******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Hmmm...well...in many ways, Clay is restrained in his lesser-evilism. Compared to some the crap that was thrown at Sander's during the primary with typical "you have the privilege of voting for Sanders, I don't" sort of pure unadulterated BS...Clay is lightweight here. Also, I just learned Lenin was a neo-liberal economist! Wait...how did Lenin sneak into the discussion. Deport his ass right now. I gather this was around the open borders issue that also sort of shuck in here. We don't have open borders and no candidate that I know of is advocating it so why is it part of the discussion (no major party is, lot's of socialist candidates do, however, I assume: PSL, SA, WWP etc). Whatever...the always desperate ploy of guilt-by-associating-one's-position-with-the-far-right is at play here. That is a polemical tool I know so well. Reactionaries mix and match positions depending on the circumstances. Of course neo-liberals generally are for open borders (see the EU)...sometimes...and far-right reactionaries (Le Pen, Trump...and Clinton) are for closing them. 20 years ago I was against NAFTA. Others on the left accused those on the left who opposed NAFTA of "protectionism". They either refused to take a position on NAFTA or ignored it. The more desperate argued for a "social NAFTA" (see "Social Europe" the bankrupt Euro-left supports). Back then the Mexican left and union movement was also opposed to NAFTA and it took Zapitista rebellion...their single issue being opposition to the implementation of NAFTA...to knock the US left upside the head about NAFTA being THE tool of neoliberalism...that is privatization and austerity, not to mention loss of sovereignty for Mexico. But be careful... if you oppose NAFTA today it means...you are in the camp of Trump...? Or Sanders? Or the Green Party? This is the problem with defining your *position* based solely what the position of is of the *far right* or by your political opponents. Fuck that shit! Take positions as it relates *best* to defending our class against the real enemy...which the ruling class and their toadies in the Democratic and Republican parties. Clay complains against the "white nationalism" of the Trump camp. Lets examine this. The main 'nationalist' position Trump takes is on immigration. It dovetails with the Tea-Party wing (though of course his economic policies...being 'nationalist'...are at odds with the Tea Party historically) and with whose members overlap quite a bit with Trump's positions. But beyond that...there is virtually no difference between Trump *and his supporters* and that of the "traditional" Tea Party groupings. Ergo...though I can't prove this I believe Clay's position would be exactly the same if it was Cruz as the GOP nominee (a person who scares me a helluva lot MORE than Trump does at every political level). Trump getting elected would not mean, despite Clay's protestations to the contrary "White Nationalism" in the White House. Certainly not via Trump himself. But if you look at who were the staff members and advisors for Ronald Reagan, these "alt-rightists" are in fact lightweight compared to Reagan's advisors (Reagan was on the far-left of his advisory staff, just so ha' know). Trumps overall positions don't vary that much with Clinton's. Assuming we even really know his positions. With the exception of the rhetorical talk about deporting 11 million undocumented workers and their families...there isn't that much difference for people of color than we are seeing from...Barrack "Depor 'em" Obama and Clinton. He can increase funding to a 'special deportation brigade' or whatever he's advocating this afternoon, but only by getting support in Congress. Secondly, besides a huge number of unconstitutional Executive Orders there isn't much Trump can do. Take NAFTA, which he says he opposes. Too late, it was ratified by the Senate and can only be ratified by it. Trumps positions, to the degree they are at odds with the GOP, means to get any of them implemented, he needs support, which he has very little of. I suspect the Wall would get funded after much rankling. This whole debate, quite honestly, is the old Mussolini vs Hitler debate. As it's gotten to this level, I see the differences between Trump (and what he acutally do) and Clinton (and what she has actually done) a difference without much of a distinction. In fact I would go so far and say that the only thing stopping Trumpism is not Clinton but how we organize people independent of these two. Because if we don't, it won't matter who is POTUS. David Walters _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
