Voting. Was Air your views... godena's support for election
uls at msn.com
Sun Aug 11 17:57:58 MDT 1996
"Mr "Ang" (short for "angst"?) has me not only endorsing Democratic Party
candidates, but serving as Clinton's chief electoral agent on the Marxism
list, as well"
That's Ms. Ang to you. Ang is my name, short for Angie. Actually, I don't
have to re-read your posts to see that you are against your party's line in
this instance. It's continuing to support a party with such a line, that I
fail to understand. How misguided does a party have to be before you consider
expending your energies elsewhere?
Louis: "Enough people vote (ca. 100 million) that we can say, as I did, that
voting is "comfortably familiar" to the average American, even, I suspect,
to a substantial number of those (60-70 million) who do not vote, but who,
nonetheless, are passive participants in the electoral process."
I don't agree that those who don't vote are passive participants in the
electoral process. I don't think they don't vote out of laziness but out of
an awareness that it wouldn't make any difference in their lives. Today's NY
Times (Week in Review section) has a front page article showing that voting
participation correlates very closely to one's income. The more income, the
more belief that the system has something to offer and they vote. The poorer,
the less they vote.
Louis - "This does not mean that they approve of politicians or the particular
economic system that they serve and represent. It simply means that this
facet of bourgeois democracy still enjoys at least the tacit support of most
Of most Americans, with money that is. Which Americans is the party trying to
reach, or trying to reach first?
Louis - "You're spewing generalities that have been digested for decades and
that do not change the reality of the situation. You're words do not amount
to action They are indiscriminate projectile diarrhea, sprayed in
frustration ("angst") and spread over friend and foe alike."
Well, hopefully, this will be my last "spew" on this topic on this list. I
simply disagree that the action of supporting the elections or the action of
working in a party that does will in any way be effective.
Louis - "I do not argue on behalf of supporting Clinton,
but on behalf of participating in the electoral arena ... It is the system
with which we have to work. Look, there are two options open to serious
members of the left today. The first is to remain communists, act as an
agitational resource to analyze, build and transform, and to try to explain
to the working class what a communist society could or should mean in the
modern world. The second is to become social democrats, go into politics
under the rubric of one of the major parties (or their subsidiaries like Labor
Party Advocates), frankly accept the capitalist system, and work for whatever
limited reforms are possible within it.
and work for whatever limited reforms are possible within it.
One cannot be both a communist and a social democrat."
Isn't the Comunist Party USA the latter in this respect? "work for
whatever limited reforms are possible within it" (capitalism). Isn't that
what the party is doing (however misguided) by suggesting a vote for Clinton?
By your definitions, should it be more aptly titled the Social Democrats -
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism