[Marxism] Significance of McKinney-Clemente and Obama campaigns

Mark Lause markalause at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 23:24:41 MDT 2008


Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The whole point is "to move people in the general direction which
> leads to socialism".
>
> Different people are at different starting points.
>
> Some people (like the twenty-something
> formerly-alienated-from-the-political-process rapper who has been
> enthused by the Obama campaign) will be moved in a leftward direction
> by the Obama campaign. Instead of not not thinking about politics at
> all, he will be drawn into politics through voting for Obama.
>
> Some people (who are starting from a more leftward direction,
> probably) will be moved in an even more leftward direction by McKinney
> (e.g. those now being disillusioned by Obama) now and will leave the
> fold of the Dem. Party.
>
> Some people (who are starting from a yet more leftward direction,
> probably) may be enthused by the Moore campaign.
>
> *All* these campaigns, therefore, have their uses. Even Obama's. Even Moore's.
>

The question posed was whether or not there's a qualitative difference
between backing Nader, McKinney, Moore or backing Obama.   I thought
it was an important question to pose.

Your point here seems to be reductionist in that everything has "their
uses" in allowing people to cast a vote that moves them "left."
Addressing this seems both complicated and pointless...

* Does a vote move someone "left" or reflect where they have already moved?
* In most cases, doesn't voting usually force people to ignore where
they've moved in order to cast their ballot?
* What is "left"?
* By all the criteria you mention, for some people voting for McCain
might move them to the left.,
* What conclusions are you suggesting?  It sounds like you're saying
it's all the same, etc.

ML




More information about the Marxism mailing list