Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
NADER/PSL VS. OBAMA/MCKINNEY
a posting directed at socialist and anarchist activists. i argue that the most consistent pro-socialist / pro-anarchist perspective against the bipartisan dictatorship in the united states and for anti-capitalism and peace would call for participation in the nader or better yet, the party of socialism and liberation campaigns.
i object that the only two legitimate alternatives to obama (a liberal imperialist) and mc cain (a conservative imperialist) - from the perspective of the PRO-SOCIALIST sector – could be ralph nader at minimum, and the campaign recently initiated by the party for socialism and liberation at best (where it might be on the ballot). when i state this i am proceeding from the perspective that THE POINT of these campaigns is not to get-out-the-vote for nader or the psl. pro-socialist and “marxist” persons should know better than anyone that the 2008 election is as fixed as where those in 2000 and 2004, and that given the reality of endemic voter fraud, through list purges and voting machine rigging, there is no guarantee the votes casted will be counted accurately. the aim is not either to seek to “pressure obama” or “keep him accountable” because obama is already bought and paid for by the business interests that fund him, and he has never been a part of “the left” to begin with.
pro-socialist persons seek to become ACTIVE with these alternative left campaigns between now and november 4th, to organise in favour of platform positions that aim to expose the electoral public to social and ecological perspectives and SOLUTIONS that are marginalised from public discourse in context of this false election process. i interject the term “false”, because i am clear, further, that the election constitutes a stage managed media event designed to refurbish the “democratic” credentials of united states imperialism at a time of domestic and global (food, energy and credit) crisis of neoliberal capitalism. by "legitimate" and "independent", i mean that the nader and psl campaigns are in no way connected (directly or indirectly) to the democrat party or receive funding from it or from pro-democrat foundations associated with it. as i wrote before: i take issue with the idea that dennis kucinich and cynthia mckinney represent a progressive agenda, the first is actually a [bait and switch] democrat party agent of disinformation whose task is to mislead the subjective left into dead ends; [mc kinney] is a democrat party operative who presides over the hijacking and transformation of the united states green party into a democrat party front group that backhandedly campaigns for obama by not challenging him. the proof is in that the green party is calling for votes for mckinney only in so called "safe states". a legitimate effort to present a left antinomian agenda must take as its starting point the premise that a TOTAL break with the democrat party is necessary in order to articulate and build an independent campaign.
as a concluding objection, I propose that the correct choice for pro-socialist persons in the united states should be to BECOME INVOLVED with the party of socialism and liberation in states where they appear on the ballot, and with the nader campaign in states where the psl is not on the ballot.
http://www.votepsl.org/
http://www.votenader.org/
- neo.
Discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/
pro-socialist persons seek to become ACTIVE with these alternative left campaigns between now and november 4th, to organise in favour of platform positions that aim to expose the electoral public to social and ecological perspectives and SOLUTIONS that are marginalised from public discourse in context of this false election process. i interject the term “false”, because i am clear, further, that the election constitutes a stage managed media event designed to refurbish the “democratic” credentials of united states imperialism at a time of domestic and global (food, energy and credit) crisis of neoliberal capitalism. by "legitimate" and "independent", i mean that the nader and psl campaigns are in no way connected (directly or indirectly) to the democrat party or receive funding from it or from pro-democrat foundations associated with it. as i wrote before: i take issue with the idea that dennis kucinich and cynthia mckinney represent a progressive agenda, the first is actually a [bait and switch] democrat party agent of disinformation whose task is to mislead the subjective left into dead ends; [mc kinney] is a democrat party operative who presides over the hijacking and transformation of the united states green party into a democrat party front group that backhandedly campaigns for obama by not challenging him. the proof is in that the green party is calling for votes for mckinney only in so called "safe states". a legitimate effort to present a left antinomian agenda must take as its starting point the premise that a TOTAL break with the democrat party is necessary in order to articulate and build an independent campaign.
as a concluding objection, I propose that the correct choice for pro-socialist persons in the united states should be to BECOME INVOLVED with the party of socialism and liberation in states where they appear on the ballot, and with the nader campaign in states where the psl is not on the ballot.
http://www.votepsl.org/
http://www.votenader.org/
- neo.
Discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/
For more information:
http://redsquare2.blogspot.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There is a real opportunity to include a third-party candidate in the Google, Inc./YouTube debates scheduled for Sept. 18th in New Orleans. The threshold for inclusion is 10% in three national polls. This is lower than the "official" presidential debates controlled by the Commission of Presidential Debates headed up by the ex-heads of Democratic and Republican Party set at 15% and the corporate sponsored group that wrested control from the League of Women Voters in 1988.
If you would like to hear an alternative voice included as opposed to just the bought-and-sold two party corporate owned $500 million dollar candidates, please write to:
Ms. Ginny Hunt
Elections Program Manager
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheater Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
snail mail has the most impact and we all know the debates would be much more interesting with Ralph Nader in them. Thanks!
Lynda Hernandez
If you would like to hear an alternative voice included as opposed to just the bought-and-sold two party corporate owned $500 million dollar candidates, please write to:
Ms. Ginny Hunt
Elections Program Manager
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheater Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
snail mail has the most impact and we all know the debates would be much more interesting with Ralph Nader in them. Thanks!
Lynda Hernandez
Speaking personally:
I am a green party activist. I never heard anyone say that Cynthia McKinney or the Green Party will use a safe states strategy this year.
Can you point me to something on her web-site, or from a green list-serve, even, that suggests that?
I think you are just wrong.
Also, I have seen Cynthia publish critiques of Obama. And, there is very strong commentary that she did on a Cirius Radio show about Malcolm X that basically suggested that Obama was sent to mislead black people.
Cynthia McKinney is the real thing.
And, even if a Green Party candidate chooses to do safe states, as has happened in the past, greens in the grassroots will promote them in every state. Cynthia McKinney is not safe states. But, even when a top of the ticket candidate tries a strategy like that, once they are on the ballot, the grassroots can just push through and promote the candidate themselves in every state.
I am a green party activist. I never heard anyone say that Cynthia McKinney or the Green Party will use a safe states strategy this year.
Can you point me to something on her web-site, or from a green list-serve, even, that suggests that?
I think you are just wrong.
Also, I have seen Cynthia publish critiques of Obama. And, there is very strong commentary that she did on a Cirius Radio show about Malcolm X that basically suggested that Obama was sent to mislead black people.
Cynthia McKinney is the real thing.
And, even if a Green Party candidate chooses to do safe states, as has happened in the past, greens in the grassroots will promote them in every state. Cynthia McKinney is not safe states. But, even when a top of the ticket candidate tries a strategy like that, once they are on the ballot, the grassroots can just push through and promote the candidate themselves in every state.
If she ever endorses Obama I would be severely disappointed-- but I do not see any indication of that.
As the majority of mesmerized and feckless progressives line up behind the lesser-evil Obama-- the Green Party and Naderites have been pushed to the extreme margins. They have earned widespread respect-- only among the more literate.
Let's hope for a real debate at which both or either Nader and McKinney could be included. But don't hold your breath.
The Powers That Be need a fresh and obliging face like Obama's to take the heat for a disasterous economy and a world of mayhem-- created by the Duopoly for the sake of the few to enrich themselves from bargain basement prices.
Just like the facts about 9/11, the disappointing facts about Obama are out there on the internet for anyone to scoop up; but denial runs deep among Americans today.
As the majority of mesmerized and feckless progressives line up behind the lesser-evil Obama-- the Green Party and Naderites have been pushed to the extreme margins. They have earned widespread respect-- only among the more literate.
Let's hope for a real debate at which both or either Nader and McKinney could be included. But don't hold your breath.
The Powers That Be need a fresh and obliging face like Obama's to take the heat for a disasterous economy and a world of mayhem-- created by the Duopoly for the sake of the few to enrich themselves from bargain basement prices.
Just like the facts about 9/11, the disappointing facts about Obama are out there on the internet for anyone to scoop up; but denial runs deep among Americans today.
Look for one thing I'm an (A)narchist. and WIll never vote for millionaire Nader and lawyer Gonzo. Nader represents nothing that is good for anarchists. In fact his donations to the 2000 campaign makes him nothing more than an opportunist, greedy capitalist that IS EGO-driven. EGO MANIAC.
Second, if your a devoted socialist, as the posting suggests,
WHY ARE YOU NOT PUSHING FOR A SOCIALIST CANDIDATE? There and socialist candidates and you chose this route. Strange...
Second, if your a devoted socialist, as the posting suggests,
WHY ARE YOU NOT PUSHING FOR A SOCIALIST CANDIDATE? There and socialist candidates and you chose this route. Strange...
The embrace of key elements of the Republican agenda and jettisoning
of positions that he advanced during his "Change you can believe in"
primary campaign have become a daily routine, as the Democratic
Party's presumptive presidential candidate Barack Obama carries out
a dizzying turn to the right.
In speeches and press appearances on Wednesday and Thursday, Obama
continued to identify his campaign with support for American
militarism, while backing away from his primary-campaign pledge to
withdraw US combat forces from Iraq based on a definite timetable.
Appearing Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Obama delivered a speech on
national service, which hailed the US military and vowed to swell
its ranks.
While proposing the expansion of Americorps, the Peace Corps and
other civilian entities, Obama made it clear that the main service
to which he intended to call young Americans was the military.
He began by invoking the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New
York City and Washington and lamenting the failure of the Bush
administration to issue "a call to service" and "a call for shared
sacrifice."
"There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and
our values," he continued, praising the actions of US
troops "fighting a resurgent Taliban" and "persevering in the
deserts and cities of Iraq."
What "values" are embodied in the systematic destruction of the
Afghan and Iraqi societies and the killing and maiming of millions
of civilians in the attempt to impose US hegemony over oil-rich
regions of the planet, the Democratic candidate did not spell out.
of positions that he advanced during his "Change you can believe in"
primary campaign have become a daily routine, as the Democratic
Party's presumptive presidential candidate Barack Obama carries out
a dizzying turn to the right.
In speeches and press appearances on Wednesday and Thursday, Obama
continued to identify his campaign with support for American
militarism, while backing away from his primary-campaign pledge to
withdraw US combat forces from Iraq based on a definite timetable.
Appearing Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Obama delivered a speech on
national service, which hailed the US military and vowed to swell
its ranks.
While proposing the expansion of Americorps, the Peace Corps and
other civilian entities, Obama made it clear that the main service
to which he intended to call young Americans was the military.
He began by invoking the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New
York City and Washington and lamenting the failure of the Bush
administration to issue "a call to service" and "a call for shared
sacrifice."
"There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and
our values," he continued, praising the actions of US
troops "fighting a resurgent Taliban" and "persevering in the
deserts and cities of Iraq."
What "values" are embodied in the systematic destruction of the
Afghan and Iraqi societies and the killing and maiming of millions
of civilians in the attempt to impose US hegemony over oil-rich
regions of the planet, the Democratic candidate did not spell out.
For more information:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/...
reply to Lynda Hernandez: definitely, all afforts must be made to support the idea of inclusion for alternative candidates. one of the primary means by which the bipartisan dictatorship maintains power (other than ‘repressive tolerance’ and ‘regulated dissent’) is through the process of manufactured consent (a term coined by noam chomsky); by limiting the scope of the discussion, the bipartisan regime dictates the nature of “the possible” and “the realistic”. in this process they enlist the corporate media. note how this “Commission of Presidential Debates” is headed by ex-leaders of democrat and republican parties. independents have absolutely no representation.
reply to Kimberly Wilder: i refer you to the greens for nader website [ ]. under no circumstance should a “safe states” approach be tolerated by an independent party of the left. why should independents limit themselves? obama and the democrat party do not have any entitlement to anyone’s vote. If obama wants a vote or involvement from a person in his campaign then he should offer something concrete and tangible in return for it. “safe states” is just another version of the “lesser evil”. note that the important thing for independent greens, naderites, socialists and anarchists is not to vote or to seek the vote. That should be THE LEAST and THE LAST priority. the important thing is to utilise the independent left campaigns as TOOLS for grassroots organising. to create the grass roots synergy that then could produce a mass pro-democracy movement for social, ecological and peace solutions. i warn you that the process of co-option directed against the green party of the united states begun in the late 1990’s under the clinton regime. a time when “left-democrat” elements previously purged from the democrat party (following the dlc take over of that wing of the bipartisan dictatorship after 1992), penetrated and colonised the united states green movement. the earth first/deep ecology and eco-feminist factions were marginalised and consequently the original agitational platform and ten key values declaration was watered down. (you can check this fact by comparing the ten key values declaration used by the greens in the early 1990’s with subsequent ones issued after 1996). The influence of democrat colonists made it more difficult for greens to organise grass roots opposition against the bush coup d’etat in 2000. the process of take over i describe peaked in 2004 with the purge of naderites and the hijacking of the organisation. This move was spearheaded by the cobb leadership. it was under the cobb campaign that the “safe states” sell out was institutionalised as party doctrine. Fortunately, greens for nader emerged as a left opposition to this development. The challenge for greens to-day is to TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY. toss out the democrat elements, restore your original ten key values and become active in organising a grass roots socio-ecological pro-democracy movement from the ground up – independent of the bipartisan dictatorship and against it.
reply to SF Green: you hit it right in the nail. the background to this election is a very dire and negative world picture. there is an ongoing alarm over the possibility of the iraq and afghanistan wars merging into a full blown central asian war of annihilation if israel is allowed to attack iran. there is a “silent tsunami” of food, energy and credit crisis. foreclosures and stagflatation dangers in the developed world and possible hyperinflationary anarchy in the global south (zimbabwe style negative anarchy). I hate to sound like I am being patronising, but the united states left is about the only community that could possibly turn the slow burn towards global chaos. THE U.S. LEFT MUST GET ITS ACT TOGETHER. The united states system is the epicentre and generator of the storm (europe, russia and china only amplify the global mess). the united states must be turned around if there is any hope. THAT would then create the conditions for the kind of global shift of power that would bring change into other continents. The aim must be another global order of ecological and social justice and peace. This is always possible- if people act.
reply to Bill Meilser: yes i am very serious. if you are an anarchist, of course you know better than to go for nader. from your perspective he is the least progressive of all the indepentdent left candidates out there. i share your perspective. however, from the perspective of those who are just beggining to question the democrat party, his campaign is the starting point and this is why socialists and anarchists should at least nod if someone feels inclined to get involved with what he represents as a symbol. for the anarchist community, the historical settlement to "the electoral question" is ABSTENTION (i.e electing to not vote - as with the spanish cnt-fai in the 1930's). the anarchist community thus campaigns against the election itself, pointing out that the process is but a form of the capitalist spectacle (ref: guy debord), and in the specific case of the united states a process that is stagemanaged and rifdlled with fraud (list purges, provisional ballots that are never counted, rigged voting machines, etc.).
note that i am not calling for a vote for nader or the psl per-se, rather i am calling for the far left to engage. my appeal reduces to arguing that: 1) independent greens should get involved with greens for nader and work to take their party back; 2) naderites should become involved with nader; 3) socialists/"reds" should get involved with the psl. one could both go to iso meetings or read the world socialist website and still take some time to help out with the psl in states where they are on the ballot, or to help out with the nader campaign in states where the psl is not on the ballot. the iso is not endorsing anyone and wsws/sep are not running anyone this year, but both are quite active in working to expose obama. the workers world party is unfortunately officially endorsing mckinney, but they are not enforcing "the line" on members. 4) anarchists should campaign for principled abstention while denouncing the endemic fraud that is organic to the election spectacle. if all the aforementioned was done, i think the foundations could be established for the re-emergence of a far left in the united states that could serve as basis for a future pro-democracy movement for social, ecological and peace solutions. i.e to turn ther united states around before the machine kills everyone on ther planet and the planet itself. - neo.
reply to Kimberly Wilder: i refer you to the greens for nader website [ ]. under no circumstance should a “safe states” approach be tolerated by an independent party of the left. why should independents limit themselves? obama and the democrat party do not have any entitlement to anyone’s vote. If obama wants a vote or involvement from a person in his campaign then he should offer something concrete and tangible in return for it. “safe states” is just another version of the “lesser evil”. note that the important thing for independent greens, naderites, socialists and anarchists is not to vote or to seek the vote. That should be THE LEAST and THE LAST priority. the important thing is to utilise the independent left campaigns as TOOLS for grassroots organising. to create the grass roots synergy that then could produce a mass pro-democracy movement for social, ecological and peace solutions. i warn you that the process of co-option directed against the green party of the united states begun in the late 1990’s under the clinton regime. a time when “left-democrat” elements previously purged from the democrat party (following the dlc take over of that wing of the bipartisan dictatorship after 1992), penetrated and colonised the united states green movement. the earth first/deep ecology and eco-feminist factions were marginalised and consequently the original agitational platform and ten key values declaration was watered down. (you can check this fact by comparing the ten key values declaration used by the greens in the early 1990’s with subsequent ones issued after 1996). The influence of democrat colonists made it more difficult for greens to organise grass roots opposition against the bush coup d’etat in 2000. the process of take over i describe peaked in 2004 with the purge of naderites and the hijacking of the organisation. This move was spearheaded by the cobb leadership. it was under the cobb campaign that the “safe states” sell out was institutionalised as party doctrine. Fortunately, greens for nader emerged as a left opposition to this development. The challenge for greens to-day is to TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY. toss out the democrat elements, restore your original ten key values and become active in organising a grass roots socio-ecological pro-democracy movement from the ground up – independent of the bipartisan dictatorship and against it.
reply to SF Green: you hit it right in the nail. the background to this election is a very dire and negative world picture. there is an ongoing alarm over the possibility of the iraq and afghanistan wars merging into a full blown central asian war of annihilation if israel is allowed to attack iran. there is a “silent tsunami” of food, energy and credit crisis. foreclosures and stagflatation dangers in the developed world and possible hyperinflationary anarchy in the global south (zimbabwe style negative anarchy). I hate to sound like I am being patronising, but the united states left is about the only community that could possibly turn the slow burn towards global chaos. THE U.S. LEFT MUST GET ITS ACT TOGETHER. The united states system is the epicentre and generator of the storm (europe, russia and china only amplify the global mess). the united states must be turned around if there is any hope. THAT would then create the conditions for the kind of global shift of power that would bring change into other continents. The aim must be another global order of ecological and social justice and peace. This is always possible- if people act.
reply to Bill Meilser: yes i am very serious. if you are an anarchist, of course you know better than to go for nader. from your perspective he is the least progressive of all the indepentdent left candidates out there. i share your perspective. however, from the perspective of those who are just beggining to question the democrat party, his campaign is the starting point and this is why socialists and anarchists should at least nod if someone feels inclined to get involved with what he represents as a symbol. for the anarchist community, the historical settlement to "the electoral question" is ABSTENTION (i.e electing to not vote - as with the spanish cnt-fai in the 1930's). the anarchist community thus campaigns against the election itself, pointing out that the process is but a form of the capitalist spectacle (ref: guy debord), and in the specific case of the united states a process that is stagemanaged and rifdlled with fraud (list purges, provisional ballots that are never counted, rigged voting machines, etc.).
note that i am not calling for a vote for nader or the psl per-se, rather i am calling for the far left to engage. my appeal reduces to arguing that: 1) independent greens should get involved with greens for nader and work to take their party back; 2) naderites should become involved with nader; 3) socialists/"reds" should get involved with the psl. one could both go to iso meetings or read the world socialist website and still take some time to help out with the psl in states where they are on the ballot, or to help out with the nader campaign in states where the psl is not on the ballot. the iso is not endorsing anyone and wsws/sep are not running anyone this year, but both are quite active in working to expose obama. the workers world party is unfortunately officially endorsing mckinney, but they are not enforcing "the line" on members. 4) anarchists should campaign for principled abstention while denouncing the endemic fraud that is organic to the election spectacle. if all the aforementioned was done, i think the foundations could be established for the re-emergence of a far left in the united states that could serve as basis for a future pro-democracy movement for social, ecological and peace solutions. i.e to turn ther united states around before the machine kills everyone on ther planet and the planet itself. - neo.
For more information:
http://redsquare2.blogspot.com/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network