Elections and Anti-War Struggle

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

Julio,

This debate has gone on forever. Yes, by all means go out and vote. But, to
be really short and to the point and to belabor a point we've all discussed
ad nauseum: not for democrats. War is an integral part of capitalist life.
THIS war is about oil and hegemony, both of great current interest to the
U.S. ruling class. Neither of the parties of the U.S. oligarchy will end
wars -- they have no strategic interest in ending wars, they're good for
business. The democrats won't even avoid THIS war (and for the Iraqui
people the ongoing bombings and sanctions are only somewhat better than
full-scale war). They all want "regime change" in favor of their class's
interests. They want to control the region's natural resources on behalf of
their capitalist constituency. What will prevent this war is massive
numbers of people in the streets and international isolation. Elections are
about electing parties (about hegemony sensu Gramsci)), not individuals, no
matter how "well-intentioned" the individuals are. Remember, even folks
like Wellstone belong(ed) to the party of Bill and Hillary, the party of
the democratic leadership council, a party of war. Vote for your class!

Mike

P.S. Here's another take on U.S. electoralism:

CounterPunch

October 28, 2002

In Defense of Not Voting
by PIERRE TRISTAM

A week from today some of us will head to the polls and vote. Most of us
won't. Voter turnout has been declining so stubbornly since the 1960s that
barely half the electorate votes in presidential elections, and only 36 to
38 percent does in off-year elections such as this one. Actual voters, in
essence, are America's newest, most powerful minority.

[...]

http://www.counterpunch.org/tristam1029.html


At 08:02 AM 10/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:21:03 -0500
> From: "Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Elections and Anti-War Struggle
>
> I don't know if this is being taken for granted in the list or what, but I'm
> going to shoot straight.  I cannot vote in the US and, again, I don't claim
> to understand all the subtleties, history, and details of US politics, but
> this seems obvious to me.
>
> The Left in the US should call people to participate in the coming
> elections.  The Left should use as much of its power and influence among
> people as it musters to call them or induce them to participate.  The people
> in this list should try to influence as many people as they can to have them
> participate.
>
> Needless to say, electoral participation does NOT exclude participation in
> anti-war activity AND/OR other organizing activities in favor of the radical
> political program of choice.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Electoral
> participation will help the anti-war movement AND will have a multiplier
> effect on the Left's organizational effort for whatever specific program
> they push.  The mass mobilization against the war will become much more
> influential and effective in the short run if a chunk of the newly elected
> Congress owes its election -- at least partially -- to anti-war voters.  As
> Hegelians know, small increments lead to binary differences.  To the extent
> that the mass mobilization against the war becomes more effective and
> actually has an impact on foreign policy, the Left organizational effort
> will yield a larger return.
>
> In my opinion, the first best choice is to vote for candidates who are
> against the war or are more likely to oppose it.  They include SUITABLE
> Democratic Party and Green Party candidates.  Of course, Democratic Party
> candidates -- incumbent Congress people -- who have advocated the war
> against Iraq and given outspoken, enthusiastic support to Bush are NOT
> SUITABLE.  The message has to be consistently anti-war.  Democratic Party
> candidates who are hesitant about the war MAY BE suitable though.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.