[Marxism] Vote for Clinton?
dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 20:35:43 MDT 2016
Hmmm...well...in many ways, Clay is restrained in his lesser-evilism.
Compared to some the crap that was thrown at Sander's during the primary
with typical "you have the privilege of voting for Sanders, I don't" sort
of pure unadulterated BS...Clay is lightweight here.
Also, I just learned Lenin was a neo-liberal economist! Wait...how did
Lenin sneak into the discussion. Deport his ass right now.
I gather this was around the open borders issue that also sort of shuck in
here. We don't have open borders and no candidate that I know of is
advocating it so why is it part of the discussion (no major party is, lot's
of socialist candidates do, however, I assume: PSL, SA, WWP etc).
Whatever...the always desperate ploy of
guilt-by-associating-one's-position-with-the-far-right is at play here.
That is a polemical tool I know so well. Reactionaries mix and match
positions depending on the circumstances. Of course neo-liberals generally
are for open borders (see the EU)...sometimes...and far-right reactionaries
(Le Pen, Trump...and Clinton) are for closing them.
20 years ago I was against NAFTA. Others on the left accused those on the
left who opposed NAFTA of "protectionism". They either refused to take a
position on NAFTA or ignored it. The more desperate argued for a "social
NAFTA" (see "Social Europe" the bankrupt Euro-left supports). Back then the
Mexican left and union movement was also opposed to NAFTA and it took
Zapitista rebellion...their single issue being opposition to the
implementation of NAFTA...to knock the US left upside the head about NAFTA
being THE tool of neoliberalism...that is privatization and austerity, not
to mention loss of sovereignty for Mexico.
But be careful... if you oppose NAFTA today it means...you are in the camp
of Trump...? Or Sanders? Or the Green Party? This is the problem with
defining your *position* based solely what the position of is of the *far
right* or by your political opponents. Fuck that shit! Take positions as it
relates *best* to defending our class against the real enemy...which the
ruling class and their toadies in the Democratic and Republican parties.
Clay complains against the "white nationalism" of the Trump camp. Lets
examine this. The main 'nationalist' position Trump takes is on
immigration. It dovetails with the Tea-Party wing (though of course his
economic policies...being 'nationalist'...are at odds with the Tea Party
historically) and with whose members overlap quite a bit with Trump's
positions. But beyond that...there is virtually no difference between Trump
*and his supporters* and that of the "traditional" Tea Party groupings.
Ergo...though I can't prove this I believe Clay's position would be exactly
the same if it was Cruz as the GOP nominee (a person who scares me a
helluva lot MORE than Trump does at every political level).
Trump getting elected would not mean, despite Clay's protestations to the
contrary "White Nationalism" in the White House. Certainly not via Trump
himself. But if you look at who were the staff members and advisors for
Ronald Reagan, these "alt-rightists" are in fact lightweight compared to
Reagan's advisors (Reagan was on the far-left of his advisory staff, just
so ha' know). Trumps overall positions don't vary that much with Clinton's.
Assuming we even really know his positions. With the exception of the
rhetorical talk about deporting 11 million undocumented workers and their
families...there isn't that much difference for people of color than we are
seeing from...Barrack "Depor 'em" Obama and Clinton. He can increase
funding to a 'special deportation brigade' or whatever he's advocating this
afternoon, but only by getting support in Congress. Secondly, besides a
huge number of unconstitutional Executive Orders there isn't much Trump can
do. Take NAFTA, which he says he opposes. Too late, it was ratified by the
Senate and can only be ratified by it. Trumps positions, to the degree they
are at odds with the GOP, means to get any of them implemented, he needs
support, which he has very little of. I suspect the Wall would get funded
after much rankling.
This whole debate, quite honestly, is the old Mussolini vs Hitler debate.
As it's gotten to this level, I see the differences between Trump (and what
he acutally do) and Clinton (and what she has actually done) a difference
without much of a distinction. In fact I would go so far and say that the
only thing stopping Trumpism is not Clinton but how we organize people
independent of these two. Because if we don't, it won't matter who is
More information about the Marxism