[Marxism] what is Antiwar.com?

LouPaulsen at comcast.net LouPaulsen at comcast.net
Wed Jun 9 10:32:27 MDT 2004


> > Of course I hope Kerry wins! He says he's for visits,
> > for remittances, for our right to travel. D-u-h!

Lou Proyect: 

> I guess you intend to vote for him. Why so coy about saying this outright?


Come on, Lou, there is a difference between hoping and voting.  Just because you reject "lesser-evil voting", it doesn't mean that you have to argue the position that both candidates are mathematically equally evil for everybody.

Arguing about what you should "hope for" is sort of strange for materialists to do anyway.  However, I predict that if Bush wins it will pose some political problems, because all the ABB types will be screaming bloody revenge against Nader, socialists, etc., and it will be an unpleasant political climate.  But does that make you think I am going to vote for Kerry?  I hope not! :-)

Lou Paulsen
member, WWP, Chicago

> Walter Lippmann wrote:
> > I certainly hope Kerry wins, don't you?
> I think there are arguments for preferring a wounded Bush, actually. But 
> in any case, I have never thought in such terms.
> > It's ALWAYS better when the more liberal candidate wins.
> > That way it helps exhaust the residual illusions which
> > most people on the political left, or who might be moved
> > in a leftward direction, continue to retain.
> This is the same confusion I addressed in my reply to the 
> Phelps-Brenner-Luce article that circulated on Portside. In "Infantile 
> Disorder", Lenin advocated voting for the Labor Party in Great Britain 
> because workers had never gone through experience of having a 
> "socialist" government. You could not win them directly to revolution 
> without allowing them to see the bankruptcy of reformism. What in the 
> world does this have to do with a ruling class party that was the 
> preferred choice of the American slavocracy and that bombed Hiroshima 
> and Nagasaki?
> > Back in the olden days gone by, the SWP made a habit of
> > running against the most liberal Democrats they could
> > find: Ron Daniels, Bella Abzug and so on. How silly.
> Ron Daniels ran as an independent in 1992. This was an important 
> initiative for black political action of the kind that Malcolm X 
> advocated. Abzug was a conventional liberal.
> > Of course I hope Kerry wins! He says he's for visits,
> > for remittances, for our right to travel. D-u-h!
> I guess you intend to vote for him. Why so coy about saying this outright?
> > In the real world where Bush and his team invaded 
> > Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti, and targets Cuba as well, 
> > primarily for electoral reasons, there certainly IS a 
> > difference between the two candidates which ought to 
> > be clear to all. Even to self-designated "Marxists".
> "Bush and his team" did not invade these countries. The US military did, 
> with congressional approval--including Kerry.
> > p.s., you haven't mentioned Nader and if you're still
> > planning on putting you energies into his campaign:
> > http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_07/index1.html 
> Would you explain what Nader said in this interview that you find so 
> dastardly? I have read it several times and it seems far better than 
> anything coming from Kerry. For example:
> Pat Buchanan: Should homosexuals have the same right in law to form 
> marriages and receive marriage licenses from the state as men and women?
> Ralph Nader: Yes, and if you had that, you wouldn’t have to use the word 
> “marriage.” The reason “gay marriage” is used is because state laws 
> connect certain benefits with that word. As a lesbian leader was quoted 
> saying in the New York Times a few weeks ago, the issue is not the word 
> “marriage.” The word is “equality.”
> -- 
> The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

More information about the Marxism mailing list