Voting. Was Air your views... godena's support for election

Ang uls at
Sun Aug 11 00:35:49 MDT 1996

Louis G. writes:
"Mr H,  Surely you know that there is a slight difference between "supporting"
(whatever that amorphous term implies) candidates familiar, for better or
worse, to the American voter, and urging that voter to abstain
altogether from a ritual which feels comfortably ordinary to the average

I don't agree with your premise, that voting feels
comfortably ordinary to the  "average person".  A large segment of the
population doesn't participate in the
elections at all.  And I don't think the ones that do, vote "comfortably"
either.  They're always unhappy with the choices, maybe even now, more than
usual.  And
supporting a democratic candidate wouldn't appear to
exploit these attitudes.

Louis  -  "This is something that some element of the left
tries in virtually every presidential election...      ("Don't
 vote!  The capitalist party candidates are all the same!")    All These
shared the dubious feature of having absolutely no impact on anything."

Do you think your communist party's support of
democratic candidates has had any impact on anything positive?   Can you point
to some past victories in that regard, things you are proud of that were
achieved by the candidates you supported or some new headway in
building your revolutionary party?  This is not an effective argument.  Just
because someone's method hasn't been successful means nothing if the method
you support
hasn't either.

Louis - "Calls to abstain from the familiar four year ritual
must be credible.    And in order to be credible they need
to have as their author groups or parties that have sunk
roots deeply enough into the body politic to be listened
to and taken seriously. "

Don't try anything unless it has a real chance at
succeeding immediately - unless it's credible?  How
would you ever begin anything?  How could a group supporting Clinton ever be
"credible" to anyone?
How do you think supporting a candidacy like Clinton's
could possibly help a party sink any roots?  Who could
take the Clinton candidacy seriously?  Which comes
first the chicken, or the egg?  And speaking of chickens,

Louis -  "There are enough Chicken Littles abroad in our morose kingdom to
last a hundred elections."

Well, isn't the sky falling now for the average person?
But yeah, you're right, let's all just take a happy pill,
talking truth is just too morose.

Louis  - "What is needed are serious revolutionaries
 willing to work long and hard within the nasty realities of American
political life,including the pursuit of electoral politics,  build a serious
revolutionary movement that can
go on to become an alternative to politics--with all the
hazards that that entails--and then issue calls for mass actions that,  yes,
actually means something."

So what you're saying is, let us pretend?  Let us not rock
the boat until we're accepted, let's participate in the
process and then later come out for the truth, that the
process is itself bogus?  Cause it's a "reality", "nasty"
as it may be?  Your excuse that there's no choice, it's
just the realities, the "nasty realties of American political
life" reminds me of that sick feeling I get when thinking of
the excuses given by the U.S. Gov't to justify our foreign
policy or the average district attorney in fighting crime
when caught associating with criminals and supporting
thugs - well, it's to get at bigger thugs, because it's the
nasty realty.  Compromising comes too easy to you.
 What other compromises might you make, what other
frauds might you participate in, just because that's the
way things happen to be at the time, as long as it's for
the future good?  Sorry, it's hard for me not to get bitter
on this topic.

Louis - "Kapisch?"

No, still no capisco.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list