[Marxism] A nickel's worth of difference?
davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Wed Aug 11 12:54:24 MDT 2004
I'm not sure what your point is, Walter? For example, you start off
by saying that Bush should be defeated. You then go on to say
that Kerry won't offer an alternative program to Bush, that he will
essentially be mere cloan of Bush policy-wise. And then you end
off by quoting Alarcon saying this much.
So if Kerry won't offer an alternative for American workers, why slag
people for going after him? The other option, of course, is to say
that Bush "needs to be defeated". And then what? Elect Kerry of
course. At least, that's the implicit message behind that slogan,
whether or not YOU ascribe to that goal.
So, assuming Kerry "the liberal" gets elected, you can then bet
you bottom dollar that this whole stupid "two party" charade will
start from scratch. Except the next time around the focus will
become: Is Kerry" too soft", "too liberal"?
"Is he too much of a spender"? "Is he too weak on terrorism"? etc.
I think the point of focusing on Kerry is to show that he is NO
alternative to Bush. Rather he is just another rich man's cloan of
Bush, not to mention every other American president preceding
them. The aim should be to make Americans aware that until they
choose an alternative to the two main parties (and better yet to
electoral politics), little if any change for the better will come about.
The "defeat Bush" slogan only serves to perpetuate the notion that
the Bush presidency represents an anamoly in American foreign
Obviously if one really wants to split hairs, could one make this
point. I don't think it takes much brain power to know that NO
fundamental differences exist between Bush and Presidents before
Under Bush, conditions erose (namely, 9-11) that allowed policy
abroad to be carried out perhaps with a degree of openess that has
generally been hidden from the American public with previous
military "interventions" (at least those of recent years). Although
the vicisiousness and barbarity of them was just as evident under
Clinton's tenure (e.g, with Yugoslavia and his "preemptive strikes"
in Sudan, etc), and I imagine this held true for every other miltary
intervention carried out throughout the centuries in the name of the
From: "Walter Lippmann" <walterlx at earthlink.net>
> There seem to be no attacks on Bush posted to Marxmail,
> only attacks on Kerry. I keep wondering why that is?
> Bush is a terrible president and he should be defeated!
> Saying he should be defeated isn't the same as saying
> Kerry should be embraced, but Bush SHOULD be repudiated.
> It surprises me that so few people on Marxmail actually
> say Bush should be defeated. Maybe that's because some
> think it would be better if he WEREN'T defeated?
> It would be a great thing for the world if Bush were
> repudiated by the public in the United States. And to
> say that, doesn't say Kerry is better, but I do think
> that the protest movements would in fact be energized
> if Bush were repudiated, and they would also protest
> Kerry's war moves when the inevitably come.
> Cuba's Ricardo Alarcon looked at the US elections and
> observed, in part (excerpted from the full article):
> With regard to Cuba, Alarcón said, the Democratic
> challenger has made it clear that he will continue to try
> to destroy the nation's political, social and economic
> systems. More of the same, Alarcón said, although he
> admitted that it was difficult for a person with Bush's
> absurd anti-Cuban policies to have emerged,
> Nevertheless, Alarcón reiterated that Bush stole the
> election in 2000, waged war on Iraq with fallacious
> arguments, took the U.S. economy which held $500 billion
> and would return it (if he lost the election) with a $500
> billion deficit, and he is the first U.S. president who
> must admit that he did not create jobs in his country but
> instead reduced them.
> The results of the November elections will depend on
> whether millions of Americans, still deceived by Bush, will
> open their eyes, he predicted.
> Nevertheless, he stressed, Kerry does not offer a
> government program that is really an alternative to Bush.
> The person who has an alternative program is Ralph Nader
> [the independent candidate], but we already know in view
> of the traditional structures of U.S. elections that he
> will not win, Alarcón said.
> "No Illusions in Cuba about the Democrats"
> Meanwhile, the Bush campaign redbaits John Kerry on Cuba:
More information about the Marxism