>        WW News Service Digest #192
>
> 1) The Myth of Majority Rule
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2) Moorehead-La Riva: Using Election to Build the Struggle
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 3) Intervention in Name of Democracy
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 4) 1876: Electoral College Crushed Black Freedom
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 5)
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 6) Gore Won't Say it but: U.S. Elections are Racist
>    by [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the Nov. 23, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>THE MYTH OF MAJORITY RULE
>
>By Fred Goldstein
>
>The entire capitalist establishment are biting their nails
>about the Gore-Bush dogfight over the White House. They're
>aghast at the conflict's escalation as each side tries to
>counter the other.
>
>But the tension in the boardrooms, media and think tanks
>isn't over which candidate will come out on top. It's about
>how the system will fare.
>
>Who wins and who loses undoubtedly concerns particular
>factions of the ruling class. But the broader
>establishment's anxiety is over how to insure--in the face
>of all the contradictions and reported irregularities--that
>the masses of people at home and abroad see the elections as
>"legitimate" and that the "process" of so-called democratic
>majority rule works.
>
>The capitalist media's job is to manipulate the debate so
>that, whatever happens, bourgeois ideology triumphs and the
>masses see the issues in the narrow framework defined by
>them.
>
>MEDIA REMOVE RACISM FROM DEBATE
>
>In the quest for legitimacy, every detail of the balloting
>process, electoral law and political maneuvering is being
>chronicled by the corporate media. But one thing that has
>been hermetically sealed off from the debate is the enormous
>issue of racist disenfranchisement of millions of Black and
>Latino people. This has been accomplished through laws
>taking away the voting rights of those labeled "convicted
>felons."
>
>In fact, none of the mainstream U.S. media picked up on a
>story in the Guardian of Britain Nov. 14. It states, "Al
>Gore may have lost America's presidential election not
>because of a badly designed ballot, dubious counting
>practices in Florida or the defection of Ralph Nader, but
>because of the criminal justice policy he and Bill Clinton
>have pursued for eight years."
>
>The article, using Sentencing Project statistics, shows that
>4.2 million people were not allowed to vote Nov. 7 and that
>about 1.8 million of them were Black. "The Clinton-Gore
>administration," continues the Guardian, "has been heavily
>criticized by penal experts for its 'war on drugs' which has
>led to more than 400,000 people being jailed, a
>disproportionate number being Black and Latino."
>
>The Guardian quotes Cedric Muhammed, editor of the
>Blackelectorate.com Web site, who wrote that "if [Gore] and
>his supporters are honest, they may have to blame the
>Clinton-Gore administration and a criminal justice system
>that locked up Blacks wholesale over the last eight years
>for non-violent offenses."
>
>Sasha Abramsky, writing in Mother Jones Nov. 8, estimated
>that three quarters of a million people in Florida alone
>were disenfranchised because of the felon laws. Florida is
>one of 13 states that bar people from voting for life if
>they are convicted of a felony.
>
>In a pre-election Mother Jones article Oct.17, Abramsky
>cited the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, which
>filed suit against this practice in Florida on Sept. 21. The
>suit showed that more than 6 percent of Florida's voting-age
>population cannot vote.
>
>'FELON' LAWS HEARKEN BACK TO JIM CROW
>
>The last time so many Black people were legally prevented
>from voting, said a Brennan Center attorney, "was before the
>Voting Rights Act, when you had literacy tests and poll
>taxes and so on."
>
>"All of these laws were overturned," wrote Abramsky, "except
>for the web of laws created in the late 19th and 20th
>centuries, relating to those convicted of fel onies. These
>laws were specifically designed by antebellum Southern
>politicians to bar Blacks from the ballot box. Indeed, when
>Alabama adopted such a law in 1901, John Knox, the
>politician presiding over the constitutional convention,
>stated that the aim of such provisions was to help preserve
>white supremacy without directly challenging the
>Constitution of the United States."
>
>It's estimated that 33 percent of all Black males in 13
>Southern states are disenfranchised as a result of this
>legacy of slavery and segregation.
>
>If the Gore forces had wanted to, they could have long ago
>made a huge issue out of this, and they probably would have
>won hands down. But being representatives of the racist
>ruling class first and foremost, just as the Bush forces
>are, they would rather jeopardize their own chance for the
>White House than to open up a struggle against the racist
>denial of democratic rights for millions of Black and Latino
>people.
>
>This is perhaps the most important social and political fact
>brought to light by the election fight. And it cries out for
>a voting-rights struggle to overturn these so-called
>"felony" laws, as well as the "tough-on-crime, war-on-drugs"
>policies of the Reagan-Bush and Clinton-Gore years. These
>are vicious forms of racial profiling.
>
>Furthermore, Gore, Warren Christopher, William Daley and
>other high Democratic officials have not addressed the
>exclusion of ballots and the racist harassment on Election
>Day in heavily Black districts of Palm Beach county. They
>haven't addressed the sit-in by Black students from Florida
>A&M, Tallahassee Community College and Florida State
>University against the Democrats' arch-enemy, Bush loyalist
>and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Nor have
>they denounced the racist pro-Bush thugs who attempted to
>block a West Palm Beach rally called by Jesse Jackson.
>
>MYTH OF 'MAJORITY RULE'
>
>Rather than focus on fundamental issues such as racism, the
>capitalist media have the entire population riveted on the
>increasingly ugly details of the political knife fight
>between the capitalist parties.
>
>What the media are really fighting to preserve is the
>fundamental concept, drummed into the head of every school
>child, that democracy means the majority rules and the
>masses of people get their legitimate political
>representation through the two-party electoral process.
>
>If Bush should win the electoral vote with a minority of the
>popular vote, this would call into question the Electoral
>College system. The ruling class, much to its dislike, might
>have to engage in a debate about correcting the system. This
>in itself is destabilizing.
>
>If Gore should win with the majority of the popular vote,
>the ruling class could breathe a sigh of relief on the
>question of majority rule. But they would probably still
>have to go through a process of reassessing the Electoral
>College. New York Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton has
>already called for its abolition.
>
>The Electoral College is a reactionary institution designed
>by landed aristocrats, slave owners and businessmen in 1789
>to flout the will of the masses should they get out of hand.
>Of all the electoral systems employed in the modern
>imperialist countries, it is the most unfavorable to
>independent electoral action by the working class and
>progressives. Certainly the workers and oppressed should
>take the opportunity to intervene in any struggle over the
>revamping of this system.
>
>But it must be understood that, even if Gore emerges the
>winner, his popular-vote victory does not legitimize the
>election results for the masses. If Bush wins with a
>minority of the popular vote, it is not this alone that
>casts the election's legitimacy into doubt.
>
>THE PEOPLE DON'T RULE--THE RICH DO
>
>The entire election process is illegitimate as an exercise
>in majority rule.
>
>Whatever the outcome, the majority of the people will not
>rule--they will be ruled by a tiny minority of the rich.
>
>Two rich white men are running at the head of two parties
>controlled by billionaires with world corporate empires that
>exploit hundreds of millions of workers every day. This is
>the class truth about this election and every presidential
>election in this country over the past century.
>
>Corruption and political dirty tricks, bribery and
>unprincipled partisanship are rife in capitalist elections,
>particularly when the parties are fighting to get their
>hands on the right to dispense close to $2 trillion to their
>friends and collaborators and to make thousands of political
>appointments.
>
>But even if every vote winds up being counted correctly--
>that is, the way the voter intended--and even if every
>improperly excluded vote were included, the assumption that
>this election thereby becomes legitimate is a complete
>fraud.
>
>Ronald Reagan won by a significant majority in 1980 and
>proceeded to open up a huge anti-labor offensive, a racist
>attack on the poor and a $2-trillion military build-up.
>Lyndon Johnson won in 1964 by the biggest landslide in
>history against Barry Goldwater, and then proceeded to send
>half a million troops to Vietnam. He sent U.S. troops into
>Detroit's Black community during a rebellion against racism
>and poverty, killing many.
>
>The majority of the people are workers, including a large
>number who bear the burden of national oppression as well as
>class oppression. As a class, they are not enfranchised in
>any capitalist election. On the contrary. Their oppressors
>have the legal and political right, under the capitalist
>U.S. Constitution, to continue upholding the system of
>exploitation, racism and imperialist expansion.
>
>The majority of the people make society run. They do all the
>work. If they really ruled, there would not be people
>sleeping on the streets while the rich lived in luxury.
>
>If the majority really ruled, 1 percent of the population
>would not have as much wealth as 90 percent of the people.
>There would be no racist police shooting and beating people.
>There would not be hundreds of thousands of families waiting
>for childcare. There would not be 43 million people without
>health care or a 20-percent child-poverty rate.
>
>If the majority ruled, they would not permit the epidemic of
>occupational deaths and injuries or environmental
>destruction. Every worker would have a union. The elections
>would not be controlled by the rich.
>
>None of these evils would exist because the majority--if
>they really ruled--would abolish them immediately. After
>all, it's the majority that suffers from these evils. But
>they are unable to eliminate them as long as the
>capitalists, their state, and their parties are in charge.
>
>There's no such thing as a "fair election" when the workers
>are confined to the program and candidates of their class
>enemy.
>
>- END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:31:28 -0500
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Subject: [WW]  Moorehead-La Riva: Using Election to Build the Struggle
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the Nov. 23, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>THE MOOREHEAD-LA RIVA FACTOR: USING ELECTION TO
>BUILD THE STRUGGLE
>
>By Marsha Goldberg
>
>Why do communists run in capitalist elections? It's not
>because they think the elections can create real change.
>
>One reason is to take advantage of all the election hype to
>get out a revolutionary message. In the United States, it's
>an advance just to let working and oppressed people know
>that a revolutionary party exists here.
>
>When the controversial Palm Beach County ballot was shown
>over and over again on national television in early
>November, viewers saw something new. Workers World Party's
>candidates--Monica Moorehead for president and Gloria La
>Riva for vice president--were listed.
>
>This was a breakthrough for the campaign because the
>corporate media make it their business not to cover working-
>class candidates.
>
>Because of the coincidence that the votes for Moorehead and
>La Riva in Florida matched the difference first reported
>between Al Gore and George W. Bush, some commentators--
>including C-SPAN and a very offensive Jay Leno--asked, "Who
>is Monica Moorehead?"
>
>There were even comments about the "Monica Moorehead factor"
>in the election.
>
>"This Modern World," a progressive comic strip by Tom
>Tomorrow that backed Ralph Nader in the election, chuckled
>that Workers World voters were enough "to tip the balance
>between Gore and Bush five times over." This was after the
>first recount showed Bush and Gore within a few hundred
>votes of each other.
>
>THE REAL MONICA MOOREHEAD FACTOR
>
>There definitely was a "Monica Moorehead factor" in this
>election But it's not the one being used as filler by the
>media's talking heads.
>
>Moorehead and La Riva injected revolutionary politics into
>this sham election. They made racism and the death penalty--
>including the case of death-row political prisoner Mumia Abu-
>Jamal--major issues wherever they traveled.
>
>At every stop they explained what the capitalist profit
>system is and what the elections are really about--
>continuing the rule of the super-rich bankers and bosses.
>They showed how socialism is the answer for the workers and
>oppressed.
>
>As two women of color and two workers they were able to
>bring that revolutionary message to whole new audiences.
>
>The WWP candidates worked hard to use the media's obsession
>with the elections to their advantage. Wherever Moorehead
>and La Riva were able to break through and get exposure, it
>generated excitement about their campaign and their message.
>That was clear from the response they got when they traveled
>around the country, and by the election results.
>
>VOTES IN FOUR STATES
>
>On the four states where Moorehead and La Riva were on the
>ballot, a total of 4,525 people voted for WWP candidates,
>according to the latest statistics provided by ABC.com and
>CBS.com.
>
>In Florida, recounts are still going on at this writing. But
>the latest count shows 1,814 votes for Moorehead-La Riva.
>
>When the candidates visited Florida in October, they spoke
>on college campuses in Miami and West Palm Beach. Moorehead
>was interviewed the day before the election by the student
>newspaper at Florida A&M, a predominately Black college in
>Tallahassee.
>
>Campaign literature was distributed in English, Spanish and
>Creole.
>
>The repressive atmosphere in Florida was evident when Wil
>Van Natta, the state chairperson for the WWP campaign, was
>arrested on election eve on trumped up charges stemming from
>a demonstration against Iraq sanctions three months earlier.
>He was released after being held for 19 hours--more
>determined than ever to continue fighting.
>
>In Washington state, Moorehead and La Riva had received
>1,452 votes as of Nov. 14. Mail-in ballots are still being
>counted and the WWP total continues to grow.
>
>Organizers there report that phone calls, e-mails and
>letters were still coming in after Election Day asking about
>the candidates and WWP. Students in Seattle heard La Riva
>speak in September.
>
>Many people read about the Moorehead-La Riva campaign in the
>Voter's Guide distributed to voters throughout the state.
>This is an example of how WWP took advantage of the
>elections to get its revolutionary message out to a wider
>audience.
>
>The campaign used its space in the Voter's Guide to raise a
>socialist perspective on prisons and the environment, defend
>women's right to choose and show solidarity with the
>lesbian/gay/bi/trans movement, to name a few issues.
>
>SUPPORT IN MOST R.I. TOWNS
>
>In Rhode Island--a state which is comparable in size and
>population to Palm Beach County--Moorehead and La Riva
>received 199 votes. Official returns showed that they
>received votes in almost every town in the state.
>
>A series of meetings held there prompted an article in the
>Sept. 29 Providence Journal, a newspaper read throughout
>Rhode Island. In it, Moorehead urged a vote for WWP as a
>"protest vote against all that is unfair and unjust about
>this system."
>
>In Wisconsin, Moorehead and La Riva received 1,060 votes,
>according to the major TV networks. During their campaign
>they spoke to students at three University of Wisconsin
>campuses, including Nader supporters. They also spoke at the
>College of the Menominee Nation and community meetings in
>Milwaukee.
>
>Getting votes was never the main object of the campaign.
>That's why the candidates also spoke in many states where
>WWP wasn't on the ballot this year, including California,
>Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and
>Ohio.
>
>In keeping with the activist message of the campaign--
>against capitalism, for socialism, for a powerful,
>independent, united multinational movement--Gloria La Riva
>left for Havana the day after the elections. She is
>attending the Second World Conference of Friendship and
>Solidarity with Cuba.
>
>- END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:31:28 -0500
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Subject: [WW]  Intervention in Name of Democracy
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the Nov. 23, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>VOTERS BEWARE: INTERVENTION IN THE NAME OF
>DEMOCRACY
>
>
>By Deirdre Griswold
>
>How many times in recent days have we heard politicians and
>media pundits invoke the "will of the people"?
>
>Once the messy recounts are over and a president has been
>chosen, they say, the government can go about its normal
>business of carrying out the "will of the people." That is
>the American Way, the great democratic process that begins
>at the ballot box in the United States.
>
>The problem with this view is that, stuffed ballot boxes or
>not, U.S. elections certainly do NOT serve "the will of the
>people." This political system was designed to uphold the
>will of the privileged few. It didn't start with this
>election, but has been going on for over 200 years.
>
>However, the false issue of democracy has been used so often
>by administrations in Washington to intervene around the
>globe that a short review of how elections are used to
>advance imperialist schemes is in order.
>
>EXCUSE FOR YUGOSLAV INTERVENTION
>
>The claim by "experts" in Washington that elections in some
>other country have been flawed has been used more than once
>as an excuse for intervention. First comes political and
>economic pressure. Then, if that doesn't work, there may be
>outright military invasion.
>
>The most recent and flagrant example of this is, of course,
>the massive intervention of the U.S. and European capitalist
>countries in Yugoslavia's presidential election. Little
>effort was made to conceal the millions spent on posters,
>fax machines, television ads and other means to propel the
>candidacy of Vojislav Kostunica. This plus threats of a new
>war and promises to rebuild the shattered country evidently
>succeeded in winning him the popular vote.
>
>We say evidently because, now that the media are paying so
>much attention to the U.S. election, it is obvious that
>there are many, many ways to change the outcome of voting--
>from "losing" ballots to intimidating voters to
>disenfranchising large numbers of people. Maybe this didn't
>happen in Yugoslavia, but it has certainly happened here, in
>the country that appointed itself to decide if Yugoslavia's
>elections were fair.
>
>Why does the U.S. ruling class prefer Kostunica to former
>President Slobodan Milosevic? "Democracy" hasn't got a thing
>to do with it. Kostunica is committed to accepting economic
>and political dictates from the U.S., the International
>Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Foreign corporations are
>already taking the measure of Yugoslavia's state-owned
>industry, which the new "reformers" are preparing to sell to
>the highest bidder.
>
>THE MAKING OF PRESIDENT YELTSIN
>
>The loudest shouting about democracy can be in reality the
>excuse for massive election fraud. With the help of spin
>masters in the media, the people chosen by Washington to
>carry out its agenda are given "legitimacy" in elections
>bought and paid for by the U.S.
>
>For example, the International Monetary Fund openly gave
>Boris Yeltsin a $10-billion loan just before the Russian
>election in 1996 to buy him the presidency. It allowed him
>to outspend the Communist Party candidate, Gennadi Zhu
>ganov, by 10,000 to one at a time of great economic crisis.
>
>There, too, the clear threat that there would be a dangerous
>return to the Cold War if the left won helped tip the vote.
>
>"Democracy is served," said all the Western commentators
>when Yeltsin won. He soon became the most unpopular leader
>in Russian history, earning a 5-percent approval rating that
>


_______________________________________________________

KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi

_______________________________________________________

Kominform  list for general information.
Subscribe/unsubscribe  messages to

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news.

Subscribe/unsubscribe messages:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________


Reply via email to