Re: [Marxism] The Cuban people are not trying to intimidate us in the election

[Octob1917@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 10/30/2004 7:47:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I am also opposed to the idea that people who vote for Kerry or Bush are
"voting for war."  That question is absolutely not being presented to
them for decision, regardless of what they think of it.  One thing this
election is not is a referendum on the war.  That matter is being
decided entirely elsewhere.  The two party system is about preserving
and deepening that situation.  Workers or others who vote for Kerry or
Bush are not voting for war because they have no choice in the matter. I
don't believe anyone is committing an unforgivable political crime by
voting for one of the imperialist parties.  The next few years will be a
valuable learning experience for all of us (actually, especially if
Kerry wins -- I admit I have grown a bit weary of the stereotyped form
that left politics has taken in the Bush years.

There's much I find to disagree with in your post, but this part in
particular I find baffling. With respect to the war the question doesn't have 
to be out
to workers, both parties are war parties and the continuation of the war is a
given whichever wins. Now, that to me indicates that a vote for any party is
in fact a vote for war, regardless if that question is presented as such, it
is in fact. Louis was right when he stated that somewhere principle has to
enter the equation. Rather than vote for Kerry I would prefer NOT to vote; after
all, not voting is a political statement in itself. In my opinion, no socialist
has any business voting for any Presidential candidate pursuing an agenda of
imperialism overseas and and a racist class war at home. Do you deny, btw,
that a class war is being waged at home? I ask you this because neither of the
two pro-capitalist candidates have presented that question to the workers
either, despite all the available and overwhelming evidence that it is so.

Following your argument to its logical end, we should base all our opinions
and actions regarding either candidate on what they say rather than what they
do, or on the history of the party they represent?

Comrade, surely that's the wrong position for any socialist to take.

To my mind, the focus we are placing on an election to decide which section
of the US ruling class continues economic, political, cultural, and military
hegemony over the world is worrying enough. But to attempt to promote one
pro-imperialist and capitalist candidate over another has me demoralised over 
the
state of the US Left (such as it is).

It is hard work trying to build a radical, grassroots movement. Giving up
your free time to organise meetings and actions which attract a smattering of
people can be soul destroying. But we should never delude ourselves, regardless
of how hard and demoralising it is to try and mobilise and educate people, into
thinking that a bourgeois election can in any shape or form offer anything to
the workers and oppressed communities anything other than more of the same.

The Cuban people live at the sharp end of a savage US imperialism. Walter
spoke to a few who think Kerry would be better for them. The objective 
conditions
they exist under have obviously influenced their opinion. However, the facts
speak for themselves. Kerry has made bellicose statements during his campaign
about Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela. He voted for the war and he voted
for the Patriot Act. Worst of all, for me, he's stood up and bragged about his
involvement in Vietnam, where he killed people struggling for the same self
determination the Iraqis are struggling for now. Even if only for the memory of
those courageous Vietnamese he slaughtered in the name of imperialism, I would
spit in Kerry's face.



Joe

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism