Anarchists around the country are voting for Kerry and against war

give me a fucking break....

This doesnt even deserve a detailed counterargument. It reeks of pathetic logic.

I guess it is good to report on this phenomenon in order to expose it to the light of day, but what in the hell? We are heading into peak oil, the votes aren't going to be counted (right) in so many places, people are getting beat down by the cops every day,

every SINGLE political group that I know of is full of overextended activists who are going to burn out because there are not enough comrades to get the work done,

and you people are saying that you are voting for John Kerry because he is "antiwar?"! He is not antiwar, he just says he would do it differently.

He voted for, not against, Homeland Security. He wants to lock us up.

Take back your lives, no more John Kerry!

Voting for Kerry is a vote for war and corporate corruption. The logic that some so-called progessives and activists (and now anarchists!) are using to justify their support for Kerry and the continuing oppressive and corrupt agenda of the Democrats is disheartening. Yes Bush is worse, but they basically have the same agenda, so when do we say enough is enough? Even if I lived in Florida I would not give my vote to Kerry, he does not deserve it. So in California if you are going to let your fears dictate your vote think about this -

ELECTORAL FACTS:

- Al Gore defeated G.W. Bush by 1.3 million votes in California (12% margin of victory)

- The largest "Write In" vote in CA was 58,000 for Anti-War candidate Eugene McCarthy

- Kerry leads Bush in the polls by 11% in CA (Rasmussen Reports)

- Number of Electoral College votes Kerry will receive in CA: 55

- Number of Electoral College votes Kerry will receive in CA if you "Write In Nader: 55

Let the next president know that you are for stopping the illegal occupation of Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act, implementing universal health care, fighting corporate crime, enacting fair taxation, investing in renewable energy, democratizing global trade, and funding human needs over militarism.

Write In Nader in California!

http://www.WriteInNader.org

chris crass' million word essay starts by skimming the surface and continues skimming along til it's done.

how many times do we need to be lectured about strategy from a guy who calls himself an anarchist yet flaks for John "I supported Reagan's budget-deficit bill" Kerry? how many times do we have to be told that the fight against imperialism requires that we vote for a guy who not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but who promises to INCREASE the numbers of occupying forces there and seeks to convince/coerce the ruling classes of allied-states to send "their" working class to die for america's IMPERIAL ambitions?

mr. crass pimps for a candidate that the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war find quite palatable--and then has the nerve to hector others about the vision thing! what a comedian!...

a staple of "radicals for Kerry" is the suggestion that not voting for a corporate goon is a privilege that those on the "front-lines" can't afford. how, then, do they explain the FACT that working class people--waged and unwaged--vote at much lower rates than do their more privileged "fellow citizens"? are they stupid?

Am still voting for Leonard Peltier, imprisoned American Indian Movement activist being incarcerated at Leavenworth Kansas for a crime he did not commit. The FBI framed Leonard because he spoke out for indigenous sovereignty for people living at Pine Ridge..

This is not a strategic vote, it is a spiritual vote. The spirit transcends the useless bickering of the two headed Republocrat beast..

It is a vote for indigenous sovereignty and return of stolen land, a vote for salmon restoration and dam removal of the Klamath River, a vote to stop the continued slaughter of bison, and a vote to end coal/uranium mining on Dineh/Shoshone/Paiute lands..

Also believe we need a decentralized form of government, grass roots community organizing returning decision making to local control, not following orders from wealthy corporate politicians in DC. Neither Bush nor Kerry will help people, they will only enable corporations to further control people by giving us false hopes..

Another goal in voting for Leonard is to show support for his freedom from an unjust incarceration..

kerry voting record; makes you happy?

Abortion

Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. Motion to table Murray Amdt #397; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-148 on May 26, 1999

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999

Voted NO on maintaining a ban on military base abortions. Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000

(top)

Civil Rights / Society

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. Bill HR 1854 ; vote number 1995-317 on Jul 20, 1995

Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. Flag Desecration Bill; Bill S. J. Res. 31 ; vote number 1995-600 on Dec 12, 1995

Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. Bill S Con Res 57 ; vote number 1996-140 on May 22, 1996

Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill S. 2056 ; vote number 1996-281 on Sep 10, 1996

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. Motion to invoke cloture; Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1997-275 on Oct 23, 1997

Voted NO on banning human cloning. Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1998-23 on Mar 6, 1998

Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. Bill S.Con.Res.86 ; vote number 1998-56 on Apr 1, 1998

Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. Roth Amdt #2339; Bill H.R. 2676 ; vote number 1998-120 on May 6, 1998

Voted YES on continuing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Motion to table Smith Amdt #1569; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-260 on Aug 5, 1999

Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. Bill H Con Res 83 ; vote number 2001-65 on Apr 3, 2001

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

Defense of Marriage Act: designed to establish the legal definition of marriage as a ”union between one man and one woman.“ This definition would be binding on all agencies and programs of the federal government.
JFK voted NO

(top)

Crime

Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. Bill S 1935 ; vote number 1994-106 on May 11, 1994

Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. Bill HR.3355 ; vote number 1994-126 on May 19, 1994

Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. Conference Report on H.R. 956; Bill H. R. 956 ; vote number 1996-46 on Mar 21, 1996

Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. Bill S.735 ; vote number 1996-66 on Apr 17, 1996

Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. Bill HR 3540 ; vote number 1996-244 on Jul 25, 1996

Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. Bill S.625 ; vote number 1999-360 on Nov 10, 1999

(top)

Defense & Nat'l Security

Votes to Cut Defense Spending by 2% (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49, Apr 25, 1991)

Votes to Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182, Sep 10, 1991)

Votes to Cut $6 Billion from Defense (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73, Apr 9, 1992)

Votes Against Military Pay Raise (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73, Mar 24, 1993)

Kerry Introduces Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program

Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces
in one year.

(S.1163, Introduced Jun 24, 1993)

Introduced an amendment to SLASH defense spending by 4 billion dollars and Intelligence spending by about 1 billion. Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii had the following comments: Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor



The amendment offered by Senator Kerry would reduce the 1994 appropriations for national defense by about $4 billion. I believe the Members of this body should recall that Congress has already reduced DOD's budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each and every year of the past 10 years, Congress has cut the funds provided for defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically. ...
Now if I may comment on another section that reduces funding for intelligence programs, and this amendment would reduce such funding by about $1 billion. Madam President, the intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters of vital concern to this country.

These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea--this has been on the front pages for the past 3 or 4 months--peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Somalia, as well as terrorist threats against American citizens and property. ...

At a time like this, is it prudent to reduce funds for the very intelligence programs which we need to identify these targets? This amendment would do that. It would blind our pilots. Is this the time to cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of attacks? I hope that we will keep this in mind... If we do and this amendment passes, then we are putting blindfolds over our pilots' eyes. ...




Voted NO on the Defend America Act of 1996. This bill stated that it would be U.S. policy to deploy by the end of 2003 a national missile defense system that (1) is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attack; (2) will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats; and (3) does not feature an offensive-only form of deterrence. Newsmax

Introduces a bill to SLASH Department of Defense Funding by 6.5 Billion (S. 1580, Introduced Feb 29, 1996) (No one was willing to co-sponsor this bill!)

Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34 Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995)

Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996

Voted NO on considering deploying National Missile Defense, and amending ABM Treaty. Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996

Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban; Bill S. Res. 75 ; vote number 1997-51 on Apr 24, 1997

In 1997, the conservative Center for Security Policy awarded Kerry a score of 0 out of a possible 100 on 14 key defense votes – including funding for space-based laser programs. Newsmax

Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.; Bill S. 2159 ; vote number 1998-201 on Jul 15, 1998

Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible. Bill S 1873 ; vote number 1998-262 on Sep 9, 1998

Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999

Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999

Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999

B-2 Stealth Bomber: Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2 Stealth Bomber

(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)
(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)
(S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)

(S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)


Missile Defense: Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate Missile Defense


(S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91)
(S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91)
(H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91)
(S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92)
(S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92)
(S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93)
(S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94)
(S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95)
(S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95)
(S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98)
(S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98)
(S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96)
(S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

(top)

Education

Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. Bill S.1513 ; vote number 1994-236 on Jul 27, 1994

Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. Bill S 1956 ; vote number 1996-231 on Jul 23, 1996

Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. DC Appropriations Act; Bill S. 1156 ; vote number 1997-260 on Sep 30, 1997

Voted NO on education savings accounts. H.R. 2646 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2646 ; vote number 1998-169 on Jun 24, 1998

Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. Motion to Invoke cloture on Jeffords Amdt #31; Bill S. 280 ; vote number 1999-35 on Mar 9, 1999

Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. Bill S.1134 ; vote number 2000-33 on Mar 2, 2000

School Vouchers: this legislation would force local governments to fund religious and other private educational schools through cash vouchers to students.
JFK voted NO to vouchers.

(top)

Energy & Environment

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. Bill H.R. 4624 ; vote number 1994-255 on Aug 3, 1994

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997; Bill S. 104 ; vote number 1997-42 on Apr 15, 1997

Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999

Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-58 on Apr 6, 2000

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-71 on Apr 18, 2002

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. Bill SConRes 23 ; vote number 2003-59 on Mar 19, 2003

(top)

Guns/Hunting

Voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent of the time.

Voted with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent of the time.

Received an F from the National Rifle Association in 2002.

Received an F from Gun Owners of American for the 108th Congress.

Opposes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036 / S. 659), which grants gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immunity from lawsuits.

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

(top)

Government

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. Murkowski Amdt to S. 1061; Bill S. 1061 ; vote number 1995-339 on Jul 28, 1995

Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. Reference: S. J. Res. 1; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 1997-24 on Mar 4, 1997

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997

Voted NO, killing an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 years. Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-55 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. Bill HR.2356 ; vote number 2002-54 on Mar 20, 2002

(top)

Immigration

1996: Voted to continue chain migration which has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million today. Sen. Kerry voted AGAINST both the Simpson Amendment and the Feinstein Amendment to S. 1664.

1997: Voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the amnesty, as it was included in the DC Appropriations bill.

2000: Voted to include an amnesty for illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti in the Senate H-1B bill (S.2045). The move to include the amnesty with the H-1B legislation failed 43-55 in a procedural vote on the Senate floor.

2003: Co-sponsor of S. 1645, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003. S. 1645 would create a guest worker program that leads to amnesty for certain agricultural workers. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove 100 days of agricultural employment in the 18-month period that ended Aug. 31, 2003. Then, prior to receiving amnesty, workers would have to show 360 days of additional farm work over the next six years.

2003: Sen. Kerry is a cosponsor of S. 1545, the DREAM Act of 2003. S. 1545 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who have been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

(top)

Taxes

JFK Has Voted Against Tax Reductions and for Higher Taxes a total of 379 times! Here's 352 and here are 27 more! (PDF format)

Voted Against Spending Reductions that would reduce the national budget by $94 billion. H.R. 3759, Roll Call Vote #35: Motion To Table Adopted 65-31: R 23-19; D 42-12, Feb 9, 1994

Voted Against Bipartisan Plan To Balance Budget in seven years. S. Con. Res. 57, Roll Call Vote #150: Rejected 46-53: R 22-30; D 24-23, May 23, 1996

Voted Against Fiscally Responsible Budget that would have cut spending and taxes. H. Con. Res. 84, Roll Call Vote #92: Adopted 78-22: R 41-14; D 37-8, May 23 1997

Voted NO on FY99 tax cuts. Motion to waive CBA Re: Coverdell Amdt. # 2199; Bill S Con Res 86 ; vote number 1998-55 on Apr 1, 1998

Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. Kyl Amdt #2221; Bill S Con Res 86 ; vote number 1998-71 on Apr 2, 1998

Voted YES To Increase Gas Tax By 6 Cents Per Gallon. (S. 3209, CQ Vote #280: Rejected 45-55: R 8-37; D 37-18, 10/18/90)

In Two Votes, Said YES to a 4.3 Cents-Per-Gallon Increase In Gas Tax And 2.5 Cents-Per-Gallon Extension Of Existing Gas Tax. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. Motion to waive Congressional Budget Amendment in regards to the Gramm Amdt #1405; Bill S. 1429 ; vote number 1999-230 on Jul 29, 1999

Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. Nickles Amdt #1889; Bill S. 1650 ; vote number 1999-313 on Oct 6, 1999

Voted YES To Keep 1993 Gas Tax Increase. (H. R. 8, CQ Vote #183: Motion Rejected 40-59: R 40-15; D 0-44, 7/13/00)

Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-165 on May 23, 2001

Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003

Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times. Several times in the mid-nineties the Senate took up the Balanced Budget Amendment. Kerry voted five times against the amendment. (S. J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, 3/4/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, 6/6/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, 3/2/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. J. Res. 41, Roll Call Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, 3/1/94, Kerry Voted Nay; S. J. Res. 225, Roll Call Vote #45: Rejected 66-34: R 43-10; D 23-24, 3/25/86, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kucinich on the Issues

I am running for President to inspire America to take a new path, a different direction. I envision an America which has the capacity to reconnect with the heart of the world; an America which proceeds in the world optimistically and courageously. An America which understands that the world is interdependent, that it is inter-connected, and that what we do today impacts future generations.

I am running for President to break the shackles of fear which have deprived our citizens of rights. I am running for President to change the way this country values humanity, so that instead of fear and lies, we can live our lives based on principles of peace and hope. We need to regain the trust of the American people and we need to have a government which trusts the American people.

It's time for America to resume its glorious journey: time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights; time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. It's time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies; time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media. It's time for those who have much to help those who have little, by maintaining a progressive tax structure. It's time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true, because the government is on the side of its people.

to the person(s) who posted a fake event involving kool-aid, you might want to get your targets straight. i think chris crass is the perfect candidate (pun intended) for a glass of kool-aid. why don't you post his address with a fake event ?

and get his point of view? I mean he didn't exactly crawl out from under a rock, he's been around for a while. Are we going to boycott all his performances now? The man has a point of view and I respect him. You can flame me, cause I'm just a nobody, but has anyone asked Utah why he's voting Kerry?

what the last poster said: the utah phillips interview does have some pretty interesting thoughts.

so look. kerry sucks big dog balls. the idea is that voting against bush, voting to get him the hell out, is voting against the total overt brutality scary talking lots about god and evil kind of "fuck you all america is the world police and if you don't like it then die" kind of attitude he represents.

yes. kerry is scary. (hey it rhymes!). we willh ave to keep fighting even if he is elected. obviously. duh. whoever said we were looking for a candidate to fix it? not nader either!

the point is that bush is such a big glaring disgusting "here's the empire in your face" that we have to vote him out to show how unacceptable that is WITHIN this country. fuck, immigrants who can't even vote, and people in other countries are organizing groups for kerry just for the sake of getting bush the hell out! people in the u.s. who call themselves revolutionaries need to do some listening. to people inside these borders who are getting stepped all over, and to people in the countries we're destroying who are demanding that we get our shit together and stop bush.
'
yes, and then we'll have to continue getting stronger to keep kerry in check too. that is a fact. but let's at least pass our opinion and show the world that what the bush regime is doing does not get americans to sign up for a second round of it. we have a responsibility here folks. one that continues way past election day, but this is important.

Ok, so poor/working class people, generally the more disempowered elements of our society don't tend to vote much, ok, I'll stipulate to that.

Um, how exactly has that helped anything? SHOW ME how it has deligitamized the state. SHOW ME how it has empowered people. This idea that snce poor and working class folks do x so therefor x must be the revolutionary thing to do is a very weird way to approach things. Some kind of deification of poor folks, which is neither strategic or respectful.

Voting is no magic solution to anything...voting for Kerry is kind of like an amputation without anasthetic...but 4 more years of bushco is very very bad news. for you, for me, for most everyone (except his base of the 'have-mores')

The list rose posted is interesting because Kerry's record, frankly, is more liberal than I would have expected. However, it's incomplete because it doesn't mention that Kerry:

Supported the 80s Gramm-Rudman deficit spending bill which was designed as a pretext to slash social spending big-time under Reagan (and now brags about "breaking with his party" to vote for it.)

Voted against the "First Gulf War" but quickly changed his tune and became a cheer-leader

Supported sanctions against Iraq that killed tens of thousands

Supported extension of the World Trade Organization

Supported NAFTA

Supported Clinton's "welfare reform"

Supported Clinton's "Counter-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act"

Supported the war in the former-Yugoslavia

Supported the Patriot Act

Supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

Supported No Child Left Behind (a boon to testing corporations).

Running for president, kerry has pledged to keep military expenditures massive, increase the number of occupying forces in Iraq, and strengthen ties with Israel. He has positioned himself to the right of Bush regarding Iran as well as in terms of relations with Venezuela. Kerry seeks to mend international alliances that helped get the US through Mai Lai and the wars in Central America. His top economic advisers include Robert Rubin from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup (former Treasury Sec. under Clinton), Wall Street mogul Roger Altman, billionaire investor Warren Buffet, and Chrysler Corp. Chairman Lee Iacoaca--their main concern, taken together, is for a bipartisan deal to cut deficits (which means inevitably...)... and Kerry is quietly on the record as willing to sacrifice his favored social programs if they can't be reconciled with balanced budgets if and when he becomes president (meaning he's led potential liberal voters to believe that he will significantly increase social spending while behind the scenes "clarifying" his position, leaving him rhetorical room to back out of seeming promises enunciated in the debates).......

Fuck! Look what the SPD in Germany did once they achieved power right after WWI, they whacked Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht because they, as revolutionaries formerly in the SPD, tried to hold it to its radical promises. Kerry is a conservative, so he doesn't even have any liberal promises to be held to.

As Gore Vidal said: "IN AMERICA WE HAVE 1 PARTY WITH 2 RIGHT WINGS."

Chris Crass obviously hasn't shaken his roots in Whittier, CA Christian-Anarchist morality and is still preaching the moral choice, when in actuality, there is none. Chris, stop living in Tolstoy's 19th century and SEE the reality of capitalism 2 centuries further on.

Choosing Kerry over Bush is like walking down the commodity emporium's aisles and choosing Crest over Colgate or Coke over Pepsi or exploitation over oppression or death by lethal injection over the gas chamber or unilateral imperialist war over multilateral imperialist war.

As Bukunin said: "EVERY POLITICIAN HAS EARNED THEIR SENTENCE ON THE GALLOWS A THOUSAND TIMES OVER."

O.K. out of fairness, with Bush it's probably a couple million times over and with Kerry it's only a several hundred thousand. But they've both earned our class hatred just the same.

It's about time we took the offensive in the class war in this country---and around the world--and stopped debating about which "master" is going to see the undoing of our living standards better. Sure Bush will do it on the fast track and Kerry will cut back our living standands less quickly, but in the end the result will be exactly the same, won't it Chris?

You won't see me in the voting booth. I'd rather be out supporting the striking SF hotel workers and helping them stop scabs.

gifford

If you look at anarchist history from the broadest perspective possible, ie the most non sectarian perspective, you will see that anarchists always involved themselves in the struggles/reformist movements of their times. That said they kept a larger revolutionary perspective, combining their efforts to work with non anarchsts on 'micro" issues while still holding the big picture "macro" issues as the ideal. What this current time has given us, is a highly sectarian perspective on anarchst action and idealogy. There is a shocking imbalance that leads to nasty personal attacks and bullshit "scene" politics. Get over yourselves and your moral supremacy. This is on both sides, there are people that forsake their revolutionary politics to be able to appeal to the illusive and somehow powerful middle class and then there are people that do theory have no praxis and have no relation to collective struggle.
I personally think that voting against the religious right is the only issue worth voting about. They would like to see all yall dead, with bush in their pocket or pants they will achieve more than with kerry (a catholic).
I loath the democrats but they don't want people like me dead, not yet at least. After 4 years of GW, we can see that people don't get more radical cause shit gets worse, they just seem to get more defeated and more economically locked out of life, especially here in the bay area. If we were living in revolutionary times, or that kind of work was being done on a large scale -- then voting wouldn't matter, but until that time. It matters alot.
rambling on....
I think that the not voting argument is one of the most priviledged arguments to make. While people of color are being denied their right to vote or are being purged from voter lists and felons are denied the right to vote, Anarchists and Socialists willing choose not to vote because it legitimizes a system of oppression, that effects them the least? Come on now. What is that about? I have no false hope in the democrats, but I don't like to see peoples' suffering getting worse.

it's about who these folks claim to endorse.

Just tell me this. When folks finally organize a company like wal-mart, whats gonna happen? Let's just ask Mrs. HEINZ-Kerry, I have a feeling it would go something like this:

Mrs. HEINZ-Kerry, I wonder if you can speak about how you feel about the workers organizing themselves at Wal-Mart.

Well, skip, as you know, I have over 1 million dollars in stock with the company. And quite frankly, I stand to lose a large chunk of profits from these actions. So, I would have to say that I am against it.

Lesson learned: they're all rich fucks looking to control the state of affairs. It really doesnt matter who wins. We're fucked either way.

The only question that really matters: What is the shortest distance to the same point?

Anarchist my ass.

Huh ugh,
You are proposing a hypothetical situation and then learning a lesson from a situation in your own mind. Business unions are behind kerry and some would say are in front of him as well. I don't think that you can just imagine how people react. Maybe you should go out and try and organize a union at wal mart and find out for yourself what would happen.
I don't have faith or false hope in the democrats but that doesn't mean that they are not the best option. The democrats and the republicans are basically Melon and Frick the great historical boses. Good Boss/Bad Boss, you still would rather have a good boss than a bad one.
If you are doing the work to take down this system and modern civilization, hey please teach by example. I just don't see the people pushing this non voting agenda as having any plans or strategy to do anything out side their little cultural ghettos, that is more of a problem than people getting behind or in front of the idea of voting.

Check it out:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1704530_comment.php

Unfortunately, it is you who are stuck in the cultural ghetto. Most of the rich and upper-middle class are the one's who believe voting can actually change something. Talk to folks on the street outside of SF and berkeley and you can get a better picture. Most folks I talk see through the bullshit, why can't you?

Kerry will do nothing better than bush. mark my words. he may make some small symbolic structural changes, make some minor decisions that will appease his liberal base. but those make no difference to poor and working-class folks.

now lets talk about where voting actually does make a change for the good. lets talk local and state measures/propositions, lets get ignacio the fuck out of oakland city council, etc.

oh, and stop that shut up and do something shit, I am extremely active and currently organizing my workplace. One which will be extremely hard to organize because it is retail and has over 12,000 stores just as wal-mart. So get off yer high voting horse.

one more thing: hypothetically speaking, kerry is better than bush.

" personally think that voting against the religious right is the only issue worth voting about. They would like to see all yall dead, with bush in their pocket or pants they will achieve more than with kerry (a catholic).

I loath the democrats but they don't want people like me dead, not yet at least. After 4 years of GW, we can see that people don't get more radical cause shit gets worse, they just seem to get more defeated and more economically locked out of life, especially here in the bay area. If we were living in revolutionary times, or that kind of work was being done on a large scale -- then voting wouldn't matter, but until that time. It matters alot.

rambling on....

I think that the not voting argument is one of the most priviledged arguments to make. While people of color are being denied their right to vote or are being purged from voter lists and felons are denied the right to vote, Anarchists and Socialists willing choose not to vote because it legitimizes a system of oppression, that effects them the least? Come on now. What is that about? I have no false hope in the democrats, but I don't like to see peoples' suffering getting worse"

and I would expand this perspective globally, as I did on the SFindymedia site:

there are times when it is necessary to think beyond one's immediate ideological principles

as I've said elsewhere on the indybay.org site, I'm voting for Kerry for one reason: the rest of the world wants Bush out, and, as they suffer the consequences of his policies far more severely than we do (unless you are unlucky enough to have family members serving as reservists in Iraq), I'm going to defer to them

if Bush goes, it will embolden people around the world to more aggressively resist the military and economic predation of the US

if Bush is defeated, the moment of the announcement will launch one of the greatest global celebrations in history, comparable to the end of World War II

there is a left beyond anarchism, beyond communism, a global left rooted in tolerance, compassion and fairness, and freedom from the colonial economic exploitation of the American system of finance capitalism

and they have spoken with one voice: Bush must go as a precondition for any future progress

no, this certainly isn't anarchism, but, from my limited knowledge, anarchism in its purest form eschewed any participation in the instruments of the state, whether by voting or holding elective or administrative office

and, yet, the Spanish anarchists found themselves doing all of these things to help bring the Popular Front to power and then defend the Republic

and it happened because there was no alternative, and because they felt compelled to act to resist fascism

sometimes you have to think about people other than yourself and those who conform to your political values


--Richard Estes
Davis, CA

Anarchists voting in California wont impact the outcome of the election. California that will go for Kerry no matter how Anarchists vote. The main reason to vote is for local ballot measures and perhaps to send a message in the popular vote (if Bush wins again but loses the popular vote it will be enough to make many mainstream Americans start to at least ask questions about the structure of the political system)

On a side note, the talk of voting being "middle class" and not something valued by the working class is very strange. The rich and middle class are the ones effected the least by partisan differences. Public welfare policies, policies surrounding organized labor and the war effect working class people much more than the middle class. Voter turnout is usually lower in poorer areas but a lot of that is stuctural (and things like roadblocks in Florida that made it harder for people to get to polls) "Class-baiting" by Socialists and Anarchists is rather annoying since it is usually based off assumptions that run contrary to what most polls show and completely ignores the workingclass portion of the religious right which is the population segment that allows Republicans to win elections (corporate right-wingers are often socially liberal while support for the war was higher among the white workingclass than in most other demographics).

just a couple of quick comments:

--Richard Estes and and at least one other person have pointed to anarchist support for the popular front government in Spain in the 30s as a way of explaining/justifying anarchist voting today. Neither bothered to mention that this strategy failed even on its own non-revolutionary terms. The popular front government, with anarchists absorbed within it, was defeated by the fascists.

--Some have contested the significance of the fact that working class people vote at a smaller rate than do upper-middle class people. A few pro-voters have baited those who aren't sold on voting kerry (or anyone for that matter) with the "you're obviously privileged and insensitive" crap. My question, that's still gone answered, is: If being opposed to voting and disinclined to parse small differences between the candidates is the sign of a privileged position, why do so disproportionately many working class people--of all colors--exhibit these views/attitudes? Meanwhile, why do so many affluent non-Republicans living in Rockridge and Noe Valley talk excitedly about the differences between the candidates and vote with such gusto?

--Whether you vote or not really doesn't matter in itself. Being dogmatic about it either way is senseless. Avid anarcho-voters like to depict "anti-voters" as being rigidly concerned that people don't vote. This make the argument easier for them. I would reframe the question as: how should radicals, as radicals, relate to the capitalist electoral farce? should we become in effect 'nuanced liberals' during the eleciton season, throwing our support behind the less shitty candidate? should we critique the role of elections in stabilizing the system by creating a facade of participation? should we counterpose a radical politics and strategies--or at least present them as options--to the election spectacle?

--a lot of you kerry supporters seem to forget how much shit clinton got through because so many middle class liberals (you know, the ones that vote in such high numbers) were goo-goo eyed over him and went along with the program. do you recall welfare reform, NAFTA, the war in the Balkans, the anti-terrorism act, etc etc.

--if kerry wins, by what criteria will you pro-kerry radicals/anarchists measure the "rightness" of your support? if he intensifies the war in Iraq will you still do defend your vote? what about Iran? or deficit-reduction social cutbacks? or is kerry better than bush because bush is worse than kerry, *period*?

build bridges with them

I remember the last few times I tried to sing along with U. Utah Phillips at a MayDay celebration or something like that. I was all, "and we will smash the banks of marble.." and he was all, "and we will close the banks of marble..."

and I was like, what the fuck?! I could swear the original lyrics include "smash."

So it is not surpising that he would choose to side with the ruling class on the Kerry issue, as well.

According to http://www.folkthis.org/linernotes.html the original version by Les Rice had "own the banks of marble"; the improved Progressive Labor Party version has "smash the banks of marble".

I'm too stupid to think for myself. So I always do what celebrities tell me to do. They know everything.

"Unfortunately, it is you who are stuck in the cultural ghetto. Most of the rich and upper-middle class are the one's who believe voting can actually change something. Talk to folks on the street outside of SF and berkeley and you can get a better picture. Most folks I talk see through the bullshit, why can't you? "

Alright bullshit yes, but I actually have been to places outside the bayarea and know for a fact that real "people" do find living in an uber nationalist, right wing state to be linked with republicans "values", while the difference that is offered by the democrats isn't substancial, it is not the same thing. I don't support the democrats in any tangible way, but the good boss is still better than the bad one. If voting didn't matter why would they redistrict elections, pull people off voter lists, and try to control the out come with diebold?

"oh, and stop that shut up and do something shit, I am extremely active and currently organizing my workplace. One which will be extremely hard to organize because it is retail and has over 12,000 stores just as wal-mart. So get off yer high voting horse."

Good for you, I am not on a high voting horse but I have been dealing with Crimethinkers anonymous who are "already living the revolution, or just falling in love everyday instead of voting or organizing to confront a system, blabblab". Or the post leftist libertarians, who see organization as problem esp. if it doesn't meet their lofty principals. Which are both great ways to live, if is your life is in a cultural vacuum and you don't have to soil yourself in filthy waters of solidarity or aren't under the gun so to speak.

"--Richard Estes and and at least one other person have pointed to anarchist support for the popular front government in Spain in the 30s as a way of explaining/justifying anarchist voting today. Neither bothered to mention that this strategy failed even on its own non-revolutionary terms. The popular front government, with anarchists absorbed within it, was defeated by the fascists."

Yes, the strategy did fail, but the strategy was adopted because many anarchists at the time believed that the alternative, allowing the right wing coalition to stay in power, was certain to fail.

The right governed Spain from 1934 to 1936. During this period, the right brutally repressed an uprising of anarchists and socialists in the mining region of Asturias in 1934, and other anarchist lead challenges in the agricultural regions. Laws were passed and enforced that made it more difficult for anarchists to publicly organize and confront the state. My understanding is that very few anarchists believed that the movement could prevail if the right consolidated its power.

Hence, the Popular Front, which, while the anarchists did not support it formally, they did encourage one another to vote for it. (Accordingly, it is not strictly accurate to say that the anarchists were "absorbed" within the Popular Front.) Anarchists also understood that, once defeated, the right would invariably seek to overthrow the Republic, and encouraged the government to create armed, trained alternatives to the military, as well as fracture the power of entrenched fascist commanders. Of course, the government, dominated by socialists, did not do so, and the consequences of this mistake were fatal, but it does show that the Spanish anarchists had a clear eyed practical view of the situation at the time: push the right from power, arm the left to defend the Republic, and push forward with the revolution.

If the government had actually implemented this approach, history might have turned out differently. But, note, the anarchists ambivalent perspective about power hindered their ability to achieve these goals, just as it did during the Civil War. The Spanish anarchists made difficult choices under difficult conditions, just as we must do now, and the fact that the fascists ultimately prevailed does not establish the decisions of the Spanish anarchists in regard to the Popular Front were erroneous.

"--Some have contested the significance of the fact that working class people vote at a smaller rate than do upper-middle class people. A few pro-voters have baited those who aren't sold on voting kerry (or anyone for that matter) with the "you're obviously privileged and insensitive" crap. My question, that's still gone answered, is: If being opposed to voting and disinclined to parse small differences between the candidates is the sign of a privileged position, why do so disproportionately many working class people--of all colors--exhibit these views/attitudes? Meanwhile, why do so many affluent non-Republicans living in Rockridge and Noe Valley talk excitedly about the differences between the candidates and vote with such gusto?"

These are good points, but I'm not inclined to disentangle them. My primary concern is the impact of the Bush presidency on people around the world, and disadvantaged people domestically. I have posted my perspective several times here in the last month, and I haven't seen anyone dispute my assertion that people around the world are adamant about wanting Bush out. I assume that the point is indisputable. I also serve on a housing board, and the fact is, some of our residents of conventional housing and the recipients of Section 8 certificates face the loss of their housing if Bush wins. Morally, it's perfectly legitimate to vote for Kerry so that these people don't risk the loss of their housing, and people around the world have a greater chance of effectively resisting US power, without reference to class issues associated with voting and political behaviour, and so, to the extent that I did so, it was unnecessary.

"--Whether you vote or not really doesn't matter in itself. Being dogmatic about it either way is senseless. Avid anarcho-voters like to depict "anti-voters" as being rigidly concerned that people don't vote. This make the argument easier for them. I would reframe the question as: how should radicals, as radicals, relate to the capitalist electoral farce? should we become in effect 'nuanced liberals' during the eleciton season, throwing our support behind the less shitty candidate? should we critique the role of elections in stabilizing the system by creating a facade of participation? should we counterpose a radical politics and strategies--or at least present them as options--to the election spectacle?

--a lot of you kerry supporters seem to forget how much shit clinton got through because so many middle class liberals (you know, the ones that vote in such high numbers) were goo-goo eyed over him and went along with the program. do you recall welfare reform, NAFTA, the war in the Balkans, the anti-terrorism act, etc etc.

--if kerry wins, by what criteria will you pro-kerry radicals/anarchists measure the "rightness" of your support? if he intensifies the war in Iraq will you still do defend your vote? what about Iran? or deficit-reduction social cutbacks? or is kerry better than bush because bush is worse than kerry, *period""

A lot here to digest. Yes, there should be an alternative to the electoral spectacle, but, note that the alternative I hear most frequently is voting for Ralph Nader. How is that an alternative to the "spectacle"? After all, he's just another reformist candidate, regardless of the quality of his politics. And, if it isn't (which I don't think that it is), what should it be? I have previously said that Nader should have been more creative and organized opposition to the two major parties outside the electoral process. I believe that this would have been much more effective by reaching a lot more people.

As for the Clinton era, I'm in my 40s, so I'm very familiar with his record, and there is certainly a strong counterargument that electing Kerry will enable the current system of American global dominance to effectively reform itself. As Chalmers Johnson has said, Clintion was a "better imperialist" than Bush. For a good discussion of this contrary point of view, see the Gabriel Kolko article at this COUNTERPUNCH link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko03122004.html

As for the final point, about measuring the rightness of the vote, it is possible that you are right, that Kerry will do some terrible things, such as intensify the conflict in Iraq. But this is not measurement. Instead, the measurement is what do we do in the more open political environment created by the defeat of Bush. How creative are we? How do we respond to current events? How do we reach people that we haven't reached to date? Sam Smith of the Progressive Review has advocated for a broad based "November 3rd Movement" to pressure for progressive reform regardless of the outcome of the election. I won't bore the board with my political activities, except to say that I haven't been passive during the Bush presidency and I don't intend to be during a Kerry one either, if he is elected.

I understand that lot of this may not be especially germane to anarchist theory. But, if you don't think that the anarchist revolution is going to happen anytime soon during this generation, to what extent do you work with others to promote global justice by participating in coalitions? What sorts of pragmatic decisions are you willing to make, such as whether to vote for Kerry or not, while trying to remain the integrity of your values? Are you willing to compromise your values to help someone in need, in politically desperate circumstances, or do you believe that the system is so incapable of serving people that you must remain true to your core principles?

I understand that the answers to these questions depend on your beliefs and personal experience. As a result, I'm voting for Kerry, where someone else might vote for Nader and another person might not vote at all. Unlike many on the left who support Kerry, I believe that Nader should be on the ballot, and do not engage in vitriolic attacks upon people who publicly criticize Kerry and refuse to vote for him. Nor do I malign people who refuse to vote. And that's because, like you, I believe that it is absurd to view the electoral process as an effective means for social change. Only a mass movement can make it happen. I agree with Sam Smith: we need to start working together on those things upon which we agree, instead of finding reasons to remain fragmented.


--Richard Estes
Davis, CA

First, I'd like to say that I appreciate your thoughtful, well-articulated posts in this forum.

I should say that I don't identify as an anarchist and my motivation in this discussion isn't to square opposition to voting with anarcho-theory. Nor am I a Nader-head.

My view is that radicals should be radical. That may sound banal and silly, but I mean it. If radicals (by which I mean *anti-capitalist* radicals) aren't offering a critique of the role elections play in the maintenance of capital's status quo, who the hell will? Conversely, what are we to make of radicals who spend time feeding ILLUSIONS in the system instead of arguing why voting will never solve the deep structural causes, rooted in capitalist social relations, that give rise to alienation, mass global poverty, ecological destruction, war, etc etc ad nauseaum?

I sometimes think that the impulse to say "go vote for kerry even though he's a corporate lap-dog and scum-bag" is rooted in a sense that anti-capitalists can never reach "normal" people with a radical message and, therefore, it's best to fold up our tents in the name of "realism" and rally votes for the same guy Warren Buffet (billionaire investor), Robert Rubin (former Goldman Sachs exec., and Citigroup board chair) and Lee Iacoaca (Chairman of Chrysler) intend to vote for.

I contend that we as radicals are far more effective when we intelligently and relentlessly attack the notion that elections are the vehicle by which fundamental questions about how this society is run are decided. This is where we can have an impact that's congruent with our politics.

The fact is, self-proclaimed radicals aren't going to decide the course of this election, whether they vote or don't vote. All the efforts of the anarcho-electoralists to cajole folks to vote will make no difference in this election. But they will succeed in wasting time and spreading illusions in a system anarchists ostensibly oppose.

Voting is a pathetic act of passivity. There's more human, life-affirming solidarity in giving a quarter to a homeless person than pushing an icon on a computer monitor to choose one ruling class stooge over another.

gifford

Should radicals vote? People seem to be having a heated discussion of this without even bothering to ask if it matters.

The community of people who ask questions like "should I vote or is that betraying the revolution?" is about as large as the community that asks "why should I vote because Jesus will decide the election?". Most of the radical left that questions voting lives in states that won't matter in a national election and even in swing states there are other groups that are larger that will base voting off questions like "can I afford to not work for a few hours" or "can I afford to take a bus to the polling station".

A Bush win will have an impact on abortion rights, FBI crackdowns on radicals and environmental laws. Bush and Kerry will probably do the same thing in Iraq, will mainly focus their economic policies on the middle class and will probably be equally bad when it come to organized labor. For people who care about abortion rights or the environment there may be enough of a difference to make people mad at nonvoters, but its pretty nonsensical to care when its a question of a small voting block that's mainly in non-swing states.

As for "Anarchist" purists/fundamentalists, anger at seeing other Anarchists voting is also pretty silly. Unless you somehow see voting as a sin or as "bad karma" why should it matter if Anarchists vote. Kerry could be even worse than Bush on Iraq (since Bush is blamed for the war and Kerry would be starting over in much of the world's eyes), but its not like a few radicals voting makes it so people can't oppose him if he is elected. SInce a few people not voting in this years election isnt going to be large enough to act as a nonvoting protest vote (most politicians and pollsters see nonvoting as apathy not protest) its very different from nonvoting calls in other countries where the act of nonvoting is a statement aganst the election. I can see how Iraqis might be angry at people voting in next years fake election but its likely that the nonvote there will be large enough to delegitimize the government.

I cant see how caring about how radicals in the US choose to vote or not vote should bother people unless your approach to activism is based around pseudoreligious ideas that actions with no effect still matter. Its like an atheist getting upset at other athiests who celebrate religious hollidays (or Halloween); if you don't believe in a God why should you care if someone else who doesn't may happen to enjoy something that merely symbolizes something you don't believe in.

The discussion above about the anarchists and the Spanish Popular Front of 1936 confuses two issues.

1) The anarchist leaders implicitly encouraged their supporters to vote for the Popular Front in the February 1936 election. This was done because of the concrete promise of the Popular Front to release leftist political prisoners, including thousands of workers who had been jailed after the crushing of the Asturias uprising of 1934. the Popular Front government did this, though in many cases the workers didn't even wait for the new government to act; they broke open the jails themselves!

2) After the July 1936 fascist military uprising was put down in most of Spain by armed workers, the working class -- anarchist and socialist -- had the power in its hands. The anarchist leaders, however, were so afraid of power that they handed it back to the republican bourgeoisie, joined the national and regional governments, and stood by -- or worse -- when that bourgeoisie, led by the Communist Party, crushed workers' resistance and jailed and killed Trotskyists, supposed Trotskyists and more radical anarchists.

The second collaboration was a great betrayal, while the first was such only to the extent that it prepared the ground for the second.

"The second collaboration was a great betrayal, while the first was such only to the extent that it prepared the ground for the second."

and it matters why, exactly, now?

are you deciding whether to side with the republican government again?

There is no such thing.

anarchists are just in debilitating denial about it.

Anarchists have ranks, just like the military. Unlike the military, anarchists all have the same rank. We're all sub-commanders.

some anarchists are just rank

This is dedicated to Numb Chumpsky, Piss Crass, Starbuck, and Utah Phillips...

A celebration of how we can get in touch with Wild Nature, just like real lemmings do...

POISON KOOL-AID PARTY FOR ANARCHIST VOTERS!

A celebration of San Francisco Bay Area anarchists' powerful embrace of the electoral process

ANARCHISTS ARE AGAINST VOTING -- EXCEPT IN NOVEMBER...

This November 2nd, the overwhelming majority of the Bay Area's anarchist and anti-authoritarian community will park their erstwhile convictions at the curb and run lemming-like into that Porta-Potty called the voting booth. Our dogma allows us to pose as the most intransigent of rebels. None of us has anything to gain in a contest between George Bush and John Kerry. But, on November 2nd, without the slightest hint of external coercion, we'll go out of our way to show our loyalty to the political process of capitalist America, and specifically to that faction of the elite that nuked Hiroshima, founded the CIA, accelerated US involvement in the Vietnam War, gutted the social welfare apparatus, and killed more than 600,000 children in Bill Clinton's starvation blockade of Iraq in the 1990's.

ANARCHISTS ARE AGAINST LEADERS -- BECAUSE ANARCHISTS ARE FOLLOWERS...

As anarchists, our votes for John Kerry will mean that we have effectively committed political suicide -- so why not commit physical suicide as well? Unlike the majority of the populace, who have wised up and won't be voting, we are virtual lemmings in the face of one of the most transparently bogus ideological hustles that the system has to offer. So let's get in touch with Wild Nature, like real lemmings do, and follow our democratic impulses to their logical conclusion!

Albert Camus said that the only remaining question in philosophy is the question of suicide -- this November we'll be getting way-helluv-philosophical!

REMEMBER, REMEMBER, THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER!

POISON KOOL-AID PARTY FOR ANARCHIST VOTERS!

at the Long Haul
3124 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California
(510) 540-0751

This will be a tobacco-free, alcohol-free, scent-free, and drug-free event -- except for cyanide.

Wheelchair-accessible. Extremely long-term childcare provided.

For any questions, contact us at
http://www.dontjustvote.com

Thank you. For peace, work, and democracy!

As an enemy of all authority, I must say that I am deeply offended by this last post.

What flavor will the cyanide be, anyway?

Thanks Aaron and Richard for pontifying alot of the ideas I hold to be important. You folks have a better way of explaining these ideas than I do.

"As for "Anarchist" purists/fundamentalists, anger at seeing other Anarchists voting is also pretty silly. Unless you somehow see voting as a sin or as "bad karma" why should it matter if Anarchists vote."

My problem isnt the voting/non-voting delema. It's a dead end conversation in my book.

I cannot classify myself as an anarchist on many different fronts because I feel as though the anarchist ideology needs an extensive overhall in regards to criticism of the state. But, I do have a problem with where the focus of debate is within anarchist dialogue.

When anarcho-celebrities write and put their time and effort into representing anarchist ideals and also in the same breath throw their support for 1 of the 2 white rich men that the majority of folks see as the only option in electing masters, I do see a fundamental flaw in logic.

Why not, for instance, put all this time and energy --that these celebrities obviously have-- into conversation on how we as anarchists or radicals can organize radical alternatives to the obnviously defunct social programs the state has to offer real working-class folks? Or perhaps, if they really want to talk elections, why not talk more of how we can actively change the forms of government on a local level, which obviously have more to offer in regards to changing our current system?

"oh yes virginia . . . there are anarchist leaders . . .anarchists are just in debilitating denial about it."

I would rather say that these folks are celebrities.

You have a rather elementary view of the anarchist milleau. The fact that they dont really have much effect in getting anarchists to rally behind their ghettoizing actions defuncts your ideas about "anarchist leadearship". When was the last time Starhawk and Chris Crass have gotten people to act in large numbers? They just offer celebrity commentaries.

Thanks to the geniuses at the anarcho central committee, we militant liberals will go out of our way to show our loyalty to the political process of capitalist America, and specifically to that faction of the elite that nuked Hiroshima, founded the CIA, accelerated US involvement in the Vietnam War, gutted the social welfare apparatus, and killed more than 600,000 children in Bill Clinton's starvation blockade of Iraq in the 1990's.

It's a proud day in anarcholala-land!

"--that these celebrities obviously have--"

--that these anarchist leaders have--

say it.

talk about it.

break the silence!!

only then will thnings start to change, and the anarchist movement might become something other than wonderland meets nostalgia for the anarchist martyrs.

i can't think of a better example of anarchist leadership than this exhortation to vote, whatever one thinks of its contents.

'cuz starhawk has a record on this one, at this very site:

and that had a huge turnout?

huge=large

radicals irrelevance : "As for "Anarchist" purists/fundamentalists, anger at seeing other Anarchists voting is also pretty silly. Unless you somehow see voting as a sin or as "bad karma" why should it matter if Anarchists vote. Kerry could be even worse than Bush on Iraq...."

Two points: Who cares if anarchists vote or not. That's really not the point. It isn't a matter of purity or fundamentalism. But that isn't what the above articles are doing. They are campaigning claiming that anarchists voting for Kerry can build the anarchist movement. It is this campaigning that is so lame, but not too surprizing.
Second: Kerry will certainly be worse on the war in Iraq. I think you'll find Bush will pull out within 6 months of the election whereas kerry will stay the course for a long time--doing the "right" thing.

Voting doesn't matter--it is all voting for the spectacle of opposition.

i note the original post didn't say. but here were the results, according to same:

"Forty four are still in jail, being beaten and tortured. One young woman has been raped, another has a fractured skull and brain swelling. Others have been tortured with electrodes to the genitals, forced into signing false confessions. Two who have refused to sign are reported to be covered with bruises and open wounds. "


just out of curiosity, how many people have to be involved, or affected, before the situation starts to matter, to your reckoning?

and somehow starhawk led the GJ mobilization? thats funny.

I originally thought that post was refering to the RTC mobilization, not guadalajara.

er i mean "train" it, which is to say, guide it with her wisdom, which is a nice way of saying that she was there to lead. but she bailed on them. the consequences? so sad, for someone else. just like a leader.

2 major problems with this:

1 - it is obviously hypocritical, and
2 - it is not at all effective, let alone changable, because one can't even name it.

on the other hand, that neither stops it from happening, nor does it get participants out of the consequences that this kind of bad leaderhsip so often entails.

that's really only a probelm for people looking at anarchist solutions (and those piushing them) which, as things stand, should remain a marginal and ineffective super-minority of the population for some time to come. best of luck with that...

referred to various anarchist leaders' efforts to persuade others to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

this is a discussion of a part of that set of questions: that of anarchist leadership.

are you really concerned to stay on topic, or to stay away from certain forbidden questions relating to that topic? i mean, you didn't object to the original attempt to lead others to vote by legitimating it with an endorsement by certain anarchist leaders, did you? so why is it suddenly so transgressive to question it?

your perspective is certainly valid

there is a need for people to, as Bruce Anderson used to have on the masthead of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, "Be as radical as reality."

and, in today's world, that means pretty radical

my decision to vote for Kerry, beyond what I have posted here, is also rooted in my personal family background

there is a tendency for some of them to avoid political commitment because there is always a flaw, a major defect, in the political views and behaviors of others that prevents them from associating them for a common purpose

so, I have tended to go the other direction: to try to work with people towards achieving important common goals, and I see voting for Kerry as being part of a global coalition to begin rolling back the right

I also suspect, from a political standpoint, that people in the US who politically disassociate themselves from voting Kerry out of office may find working domestically and transnationally with others a little more difficult as a result

perhaps, I am incorrect in these views, and, for me, the larger question is, what we will do regardless of whether Bush or Kerry wins the election?

will we give priority to our self-described identities as anarchists, socialists, communists, human rights proponents, labor organizers, immigrants rights proponents, prisoner's rights campaigners, etc. to create barriers to working together, or will we create coalitions to push a progressive agenda?

every significant progressive change in America life over the last 100 years required the combined efforts of people on the left, and, yes, horror of horrors, even the participation of the middle class

and, now, we face the daunting challenge of confronting a system of military and economic dominance with a global reach

whether or not to vote for Kerry is an important issue in this effort, although not a dispositive one, and it is critical to work through the issue in order to understand where we want to go and how we plan to get there

if we vote for Kerry, and fail to effectively organize, then aaron is correct, we shouldn't be voting for Kerry, because it constitutes an acquiesence to the belief that the electoral process is the exclusive means for pursuing social change

in other words, you are just another moderate Democrat

finally, I agree with the other aaron's comment about the Spanish Civil War, and the betrayal of the POUM by the anarchists, but I do not think that the association with the Popular Front made this result inevitable as much as the anarchists response to events after war broke out


--Richard Estes
Davis, CA

Another "anarchist leader" calls for voting
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1700730.php
Perhaps he is not an anarchist or perhaps he is not a leader but one could say the same thing about Chomsky or Zinn. "Anarchism" means many things to many people and some of the first to call themselves anarchist were pretty Capitalist in their way (for example Prudhon). If you define it based off of self-definition it varies today from all the way from Libertarian's who even support the military and war (but use it to mean lack of interference wit hthe economy) to Socialists who probably support a state economy but favor a nonauthritarian movement to create such an economy, to kids who mainly focus on a dislike for authority figures (like parents and police).

Maybe anarchism, at least as it exists in the US, is historically spent and politically bankrupt. Maybe it can't be resuscitated.

I feel queasy admitting that I've been around the anarcho-scenster scene for more than twenty years. I see no tendencies emerging out of it with a potential to contribute anything substantial to a real movement for radiacl social change. Hippies and drop-outs, career protestors and passive social critics are irrelevant to a real fight for radical social change, and that's most of what you find in the Circle-A-scene in the US.

the am. left is a hybrid of magical thinking and nostalgia for lost causes of the 00s-30s.

the stunted growth can probably be attributed to an arrested development in the late 60s. absolutely everyone's moved on, but for the far left.

anarchists have additional baggage like unresolved issues around leadership theory. the denial wouldn't be so pitiful if most anarchists didn't have some pretense to moving the masses by persuading them in one way or another.

it leaves that scene very cliquish and elitist, and quite hypocritical-seeming, when viewed from the outside. like a bad relationship, it all seems normal from the inside-- and ya just can't tell em otherwise, or they all turn on you.

What can result in radical social change in the US?

While people like to attack political moderates those who reach beyond the anarchits ghettos often have vague politics. Most people develop political ideas at a young age and the mass media and counter cultures have created quick and major social changes that have eventually grown to effect all of society. American views on homosexuality shifted markedly in the 90s and the cause probably had more to do with writers of popular culture in LA than radical activists. Capitalism has no self-regulatory mechanism that looks out for its own long term inerests since short-term profts are always king. Social changes in the past 30 years have not threatened Capitalism but that does not mean that counter cultures and popular culture cant be used as a tool.

The danger of uber-radicalism is that is usually assumes that the "working class" or some opressed group is naturally sympathetic to such views out of self-interest. The goal of most radicals is to challenege corporations or the government as if they exist outside of a society that for the most part supports the status-quo. I cant realy see someone jumping from being a right-wing nationistic racist sexist working-class American to being a guerilla fighter for a just world based off mutual aid overnight just because some Anarchist intellectual happens to point out to them that this is in their own best interests. Social change is sometimes helped and sometimes hurt by protests and lifestylism. Social change is sometimes helped and sometimes hurt by uber radical actions that seek a utopia today. The error of most of the radical Left in the US is the error of the US in Iraq. You can't win a war against US imperialism and Capitalism by military means, one has to first win the hearts and minds of the population. That doesnt mean one has to aim all actions at the lowest common denominator; Chomsky wins over only a small group to his views but its a group that woudnt be won over by other means etc....

I don't get it--are we supposed to be won over by a liberal like Chomsky into voting for Kerry?

And get a German/English dictionary before venturing to new words of obfuscation. What the fuck is "uber-radicalism"?

It reminds me of that old saying:

IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT BEING TOO RADICAL, YOU ARE NOT BEING RADICAL ENOUGH

Fear of "uber-radicalism" sounds like a reformist, gradualist recipe for caution. And that's the anti-thesis of what we need right now.

Instead, we need to show that the class war, taken on the offensive, is what has historically always made for improved conditions for the working class and has built the foundation of possibilities for more radical, revolutionary change. Anything less radical is just the futile effort to tame capital into something more humane and democratic. Which is the political equivalent of pissing in the wind.

gifford

is all you have to offer.

" the class war, taken on the offensive, is what has historically always made for improved conditions for the working class"

Lets "go on the offensive" and kick some Capitalist ass. But whose ass should be kicked and who should be doing the kicking?

When I said "uber-radicalism" I meant the trend among some Anarchists and some Communists to see extremism as something useful in and of itself. Its usually vague except during protests when the uber-radicals are the people everyone else assumes are agent-provocateurs. One could debate the goals of uber-raduicals or debate if the desired tactics work, but the real problem is that its all fantasy. General strikes are not being held back by union leadership and guerilla fighting isnt being held back by non-violent hippies. The reason one doesnt see general strikes has to do with workers and the reason one doesnt see guerilla warfare in the US has to do with the US public. Uber-radicalism is similar to Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism in that the enemy become the reformists; Satan/the Capitalists works through the reformists to tempt the chosen subset of the population (be it Christians, the "working class", or the Ummah) away from the real goal (Jesus, "The Revolution" or a mythical Islamic state). The fact that most of the "chosen population" are not that religious or don't have a class identity doesnt seem to matter to uber-radicals since there is a strange idea that the population will have a sudden revelation once the fighting starts.

Some countries have general strikes and some have guerilla warfare but those usually have driving factors one doesnt see in the US. How can you convince a large percentage of the US to revolt when about 1/4 the population will vote for Bush and more than that have very conservative views about civil rights and the economy. Whats insane about some radical in the US is that a lack of support is interpreted as not going far enough rather than a need for better communications with the groups that people claim to be supporting.

The problem with your argument is that you're dueling with a straw man. Your posts more than suggest that radicals who aren't sold on voting for Kerry counterpose voting with pie-in-the-sky talk of general strikes and immediate violent revolution. It's easy to argue against that position (and you have done so valiently)--only it's not a position any anti-voter has actually espoused.

Like many liberals, you confuse being militant with being radical. There are militants out there who are essentially ultra-liberals; many of them--presumably like you--will vote for Kerry in a week or two. At the same time, there are many radicals who're circumspect about risking arrest and won't be voting for Kerry no matter how shrill our strategically blinkered fellow lefties become in pitching Kerry The Savior.

I have more to say about your lame caracature of anti-capitalists (for an ostensible radical, your argument against class politics sounds like stupid shit one hears on talk radio), but it's too late for that right now.

" the class war, taken on the offensive, is what has historically always made for improved conditions for the working class"

please provide a current example of "our socity" where this is actualy working. and be specific

Since I mentioned history, let's look back to the 1934 San Francisco General Strike. It mobilized almost the entire Bay Area working class to support the 82 day strike of longshore and other maritime workers. It's success was ending the "shape up" where a foreman would chose that day's workers from a crowd (just watch the film "On the Waterfront" to see exactly what it was like; or watch the miners scene from "Motocycle Diaries" if you want to see another example in the theater today).

Harvey Swados wrote an essay, published many places such as his collection of essays "A Radical's America," where he talks of longshore workers being looked up to in the Bay Area like working class conquering heroes. Sure, Harry Bridges sold them out with the containerization deal with port operators in the early 1960s, but they still have some of the best wages and best working conditions of any workers in the U.S.

I guess another part of my point about the class war is that nothing is gained without struggle. Capital doesn't give concessions without a fight. All the sit-downs in Akron and Detroit throughout the 30s eventually won autoworkers much, much better conditions than they'd ever experienced before.

Just read books like Jeremey Brecher's "Strike" and there are countless more examples.

gifford

When I wrote:

"It mobilized almost the entire Bay Area working class to support the 82 day strike of longshore and other maritime workers"

it was misleading. The massive working class solidarity only came about at the end of the maritime strike, during intense fighting with cops and national guardsmen, when 2 men were killed by the police and a general strike was called. Yet, along with the 1946 Oakland General Strike where 130,000 East Bay workers went out in solidarity with retail clerks whose picket lines where being broken by cops herding scab goods, the '34 SF strike is one of the high points in class struggle in this country.

While some mass action occuring again today would probably be very different from those previous examples, the motivation to act in solidarity wouldn't. A working class standing together in unity could bring this system down. We need to stop believing the social lies conditioned into us from birth and see the possibilities of excercising our real power as a class.

gifford

"We need to stop believing the social lies conditioned into us from birth and see the possibilities of excercising our real power as a class."

I may think a general strike is needed and you may think a general strike is needed, but go talk to your neighbors and see what most people think. Quoting history can be misleading since it is usually out of context; class identity no longer exists in the way it did in the 30s and neither does organized labor. If the SFPD gunned down 100 hotel workers on strike, I bet a general strike for a day or two could be possible, but there is a difference between a public reacting out of moral outrage and a public deciding to engage in a strike for its own sake (the strike in the 30s was not for its own sake either and that was at the height of a movement that no longer really exists in the same way). What annoys me about these types of discussions is that there really is nothing to argue about; the state of the US workingclass right now is pretty obvious and while people can work to change that, arguing that one can get most workingclass people to engage in some huge action now isnt a question of what one wants but instead what is possible. I bet if you worked with the big Unions and really tried hard you could get the SEIU, the Teamsters, the ILWU and others to go on strike sympathy strike for a day over a labor issue, but it would take months of organizing would have limited impact and wouldnt really shut down the city since not that many workers are organized.

Perhaps all of this thinking is because I have been conditioned to believe social lies, but the problem is that most of the workingclass has too. when the city shut down when the war started, who joined in and who didnt? Go to Richmond, Vellejo, San Leandro or Concord and go up to anyone on the street and try to talk to them about a general strike or even ask if they know what it means. You might get a few more people in Berkeley, Oakland or SF who remember (and a small number of existing activists who will join you) but SF is one of the most highly educated and wealthiest cities in the world. Walk into a corner store and ask someone working there and I bet they wont know, but ask a business person downtown and they might... for that matter go talk to the locked out hotel workers and see where they are comming from, I would bet most do not know about out the 34 strike and most see their struggle in more personal terms rather than as class warfare or even class struggle.

I think we should work towards more radical actions and I don't think most on the left believe what I'm arguing against, but one keeps hearing a small group essentially arguing for a general strike or uprising today and thats what seems so counterproductive since its is the right-wing stereotype of the Left.

When is comes to class politics, right-wing talk radio is an interesting problem. The white male workig class has been coopted by the far-right i higher numbers than the radicla left could hope to organize. Talk radio has partly done this by playing to a dissatisfaction with work in a way that essentially turns dislike for Capitalism and class-anger against liberals and radicals. Aside from asking waht we need to do to fight back, those who always argue about class politics have to start asking why this was possible.

"What can result in radical social change in the US?"

Unfortunately, I believe that most of the stimulus will be external before it is internal.

As noted by an array of political figures, from the right to the left, the most important paradox of the American system is its deterministic need to expand militarily and economically, even as the ability of the US to maintain this system continues to weaken.

Hence, the US has military bases in about 150 countries, and pursues free trade zones and agreements, even as soldiers police Iraqi cities without flak jackets and drive broken down vehicles, while domestically, jobs, even now technology ones, are outsourced. As Thomas Friedman once candidly admitted several years ago, the military/industrial complex assists in the imposition of American economic values on the unwilling, but the burden can no longer be sustained.

The Iraq war is a watershed event, marking the end of the postwar era commenced in 1945, and if the resistance prevails, as I believe that it ultimately will do, it will intensify opposition to American intervention globally in all forms. I do not identify with the resistance ideologically, if it is even possible for anyone to do so, as it is a very fractured endeavor, except to the extent that it wants what all countries in the world should have: freedom from American dominion.

Strangely, foreign leftists with 1960s roots, like Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens, seem to be caught in a time warp, and see the American military and economic system as nearly omnipotent, as, while arguing over Iraq in DemocracyNOW!, both spoke pessimistically over the prospect of the resistance prevailing militarily. Perhaps, one needs to live in the US to see the increasingly illusory and hysterical assertions of US power.

Similarly, defeat in Iraq is likely to be accompanied domestically by the continued unraveling of the economic system created by Carter, Reagan and Clinton. The halcyon days of 20% returns for mutual fund investors, many of them middle income workers chasing money for retirement and health care coverage, has already ended, but the consequences have not yet been experienced.

The final shoe will drop when the real estate boom ends, as the bill comes due for a neoliberal era where the populace was wrongly lead to believe that, by relinquishing its public sector benefits, it could live even more prosperously. The whole charade has been financed on resources seized from the rest of the world, and the music is already beginning to stop. Along these lines, one of the most alarming phenomena in the last year or so has been the extent to which government tax revenues have not been increasing with the reported levels of economic growth, suggesting that there is a systemic problem that is becoming more and more acute.

So, there will be an opportunity, and it may just be lurking over the horizon. A long way around to saying: take advantage of events as they occur, and don't be rendered passive by strict adherance to ideology.

Or, as the real RWF said, when asked about his political philosophy. He said that he just had a good nose for bullshit, and that when he smelled it, he just started firing in all directions. Possibly good advice for dealing with an unpredictable future.

"I think we should work towards more radical actions and I don't think most on the left believe what I'm arguing against, but one keeps hearing a small group essentially arguing for a general strike or uprising today and thats what seems so counterproductive since its is the right-wing stereotype of the Left."

This is an excellent comment. When times change, people change, and social relations change. The concept of the general strike is a 1930s labor, working class concept. Unions were on the rise, and people were willing to die to organize them.

Well, obviously, things are different today. So, what to do? Again, it might be a good idea to look around, and elevate experience, and, thus, deemphasize ideology a little bit, just to see what's really happening out there. Mao used to periodically criticize Marxists who learned their theory solely from books, demanding that they not speak until they had worn out their shoes investigating.

One of the most difficult psychological problems in bringing about change is revealed by the following quote: "So, it's also my attitude toward society that I see its failings and I see that it has to be changed, and yet I'm content to be a member of this society." The comment has two important aspects: First, even activists need to be candid about the extent to which they find fulfillment in contemporary life, while advocating radical changes, and thus confront this contradiction directly, and, second, persuading people to step forward, and go beyond the rituals of their day to day life is always difficult.

It also hints at a political peril. If the left does not confront this contradiction effectively, the right will fill the vacuum, as it is doing today.

My guess is that the actions that move things forward will be spontaneous and poorly planned in nature, but fortuitously timely, conducted by people with, by the standards of the people who post here, a most definitely imperfect political consciousness.

Indeed, they probably won't even understand someone calling their activity an "action". For example, the situation with the guard and reserve units forced to serve in Iraq, and their families, should be monitored carefully in this regard. I think that there is a potential for them to do some things that could definitely be destabilizing, with the reserve unit in Iraq that refused orders being a possible harbinger of things to come.


--Richard Estes
Davis, CA

just saying words writes:

"... for that matter go talk to the locked out hotel workers and see where they are comming from, I would bet most do not know about out the 34 strike and most see their struggle in more personal terms rather than as class warfare or even class struggle."

and I agree to some extent, but...

I was on the picket lines, after the flying pickets finished last night, at the Grand Hyatt talking to the locked out workers. One guy had worked in the industry since 1973. I asked what the 1980 strike had been like. He said he and his peers had all been much younger and more militant then. We was working around the corner at the Crown Plaza before the 80 strike. As a tactic, they physically tried to prevent scabs from getting into the hotels. He got in a fist-fight with a scab, was arrested and had a court case. After the strike finished, the union abandoned him and he was the ONLY striker not given an amnesty and given his job back. He found sympathetic supporters in the labor movement and fought his banishment and eventually got reinstated at his job. He said he was walking the picket line because he was still angry about how the union handled 1980 and how they're handling the strike/lock out now.

He was a wealth of information and obviously younger workers get an earful of his history lessons. Reminded me of my great-grandfather threating to kick my father out of his house when he discovered my dad had taken a temporary job at a railroad that he had struck--and which had never been resolved--45 years before. My dad quit the next day so as to not be kicked out of the family for being a scab.

So sure, that type of class identity and class memory once exisited and seems to have disappeared now. But it is latent; the conditions of class society still exist and it just needs to be brought forth again. Not an easy task, but the working class is going to keep getting its ass kicked until Americans break out of their class denial and see that in their sleep capital has been on the attack in the class war for a long time. Defensive struggles, which in essence are defeatist ones, only lessen to severity of the reductions of our living conditions. Kerry is a weaker hatchet man than Bush; but he's a hachet man just the same.

We need to think about reinvigorating the memories of those like the Hyatt picketer--or my great-grandfather--or the insurgents who looted the capitalist's spoils in the LA Uprising in 1992. The system is like a house of cards and it IS possible to topple it and build a better society. The main thing holding us back is our inability to learn the lessons of history and use them to inform our imaginations about what is possible in the future.

gifford

In spite of its Trotskyist politics, the analysis here is somewhat useful.

Unlike the glandular level of consciousness on display among 95% to 98% of all anarchoids, the author attempts to situate his perspective in the larger world we live in, and not in an amorphous mass of panicked and sentimental impusles.

Why do people think that a tired liberal like Numb Chumpsky is such an important voice of dissent, anyway? I just don't fucking get it.

Although the Presidency isn't as important as anarcho-liberal-protest-ghetto scensters think it is, maybe Bush getting re-elected will bring on a huge crisis for the US on more quickly.


Bush-Kerry: Behind the elections, a huge political crisis


Two weeks before the elections, the polls show a virtual dead-heat
between Bush and Kerry. The parity between both candidates is a reflection
of the deep division in the US bourgeoisie, which faces an enormous
political crisis as a consequence of the failure of the Iraq war.

Though Bush presents himself as a "president of war", half of the
population does not back him. The Financial Times (October 7) warns that
"the turn that the campaign has taken has been for Kerry's benefit (…) the
conviction in the political class of Bush calmly marching on to a
second term is broken". "Bush crumples", confirms Clarin (October 16). In a
certain way, in the United States there is a repetition of the turn
that, in Spain, ended toppling Aznar.

A year ago, no important democrat wanted to be a candidate for the
elections because they all coincided in the thought that Bush was going to
win easily. When a dark horse, Howard Dean, went out on campaign, to
everyone's surprise, it was seen that half of the population was against
the president and against the war. A year later, the democrat's
candidate, Kerry, is criticized for "not differentiating" himself from Bush.

A structural crisis

In the debates, Bush and Kerry, when discussing how to withdraw from
Iraq, showed a defensive US imperialism. This has created a political
crisis in the US bourgeoisie. War divides the US bourgeoisie and increases
problems created by the economic disequilibrium of the United States.

A recent editorial of the New York Times (October 17) argues that a
victory for Bush would represent a danger for the U.S. The failure of the
"intelligent war" (without the necessary number of troops) is
equivalent to the failure of Bush's complete military strategy. A British
commentator has said that Rumsfeld has committed so many mistakes that "he
should have been fired". "We must presume -he adds- he has survived only
because his departure would have left the buck with the
commander-in-chief." (Financial Times, October 7). Numerous military men and chiefs of
the retired intelligence services are work for Kerry's campaign. The
editorial of the New York Times calls the Bush administration "a
disaster".

These sectors fear that a victory for Bush would strengthen the warlike
policy and unchains a wave of political crises in Europe, after Poland
and even Italy announced that they have already set the date for their
withdrawing from Iraq. According to the Financial Times (October 7),
"the devastation of Fallujah", planned for after the elections, would
cause the Blair to fall, because it would be intolerable for majority
opinion in Great Britain. They also fear an aggravation of the Palestinian
crisis, since "the extremist sympathizers of Sharon are ingrown inside
the White House" (Financial Times, October 10). They even warn that
Bush could attack Iran. All this would cause irreversible damage in the
relations with Europe: Blair's biographer anticipates that an attack to
Iran, even if it is carried out by the Zionists "would be the beginning
of the end of the historic relation that has united Great Britain and
the United States" (Financial Times, October 10).

The New York Times criticizes Bush's "right-wing extremism", the tax
cuts for the richest and the under-financing of the health and retirement
programs, and his appointing of extremists to the Supreme Court. The
New York Times points out that as a consequence of the record growth of
the budgetary and balance of trade deficits, Bush "increases the chances
of a financial crisis, as well as that of an uncontrollable decline in
the dollar and higher interest rates on the long term". Another critic
denounces that, with Bush, "we have become a Third World country
because we relinquished our industrial forces" (El Pais, October 10).

These sectors see in Kerry the possibility of "rebuilding" the
relations with Europe and the Arab countries, and moderating the political
polarization in the United States. They promote the use of "political" and
"diplomatic" resources. But we must remember that "diplomatic" means
have already failed to solve the Middle East crisis.

The political crisis is getting deeper because of the accusations of
fraud that are circulating. An eventual second presidency of Bush would
be an explosive presidency.

Volver a la página principal de Prensa Obrera

It just depends which puppetmasters you prefer.

keating wrote" *In spite of its Trotskyist politics, the analysis here is somewhat useful*

does this mean he is a Trotskyist?

or that this is taken from a publication that he fails to attribute?

The puppet masters don't change when the president changes.The president doesn't run the government. The government doesn't run the country. Corporations run the country. Corporations run the world.

Cheney, a particularly skilled corporate puppetmaster. The corporations back the parties yes. Which corporations you want sitting on all those presidential committees?

It doesn't matter. They are all controlled by the same, tiny elite.

A simple question. Right now, I have a limited time and amount of energy.

Chris--
Do you think I should put it into electoral politics or should I put my energy into supporting the hotel workers strike? I want your opinion. I know mine.

As we speak 100's of SF labor activists are putting their enegy into getting Kerry elected and not supporting the striking workers. So which is it. elections or strikers Chris.

when I can expect REAL anarchy to replace that tiny elite you mentioned? I'm waiting...

I've come to the conclusion that anarchists should now vote in general. I've written up the arguments into an article online at http://www.afraser.com/vote_anarchist.htm.

I read the first half or so of your piece and I'll make an effort to read the rest later. But here is a quick response to what I did read.

The deficiency of the anarchist case against voting is that it's primarily based on moral as opposed to strategic concerns. According to anarchist doctrine, voting is bad because it betrays the anarchist belief in direct, as opposed to representative, forms of human governance. Those who base their opposition to voting on these grounds are highly susceptible to the argument that it's actually MORE MORAL to get out the microscope and discern differences between the two stooges of capital (because they're so big....really!), and, in so doing, forsake first principles for more pragmatic concerns. I would argue that it's easy to forsake first principles that don't intersect with "real life". In that sense, I think your piece takes aim at a weak argument against voting and therefore doesn't make a good argument for voting. (Not that I'm inclined to think there is such a thing!).

Somehow I got my hands on a 1970s Michael Harrington ("america's most famous democratic socialist) book in which he makes the case that voting for Carter in 1976 is the moral thing to do given how bad the Republicans are. Shorn of the typically-anarchist talk of "writing our own narratives", Harrington's argument for voting for Carter (who as president hacked social programs and began "Reagan's arms build-up") was identical to the anarchist arguments for Kerry in 2004! What anarchists who argue for voting fail to see is that their politics are really no different from the politics espoused by social democrats of yesteryear (ever notice how nobody call themself a social democrat anymore? i now know why--they all call themselves anarchists now!

Anarchist converts to voting would like to think they can infuse voting-for-Kerry with radical meaning but in fact their embrace of the electoral farse is the logical continuation of a politics that are strategically vapid.

I gotta go. I have more to say, but no time now.

Waiting wont make it happen. That will take direct action on a global scale.

Thanks for the response. I was conscious of the danger of over-emphasising any arguments for voting, since I think electoral tactics should be way down the list of priorities.
Most of the old social democrats have moved rightwards to become liberals. Anarchists who vote are, you’re right, essentially just occupying the territory the old social democrats vacated. There is a difference in ultimate goals though – the old social democrats were Marxist influenced, wished for an eventual state socialist society.
As far as whether voting for specifically Kerry is the right thing to do, I imagine someday the US left is going to have to launch a serious third party. I can see that November 2004 maybe isn't the best time to do that, but that doesn’t mean it can be postponed every election, from Carter to Kerry to Hillary Clinton on to the end of time.