as opposed to the current situation where no federal money for healthcare can be used to absorb any of the costs of an abortion; as opposed to the current administration which, prior to the election year of course, increased raids on workplaces, arrests and deportations of workers in the workplace well above the number conducted by the Bush administration-- we get the kinder, gentler types telling the critics to quit being dicks and show some empathy for a political innocent trying to negotiate his/her way to anarchism through the debris of US politics.
Personally, I don't believe the stuff about political neophytes, not that it matters one bit. Neophyte, professional.. the issue is the class content behind the advocacy.
This is supposed to be a site, a forum of some critical insight and straight talk. If somebody comes here and says "I think I should vote for Obama because the stakes are so high," and responses are made that say "bullshit;" pointing out that everything viewed as the "stakes" has already been swept off the table and into the bourgeoisie's pockets-- that's not being crude, insensitive, sectarian, hostile, nor even particularly harsh. That's just being accurate.
The site calls itself "libcom"-- with the "com" standing for communist-- that denotes an established, already agreed upon understanding that supporting any of the bourgeois parties is simply unacceptable, and is a waste of time. My only regret, knuckle-dragger that I am, is that I wasted time thinking the comments required a serious response. To those who dismissed the OP from the getgo with the one-liners and the "snarky" videos-- good for you. You were right.
Somebody wants to waste time having "reasoned" discussions with those who think that the "stakes are too high" to not oppose the bourgeoisie as a class, try Henwood's LBO (can't remember if that stands for "leveraged buy out," or "left business observer") list.
Mitt Romney is a very
Mitt Romney is a very handsome man. The Republicans will win the next one. I would have voted for Dennis Reynolds.
Quote: that's not being
Your imperious and patronising tone might be acceptable in a meeting full of other political hacks, but most people do not spend their time in that sort of company and find such language totally alienating. There is a time and a place for aggressive political put-downs, and that time is after you've established that the other party is operating on the same level. If they are open to debate, you debate in a comradely fashion.
How on earth you ever expect to persuade anyone of anything if this is your usual pattern of behaviour baffles me.
1. noticing Shebangs hasn't
1. noticing Shebangs hasn't posted on this thread in a while, and now that the election is over and results are in, interested to talk with them again.
2. we really should have a libcommunity thread where we shit-talk each other endlessly, provided that the regular rules about sexist racist and oppressive language are still observed, we can just throw out everything else and have full flame wars. that way, we might have a healthy outlet for all our rage at stupid comrades who "just don't get" our enlightened point of view, and that thread would also serve as a kind of spawning ground for witty snarkyness and zingers. in all other areas of the forums we would pretend that thread doesn't exist, never refer to it, and of course we would be good at being understanding and respectful with one another, having spent the majority of our rage in another thread.
laborbund wrote: 2. we
laborbund
so, just like it used to be then?
only been actively posting on
only been actively posting on this site for two or so years, so i don't know too much about how it used to be. i meant my suggestion primarily in jest. was this an actual thing at one point? i'm super curious now!
labourbound wrote: only been
labourbound
Yeah, it was. First the forums, every single one of them, were pretty much infused with shit talk and flaming, then it was relegated to libcommunity, and now it seems to happen less and less even there. Though occasionally the old ways of discoursing will shine through (e.g. S. Artesian and Heieronymous in this thread).
Stan Milgram wrote: Obama is
Stan Milgram
I like the "up down" options you guys have on this site. Can whoever "downed" this post kinda explain why. Thanks.
Congratulations to you all. 4
Congratulations to you all. 4 more years of Obama!
I posted here once as Glennbeckfan1776, but apparently, my knowledge of truth has a gotten me banned. Anyways, it’s been a long time since ive been here but I wanted to tip my hat to you guys 1 last time for destroying everything America stands. You communist are relentless. I don’t know how you pulled it off again, but you did it. The free man is left with nothing but redistribution of his tax dollars. I hope your happy, I really do. But I have to ask, whats REALLY in it for you. You do realize these communist experiences have left millions dead and yet you spend hours and hours promoting your socialist agenda. Do you hate the human race? Do you actually hate Jesus? I mean really?
Capitalism has long been a system of efficiency and markets. Its the creative entrepreneur of American Business which has lead to this Country to be the Greatest Country ever. Ever heard of Nike, Microsoft, Apple? Yeah, we did that. But you want to take it all away with your progressivism policies that drive America Bankrupt? Let me ask you this…DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH AMERICAS DEBT IS? Do you wan’t to keep borrowing money from China? Have you heard a housing crises? With the Government in the banks hands, instead of the free market at work, weve turned this country upside down.
Have I lost faith though? Hardly! We need revolutionary heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln (which I’m sure you commies forgot he was a republican) to stand up to everything that has happened in America society. The Liberal Media and its elitest club, the corrupt mafia unions (You heard of Jimmy Hoffa, right?), the left professor-hood of the university (which by the sound of everyone here, is nothing but a FACT), Big banks (which is what your hero Marx wanted), Big Government….I can go on.
But you all are just the 99% and need a hand out from uncle sam and live of my tax dollars. Well I got a different tune for you guys. I got 99 problems, but the public sector aint one of them. If we let the market do its work and let problem business fail, than the invisible hand has done its job (and more importantly IT CREATES JOBS). Its been done in the past and it can happen again. But thats not how you guys like to do business right? You like to play politics.
Well all I can say is congratulations, you’ve pulled the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World.
^ Troll!
^ Troll!
Imperious, patronizing,
Imperious, patronizing, knuckle-dragging, and shit-talk all at once? I feel like a Renaissance Man.
There nothing "political hack" like in calling bullshit by its real name, even when it comes from such heroes as Michael Moore.
The issue is precisely not one of trying to "honestly persuade" anyone not to, or to for that matter, vote for anyone.
The point is identifying the the bullshit that informs the notions of "voting" "historically important election" "lesser evil" and......."honest persuasion."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! How we
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! How we missed you. And yeah, secretly libcom is actually a front for the Obama campaign and for the New World Order he wants to establish, with the seat of said order placed in Kenya (after all it is Obama's correct birthplace). Obama will sit on a throne made out of all the fake birth certificates and college transcripts. It will be beautiful. I will certainly go and worship at the feet of Comrade Obama. Long live! Not four more year, but FOR ETERNITY!
You forgot all the death,
You forgot all the death, gore and suffering that we communists are primarily into, Khawaga.
here's a site for those like
here's a site for those like glennbeck1776 who are rightly concerned about their country http://isamericacommunistyet.com/
Ah, I was going to say on
Ah, I was going to say on another thread how few trolls I have actually seen on this forum since I came, but that one really made my day :). I mean, you put a lot of thought into that big pile of bollocks. BECAUSE WE ARE JUST SOOOO HAPPY that Obama gets to carry on secretly drone striking children in Pakistan, exactly we what we were after, pretty clear all over the forum really.
;)
S. Artesian wrote: Imperious,
S. Artesian
You need to listen to what Micheal Moore has to say. He's a socialist. Ya. I think within most online forums if a person or group of people don't like what you have to say and or your overall views (in your case Marxist-Leninism?) you're pretty much doomed from the start. A person who defends Lenin on an anarchist site isn't going to get very far neither is a person who criticizes the anarchist community in the Bay Area as I have done. Thus far on this site I've been castigated into some DOOM/CRUD organization for criticizing ultra leftist activist culture in the Bay Area. I've had worse thrown my way within the community whenever I question whether or not activist culture connects with the broader working class. The answer I receive is usually a condescending "the broader working class is racist,sexist and reactionary". I'm more of the opinion the sort of knee jerk name calling as just happened to you is in part responsible for the almost total inconsequential nature of the socialist left in America and beyond. I guess this post is off topic but not really.
Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin are goons by the way ;)
Well I guess glennbeck1776
Well I guess glennbeck1776 agrees that this was a historically important election. You know, on acertain professional forum, some management executives were actually flogging the same tired bullshit: "This is the most important election in our lifetimes. This election will decide whether the US goes the way of Greece, or the way of Germany. This election is our last chance to defend freedom from the slide to socialism."
Which shows exactly how all this mumbo-jumbo about "historical importance" "freedom" "democracy" "rights" "war" "progress" "future" has absolutely NO content, but is simply a vector, advertising for whatever bourgeois clique makes use of it.
Elections are nothing other than a virus for disabling class struggle with chronic fatigue syndrome.
To SM: Nope not a Marxist-Leninist. I'm a marxist communist. Small m small c.
Michael Moore is nothing but a repo man for the bourgeoisie. He's a socialist like Michael Harrington was a socialist. His socialism is conspicuous only in its absence.
Stan Milgram wrote: Stan
Stan Milgram
That would be me. I downed it because it was boring and boredom is counter-revolutionary. What specifically is boring about it is your affect of self-righteous, sarcastic, ressentiment. The purpose of your statement is not to communicate, it is to hector, to bully and to assert your sense of self-worth through finding an adversary to denounce and decry. It is "straight talking" in that peculiarly unpleasant character so beloved of American shock-jocks - the ostensible political content does not change the basic content in terms of affect.
Now, something less boring. A quote from Gilles Deleuze's piece on Neitzsche in Pure Immanence.
But sure, if you're looking for someone to pick on, try me. Good luck with that.
Khawaga wrote: [Though
Khawaga
What's "old" about following the money trail and seeing that the pseudo-reformist anti-death penalty initiative in California (prop. 34) was written by a former San Quentin warden and basically throws away the key on life-sentence prisoners along with denying them any possibility of an appeal of their sentences. So in exchange for ending the death penalty the pigs get an extra $100,000,000 for "anti-crime" activity and the already well-funded prison-industrial-complex would get a huge new windfall. Thankfully it didn't pass.
It's not the content
It's not the content Hieronymous, but the form the content takes. In this thread you've not been very diplomatic.
Even Political Compass gets
Even Political Compass gets the point:
PS - this thread is madness.
SO
Khawaga wrote: It's not the
Khawaga
Come on, Stan Milgram is doing exactly what CRUD did on Occupy Oakland threads.
And this is personal. On post #10 of the "Occupy Oakland's Decomposition" thread, CRUD posted a contentless series of YouTube videos. One includes my neighbor, a Kiowa active in the International Treaty Council. I don't see eye-to-eye about everything with this comrade, but I know he will continue to have my back in local struggles. I will not tolerate CRUD's contempt towards "factions of minorities (women, gay, and people of color) who want a bigger piece of the capitalist pie (identity politics)."
I think this barely-veiled hatred should never be allowed on libcom. Stan Milgram/CRUD should be banned -- again -- and his racist, sexist, homophobic screeds should never be tolerated.
There obviously is a
There obviously is a difference between Obama and Romney, and I'm glad Obama won. There are quite a lot of reasons I can think of. But one which shouldn't be too controversial is that Romney would have been likely to cut funding for organisations that provide abortions, and allow states to do the same thing.
This thread is something else... glennbeck1776 is obvs the best poster in it.
Besides the whole labeling me
Besides the whole labeling me a person I'm not, my name is Mike by the way, I chose Milgram for his studies on obedience to authority, besides all that I knew it was only a matter of time before I was called racist, sexist and homophobic for questioning the atmosphere at Occupy events in the Bay Area. There's no contempt for women, the gay community or people of color my criticisms center around, and you know it, the tendency to spotlight identity issues at the cost of, well, pretty much anything that has do do with socialism. This isn't to say we don't NEED to be fighting to end (right now, under capitalism) racism/sexism/homophobia my point is all too often people are doing so without the goal of socialism in mind.
Explain for the people in this thread the thinking behind changing the name from Occupy Oakland to Decolonize Oakland. Lets start with that.
I mean, it went as far as the
I mean, it went as far as the term "wage slavery" being called racist. Occupy Oakland turned into a circus of identity politics. You know it, I know it and the ruling class knows it and loves it.
ocelot wrote: Stan Milgram
ocelot
The point isn't to pick on anyone or uplift myself to Revolutionary Jesus status it was to point out how Democrats have the ability to pour water on the flame of social movements. I think maybe bringing Deleuze and Neitzsche into a thread about voting/supporting democrats accomplished exactly what you just accused me of :) Good show mate!
mons wrote: There obviously
mons
Nope, you're the best poster, because now Chili and others can demonstrate how patient, respectful, embracing friendly discourse is going to honestly persuade you how wrong you are.
Oh sure there's an obvious difference-- l like there was between Gore and Bush, Kerry and Bush, McCain and Obama....... the difference between malaria and dengue fever.
So have at it, comrades.
We should be allowed to keep
We should be allowed to keep glennbeck1776. Please don't ban him. His knowledge of truth has already gotten him banned once, but like the good martyr he is, he has come here again to preach to the heathens, though we may reject him.
glennbeck1776
EVERYONE but one person on this thread has argued the futility of electoral politics. We thought, in our stupidity, that we had abstained from the election. BUT BEHOLD, glennbeck1776 exposes the TRUTH: we have all been an integral part of reelecting Obama. For while we conspired to try to promote working class self-activity and direct action and argue the futility of electoral politics our audience only became MORE CONVINCED in THE KENYAN ONE, THAT IMPOSTOR CHRIST WHO IS NOT GLENN BECK!
glennbeck1776
It could only be through our sneak thievery and conspiratorial nature that we accomplished such a feat, for we are weak in mind and will and can only do what we have done through underhandedness, so terrified are we to confront the TRUTH of our enemies claims in the light of day.
glennbeck1776
You see, even though we scorn him, glennbeck1776 still wishes us only well, for he wishes to save us from our evil nature! Why must we insist on redistributing the tax dollars of the FREE MAN? Has not the FREE MAN endured enough insults and treachery? Must he now also pay taxes to live in a society with roads and fire departments?
glennbeck1776
GOLD. WE'RE AFTER THE GOLD! ALL OF IT! Communists need gold because its magical powers allow us to deceive the FREE MAN through our control of the media and the FED.
glennbeck1776
Not only do we realize that communist experiences have left millions dead, we wish for millions more! We accomplish this every day, in the most insidious of ways you see. For instance, one time I took a homeless guy to Subway and got him a sandwich. Upon eating it, the homeless guy died. He didn't even realize that by denying my rational self interest and recognizing the affinity I shared with him as a human being that I had sucked him into a communist experience. And so, the INVISIBLE HAND struck him down for his collaboration with me. And we're creating more and more communist experiences everyday; feeding LSD to your kids, using bad language in the presence of the elderly, putting fluoride in your water....
glennbeck1776
How could we NOT hate Christ? We are, by our nature, of the devil. We crucified him. His blood is upon us and upon our children!
glennbeck1776
BE SILENT LIBCOM POSTERS AND HEAR THE WORDS OF GLENNBECK1776: The entrepreneurship of American Business springs forth in a vacuum apart from history and the political and legal apparatus which make things like property rights possible. It comes, as from the mind of GOD himself, to make America the Greatest Country ever. No frame of reference is needed, nor a critique of the nation-state and its historical development for who can argue against glennbeck1776? He possesses the TRUTH.
glennbeck1776
Oh our progressivism policies and forcing America into Chinese debt peonage are only the first step in our long term plan to KILL CHRIST and destroy the FREE MAN.
glennbeck1776
glenbeck1776 holds THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH lights THE WAY: the only hope is to find a wealthy slave owner with a mediocre military career and delusions of grandeur or a cynical career politician to stand up to everything that has happened in America society. EVERYTHING. If you were in the dry goods store and somebody told you about the over 100 year existence of the food and drug administration what could you do? Nothing! You would be powerless to repel the actions of past historical actors and keep BIG GOVERNMENT away from your tummy! But if only you could find a wealthy slave owner with a mediocre military career and delusions of grandeur! He would relieve you of your misery by employing his magics to destroy the FDA and historians thus restoring balance to the market! Continue searching fellow libcom posters, for we must find THE ONE before the likes of glennbeck1776 does, that we may strike him down while still an infant and powerless against us!
glennbeck1776
PLEASE do not go on, for we cannot bear THE TRUTH!
glennbeck1776
How strong is glennbeck1776 that though he bears the burden of supporting all of our lascivious, indolent lives, we are NOT one of the 99 problems he endures through his manly fortitude and shield of THE TRUTH! For he knows that for the neo-liberal capitalist ideologue the public sector is no problem, only a nuisance.
glennbeck1776
Oh yes, we like to play politics because were jobs created, we might have to get jobs. And nothing terrifies us more than jobs. Why, as communists, we don't even like to think about work, nor do we ever talk about or investigate it. We'd much rather spend the welfare checks you so graciously provide us on dress suits and haircuts so that we can have more realism when playing politics. I myself usually play Strom Thurmond or Michelle Bachmann.
glennbeck1776
See how graciously he concedes the battle!!! We have truly pulled the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World!
AWESOME! This is definitely
AWESOME! This is definitely the high point of the thread.
S. Artesian wrote: mons
S. Artesian
Okay, I'll bite. Comrade mons, I really feel like you're trying to pull the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World on this one. You mention Romney's threats to reproductive rights, which was one of the issues the Obama campaign really pumped this election. And indeed, there can't be any doubt that the zany wing of the republican party has gotten into office in some places and is waging a war on women. But what was the democratic party response? Nothing. These attacks on reproductive rights ought to have been met by mass direct action imo. After all, legal abortion was a concession won and not a gift given in the first place. But in this case, the dems were better at preempting protest than they were in wisconsin, and quickly launched a pr campaign. Because they'd rather have reproductive rights as a wedge issue to run on and win elections than have actual reproductive rights - and that's interesting because until like 5 years ago this was the republican strategy - run on social "wedge issues" to get elected but never do anything about them while in office (cuz if you fulfilled promises in this regard, you wouldn't have anything to run on come next election). The dems know how to play this game too. After helping to pass taft-hartley, they kept promising, every election, to repeal it for forty something years. They just stopped promising after a while. Obama / the dems might hold things where they are (and remember, things are pretty bad on the reproductive rights front right now), but I'd be very surprised if they actually tried to push back in the other direction. Not saying its impossible or something, but only that if past behavior of the democratic party indicates anything its that their schtick is to campaign like San Fransisco hippies (no offense meant hippies) and rule like the New England blue bloods they most often are.
Now, you might say that I'm depicting the two parties as having no essential differences and in so doing, I'm pulling the sheepskin over the wolve from America and the World. But I'm totally willing to concede that there are differences between the two parties - one is history's most enthusiastic capitalist party, the other is history's second most enthusiastic capitalist party. Have you ever tried to explain the ideological differences between trot groups to a college republican? Its like trying to explain the differences between America's two parties to Anarchists. I used to toy with the idea that from our end it might be better to have history's second most enthusiastic capitalist party because it might be easier for us to wring concessions out of them, or their being in power long enough would demonstrate that electing them doesn't solve the essential problems of capitalism. But now I'm all like "fuck it". I think from the perspective the ruling class though, the differences between the two parties matter a lot more, and the ruling class votes with their dollars during these campaigns. Rich people, like us, don't always agree on shit, aren't always the most class conscious (though they seem to be moreso than us), and don't always know whats good for their class interests. So, I think having two parties, which are both essentially pro-capitalist ideologically but have practical disagreements is useful for the ruling class, because through those two parties they can promulgate new ideas, debate them, and test them out. The two parties are also great ways of aggregating different capitalist interests so they may compete with each other without slitting each other's throats. A good example is the fossil fuel industry favoring the republicans and the renewable energy industry favoring the dems. Both are capitalist industries, but we can see that they want to edge each other out. Or business unions supporting the dems (or being nothing more than a fundraising apparatus for the dems in some cases) and union busting firms supporting the republicans.
That's my take on this shit anyway. And mons, you and Shebangs ARE the best posters on this thread because you had the courage to disagree with the rest of us, which forces us to more fully think out and explain our own views. That's a useful process for everyone involved IMO.
mons wrote: But one which
mons
But that's exactly what Obama did! (unless by cut funding you mean end funding- in which case, if he would try it, the usual 'political process' and a divided legislature/other-institutions would have prevented it).
Also on the subject of
Also on the subject of difference between the two parties:
Mons mentions real differences having to do with reproductive and gay rights.
I think there is a zany, crazy, nearly fascist end of the republican party which is sincere in its hatred of women and lgbt people.
I think there is a "progressive" wing of the dems that is sincere in its wish to be our dad and do all the other things associated with "progressive"
I just don't think the sincere wing of either party is enough to warrant voting. So you can vote out the sincere republicans in a state, but the best you can do is to replace them with regular dems, who aren't going to un-do the stuff the sincere republicans did while in office. I honestly think the best way to get these people to capitulate is good ole fashioned direct action, and I often hear the argument "but I'd just rather vote, cuz its easier" or something, and I can see that its easier, but its not nearly as practical as DA, and certainly not as reliable IMO.
Or you can elect sincere dems and then when they get into office they realize the structural forces that make capitalist politicians shitty work on them too. My city has a tradition of progressive mayors. Really, really sincere progressive mayors. Like the socialist Tom L. Johnson who started public bath houses since nobody back then had running water. He also put up signs in the public parks telling people they were public parks and poor people were allowed to use them. He even took iww agitator elizabeth gurley flynn out to lunch and gave her dad a city job. But when there was streetcar strike, Johnson had to fight against the workers because he was the mayor. (http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=010424.html&StartPage=24&EndPage=41&volume=104&newtitle=Volume%20104%20Page%2024).
The Carl Stokes story is way more tragic.
And I think the farther up chain you are, the less the sincere wing of either party matters. They certainly don't matter in presidential elections.
Voting is, as Howard Zinn put
Voting is, as Howard Zinn put it, only"marginally useful." What really matters is the level of mass resistance, working class self-activity.
I usually do vote on ballot measures, tho, because it's a form of direct democracy, even tho totally distorted by money power, corporate media etc, that is, the capitalist context. I voted against Prop 32 in California which would have banned unions using dues money for political purposes. This measure went down. Even tho the unions bankroll the capitalist Democrats in a kneejerk fashion, I don't want the state making these kinds of limitations on worker organization.
I voted for the right to know measure (Prop 37) for genetically modified food because the chemical industry saw this as a badge of dishonor, that would discourage use of their seeds. Monsanto is a seed monopolist that modifies seeds to make the plants adaptive to its poisons, pesticides & herbicides, which poison farm workers & pollute water & air. but in this case the vast money the chemical industry spent defeated the measure.
In this election two states voted to legalize marijuana. Three states approved gay marriage. This still sets up a conflict between these states and the federal state.
syndicalistcat wrote: Voting
syndicalistcat
I miss him. He was a good ballast on the generic left. One of the folks who knew how to sift through the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia but somehow was still connected to it.
some good points
[youtube]oYGt1sZYCEY[/youtube]
some good points
While voting is clearly an
While voting is clearly an inefficient use of libertarian communists' time and resources, this thread makes me think that debating why voting is a waste of time is a far greater drain on our time and resources.
I think there's the potential
I think there's the potential for a good article comparing the nearly concurrent renewing/re-endorsing of the political leadership in China and the US. Of course from the bourgeois standpoint the two have nothing in common, but from a more sceptical viewpoint the compare and contrast exercise could be interesting. Within the CCP there appear to be two main factions - the "Princelings" or "Elitist" faction and the Tuanpai (League Faction, from Communist Youth League) or "Populist" faction*. In a funny kind of way there's a degree to which these factions are analogous to the Rep/Dem or other two-party systems of the "democratic" West. The need to represent demographic groupings (The elitists represent the coastal development areas, the Tuanpai the interior), the appeal to "trickle-down" vs welfare economics, blue collar vs finance, etc, etc, all have parallels between both states. Anyway, I think it'd be interesting. And get beyond the "but the US is a democracy..." knee-jerk ideological responses. If the Tea Party, hard-core Reps are claiming that Obama's re-election is "four more years of communism", why not take them (jokingly!) at their word and compare and contrast the two "communist" leadership transitions in Chimerica?**
* If we give credence to Li Cheng of the Brookings Institute's categorisation, which is not a given.
** To use (that vile tory) Niall Ferguson's portmanteau
Quote: While voting is
YESSS!!!!!
Also, just for the record, I still think GlennBeck is a joke account. My money's on Nate. Seriously.
Quote: Okay, I'll bite.
If only you did.........
teh has the right answer for mons. The point isn't to "persuade." It's to point out that the rationale used for preventing some action becomes in fact the justification, the facilitation, of those very actions. That's what capitalism is.
Anyone here remember LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964: "I will not send American boys 10,000 miles away to do what Vietnamese boys should be doing for themselves."????? You can look it up.
Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids
Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?
On the peace-loving,
On the peace-loving, lesser-evil Obama against warmonger Romney (or whatever bogeyman you like):
Just over a year ago, using its British, French and Arab pawns, the Obama administration launched a war in Libya. Thousands were killed, many by Nato bombardments and the devastation and destabilisation of the country has been massive. Today, unemployment, misery and threats to the greater population are far greater than they were before and great parts of the country are being run by armed gangs, jihadists and bandits of all stripes. The US administration, acting here on behalf of US imperialism, has actually boasted of the "success" of the "liberation" of Libya.
Out of the chaos and carnage of Libya has poured thousands of tonnes of weaponry along with gangsters, jihadists and bandits who have now destabilised and terrorised the whole region of the Sahel. They have spread down to Nigeria, killed thousands of helpless civilians and brought the terror of fundamentalist Sharia to millions in this once easy-going, strong in music region. Just like the Bushes, Clinton, et al, the actions of the Obama administration have conjured up the reactionary forces of jihadism, in or outside of the loose al-Qa'ida franchise, by its own actions. And just like these previous administrations, US forces will now work alongside local gangsters, drug dealers, traffickers, etc., in trying to clear up the messthat it has created. But just like previous administrations, it will only make it worse.
One of the successes of the ruling class in this election in my opinion, is how the poor and youth has been mobilised onto this poisonous terrain of being a "citizen democrat". This looks like a major change from say ten years ago, when US elections were treated with cynical contempt for the most part (though cynicism is obviously not enough). In Europe, faced with unprecedented economic attacks, the working class has found it very difficult to see itself as a class which has opposing interests to capital. It's a problem that the workers themselves have to confront and overcome. In the US election, youth, the poor, black and Hispanic elements have been targetted and mobilised onto the grounds of the democratic process of the nation. This further tends to strip them of any class identity. A special mention should be made of the role of the trade unions in the US here which, as good defenders of the national interest, fully played their role in the mobilisation for the "lesser-evil".
S. Artesian wrote: ...because
S. Artesian
S. Artesian
More insidious communist trickery. Tell me where the gold is Artesian.
laborbund wrote: S. Artesian
laborbund
It's hidden within LBJ's plan to disengage from Vietnam.
So, you're telling me that
So, you're telling me that the plan to disengage from Vietnam is merely the form. But the content, that's where the gold is.
Quote: One of the successes
not really. most of the poor don't vote in the USA. actually most of the working class don't vote. they perceive that neither party is interested in them.
Well I see the libcom
Well I see the libcom communist party has banned my account 1 last time in order to sensor the truth again. If this isn’t a consiperacy, I don’t know what is. But you guys enjoy ignoring the truth, don’t you. Shame on the libcom communist party!
Oh I see, are we still making up things like I’m not a REAL American again. I don’t understand why I have to keep argueing with this. You do realize half of America didn’t vote for Obama right? You guys still don’t get that most Americans are aware that he is a principled communist and can only introduce his programs are through Stalin like progressivism. Stalin can get away with them with one clean sweep, but Americans are wiser than the ruskies and know what real freedom means. The only way obama can do this is through socialized medicine that gives away free insurance, acts like a Christian (even though everyone knows he is a faker liberation theoligist), and does PR campains like shaking veterans hands without serving a single day in the DoD. Honestly, my taxes have gone up tons since 2008. I had to forclose on my home due to the Obama housing crisis. And yet there is no sign of any turn around. He doesn’t care about you or me. And yet Obama is the unanimous victor amongst libcom.org opinion. Mitt Romney was no perfect candidate but at least he loves his country enough to talk up Capitalism and understands economics better. We might not have a Castro Communist Country yet, but its becoming a growing force in the culture.
Why is it so hard to admit to this because you know its true?
I’m not going to bother with a website that sensors what real americans think and fell. This is my last post until next big socialist agenda creeps through the cracks and I will be there to expose the truth once again.
Quote: sensor the truth I
I sense the truth. There! It's over there!
Come on, give it up. Who wants to take a bet on which one of our regular posters GlennBeck really is?
FOR FREEDOM, TAXES, AND
FOR FREEDOM, TAXES, AND COMRADE OBAMA! Thus spoke glennbeck1777
glennbeck1777 FOR PRESIDENT!
glennbeck1777 FOR PRESIDENT! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!
[youtube]VFwXmz1KGoQ[/youtube]
glennbeck1777 wrote: . The
glennbeck1777
The democrats copied what Rpmney did with healthcare in his state and the new federal healthcare law, as is the case in Romneys state, forces everyone to buy private for profit healthcare while massively cutting medicare/medicaid and even funding for abortions. The people who wrote this legislation are capitalists, namely, insurance companies. Those damn communist insurance companies are in collusion with the communist banks and communist corporations to force global communism communist commie pornography onto the children.Ron Paul.
Will someone already ban
Will someone already ban glennbeck for revealing libcom's true motives?
Hieronymous wrote: Khawaga
Hieronymous
Besides the whole labeling me a person I'm not, my name is Mike by the way, I chose Milgram for his studies on obedience to authority, besides all that I knew it was only a matter of time before I was called racist, sexist and homophobic for questioning the atmosphere at Occupy events in the Bay Area. There's no contempt for women, the gay community or people of color my criticisms center around, and you know it, the tendency to spotlight identity issues at the cost of, well, pretty much anything that has do do with socialism. This isn't to say we don't NEED to be fighting to end (right now, under capitalism) racism/sexism/homophobia my point is all too often people are doing so without the goal of socialism in mind.
Explain for the people in this thread the thinking behind changing the name from Occupy Oakland to Decolonize Oakland. Lets start with that. I mean, it went as far as the term "wage slavery" being called racist. Occupy Oakland turned into a circus of identity politics. You know it, I know it and the ruling class knows it and loves it.
Addition/edit: To the original poster and anyone who thumbs upped his/her post which consisted of throwing around insults, explicitly, saying I'm racist/homophobic/misogynist and full of hate for my questioning of the environment at Occupy Oakland - the person who wrote that and the people who agree with him should expand on that please. Explain yourselves if you can. Thanks. (this reminds me of 2007 when I was called racist for poking at 'socialists' who were suffering Obama fever, the same sort of people in the Bay Area pushing identity politics,clears throat, certain lifestylist anarchsts and ISO members).
glennbeck1777 wrote: You do
glennbeck1777
Half of America didn't vote for neither judging by past voter turnout.
So effectively only about a quarter of 'Muricans voted Bronco Bamma1 .
But Romney still got fewer so this is a funny point to make, glenn mabboy. God must hate the Christian Right so bad.
Where is your God now?
The tendency for people on
The tendency for people on the socialist left to do this sort of thing is common and alienates HUGE portions of the population. Besides what was just done to me in this thread there's another example of it happening on this forum. A poster in the thread concerning some idiots on facebook here:
http://libcom.org/forums/general/disturbing-comments--08012012?page=2
Post #11.
Here is the channel in question: http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights
I've criticized his sophomoric criticisms of feminism for about two years, I deleted my youtube account a few months back, youtube=yuck, but my criticisms centered around his total lack of Marxist/socialist/materialist analysis, his use of evolutionary psychology and as with the poster Transcona Slim have chipped away at his silly primitivist views but to call him a fascist is so off base I don't even know where to begin. Yes he's criticizing feminism and his criticisms are lame but does this make him a fascist? Should we oppose all criticisms by labeling people fascist, racist, misogynistic and full of hate? Do you not see the absurdity in that? Thats the path to total and complete irrelevance in my opinion.
Shouting people down with such labels/slander only serves to....well, what does it accomplish? The same thing was pushed on the poster "Mr Jolly after post 10 in this thread although much more civil, in that case actual discussion took place.
http://libcom.org/forums/general/split-afed-privilege-theory-new-starting-point-thread-01112012
Thousands of real world examples exist as well, I'm just using the posts on this site as a small example.
Also, on the topic of
Also, on the topic of "Decolonize Oakland" which was used to label me a racist, I'd be interested if any of the mods on libcom can resurrect the thread discussed here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/libcom-anarchism-people-t147585/index.html?t=147585&highlight=Libcom+native+americans
From what I gather, according to the poster who was defending "Of Martial Traditions & The Art of Rebellion" the majority of posters on libcom are also racist because they see national liberation of indigenous peoples under capitalism to have fuck all to do with socialism/anarchism. Soo...Hieronymous, what are you doing to fight this evil axis of hate and racism on libcom?
When you're done being a coward you can also address why you're trying to give me the label of misogynist and homophobic. In lieu of just "downing" my posts come at me with some content please. It's chicken shit as chicken shit can get to just label someone "racist, misogynistic/homophobic and full of hate" then just crawl into some hole and hide. Pretty easy thing to do on the internet. Anyone who's upping his posts and downing mine on the subject is free to explain to me why I'm racist,homophobic, misogynistic and full of hate. as you can tell I'm somewhat pissed off. Thanks.
Stan Milgram wrote: Also, on
Stan Milgram
CRUD, you're one to talk of content. Also, you act as if you were born yesterday, like we haven't been discussing some of these topics for years.
Hieronymous wrote: Stan
Hieronymous
I looked up the poster 'crud's' comments surrounding Native American struggles and sorry to tell you that poster, from what I read, would be on board with "Decolonize Oakland". Plus anyone with the name 'crud' by definition is probably going to be full of shit.
crud (krd)
n.
1. Slang
a. A coating or an incrustation of filth or refuse.
b. Something loathsome, despicable, or worthless.
c. One who is contemptible or disgusting.
2. A disease or ailment, imaginary or real, especially one affecting the skin.
3. Sports Heavy, sticky snow that is unsuitable for skiing.
By definition the guy is an idiot or at the least "contemptible or disgusting". Now, lets move past your strange fixation on this crud poster (red herring much?) and get to my point. Why am I , Mike, racist sexist, homophobic, full of hate as you said? All you have to do is explain that and if you recived my PM I'd also like to know who you are and which organizations you work with here in the Bay Area. A little less anonymity might go a long way as it's quite easy to slander a person when you have no real world answering to do. Do you go around here in the Bay Area accusing everyone of racism/sexism/homophobia and hate or is this simply limited to people who don't agree with failed approaches to organizing/guiding a mass movement?
Take the wage slavery issue, you do remember that correct? Things got so absurd that the term wage slavery and the people who use it weer labeled racist. Getting ahead of myself here, why don't we start with explaining the thinking behind "Decolonize" Oakland?
The larger point here
The larger point here Hieronymous is what I was saying in the 'death of occupy" thread, that attitudes like yours are responsible for the fizzling away of participation in occupy events. You and people like you are "working class repellent". Your mindframe is that the working class is so racist, so misogynistic and full of hate that at all mass actions against capitalism identity issues need to take CENTER stage. Even workers with an advanced understanding of socialism are reactionary (according to Decolonize Oakland). This was the stance of "Decolonize Oakland". That the white activists have no clue and all see/experience the world through the eyes of imperialism and need to take a back seat to the women and people of color as they lead us to a new society. It's pretty divisive stuff. It pits men against women, gays against straights, trans against feminist, women of color feminists against white feminists, super poor against the marginally poor working class so on and so forth. Decolonize Oakland went as far as to criticize workers who have a place to live, as in a small rental. Decolonize Oakland went as far as to criticize home ownership. Criticized the racist white' mentality of socialist organizers/participants in Occupy Oakland. Turned every assembly into a joke. Made the labor day march a fucking mess and mixed with the gutter punk lifestylist anarchists who think they're a sort of Leninist vanguard are solely responsible for working class participation in Occupy Oakland events dwindling down to nothing. You/they will blame cops and the city, two actors who do share responsibility in the dwindling of working class support but as I said in the other thread a serious look inward is needed before we go forward with any more prolonged or even short term "mass actions". The working class saw what we had to offer and they said NO THANKS. You know this deep down but aren't willing to admit it. Either that or you're so infused with this specific sub culture in the Bay Area activist community that you can't see it.
http://decolonizeoakland.org/
http://decolonizeoakland.org/2012/09/17/occupy-was-never-4-me-1-yr-later/
The above article/rant is just one small example. My answer to that is YES, the initial goal of mobilizing workers/people in direct action against capitalism WAS for you. It was for women, it was for people of color, it was for the gay community and it was for the homeless, the students, the factory workers, the garbageman, the janitors and air plain pilots. Hell you can even throw the astronauts into the mix. What YOU wanted was a movement ALL ABOUT YOU. Specifically you. The YOU MOVEMENT. The movement that is all 100% of the time solely focused on your identity of a homeless can collector.
Look, she writes for "POOR" led by poor indigenous people. They are the "most oppressed" and deserve a movement 100% about the issues that the poor people of color face. This all branches out with each identity issue a person latches onto and each faction ends up fighting with the other factions for control of the larger overall movement which SHOULD be about ending capitalism. It's all a fucking mess and I'm racist sexist, homophobic and full of hate for pointing this out?
Ogion wrote: Will someone
Ogion
I concur. We can't just have glennbeck telling the whole world what we're up to on the internet. That might wreck our whole 5,000 year plan for world domination. Instead of discussing this on the thread, lets just talk to one another at the next elders of zion meeting. I made a casserole, we just need a volunteer to bring drinks.
Blood of the first born?
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
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.
ocelot wrote: Can the
ocelot
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.
Quote: But that's exactly
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
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...
mons wrote: Quote: But
mons
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
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
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
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
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
Mons, I think when you say
mons
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/ourc
http://1.seiu.org/page/s/ourchicago
BETTER GIVE THE DNC THE REST OF YOUR STRIKE FUND LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111!!!!!
http://patnoble2012.org/2012/
http://patnoble2012.org/2012/11/07/we-did-it/
I think that there are major
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
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
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
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.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Jesus
Chilli Sauce
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
And where's Occupy Wall Street?
Agent of the Fifth
Agent of the Fifth International
Doing this:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/09/1172111/occupy-wall-street-debt-jubilee/
And this:
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
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
Entdinglichung
Entdinglichung
well!
For something that's in the
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?
ocelot wrote: At least two
ocelot
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
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
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.
Railyon wrote: The most
Railyon
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,
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.
syndicalistcat wrote: In the
syndicalistcat
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?
I agree about domestic
I agree about domestic tensions between the parties but a further, brief point on imperialism:
Just one hour after Obama claimed his election victory, British Prime Minister Cameron announced a new, aggressive policy initiative aimed against the present Syrian state. In the following days, this policy, that goes towards the direct arming of Syrian factions, has been bolstered by statements made by British generals to the effect that British military "assets" are ready to be deployed "in a humanitarian context", ie, against the Assad regime. Similar statements have been made by French political leaders over the same time period.
This escalation of threats follows the dumping of the discredited SNC (Syrian National Council) by the US and its setting up of a more "friendly", Syrian-based opposition coalition.
This is looking very similar to Libya where Britain and France were "led from behind" by the US war machine.