******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Ken: "Consider this scenario. Clinton is elected this time round, but becomes very unpopular. In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone of his ilk. Then what?" Amith: I don't disagree with you about this problem. The issue is whether or not building a socialist alternative requires promoting the Green Party *within swing states* and *within the next two months*. That is literally all I am disputing. As a matter of strategy, I do not see how the benefits in the long term outweigh the costs. It could risk a Trump victory in 2016 and the benefits would be slightly increasing the power and influence of a marginal party with no mass organizing base. The better strategy is to recognize that we have already lost 2016 and begin trying to foment a mass movement (or, better yet, ensure the trajectory of the ones that are already being built) independent of the electoral calendar. This can be done on the local level and can be done in every single state independently of who wins in 2016. If and when Clinton wins, continuing to build that party will be much easier than under Trump. In prior contests the difference as far as this particular calculation goes was probably negligible. But socialists, Greens, and other assorted lefties did not build the alternative in 2008 or 2012 when many of the people who are now conceding to Clinton were not willing to support Obama and voted for Stein. Dennis: The issue is NOT the many political weaknesses of the Green Party - it is one of holding up a standard of class politics - ABC for Marxists. Amith: This is vague, I'm not sure how to respond or what the point you're making is. That you are a Marxist? Great. Dennis: This is - sorry for being too blunt - tailism. Amith: I would argue it is not tailism because we are talking specifically about a realm in which we have already lost. As I mentioned, I have no problem with people voting Green in Dark Blue states and more importantly, I would never take this line of reasoning in actual social movements (grassroots organizing, labor building, anti-war activism, etc). But more importantly, that's fine. You can call it tailism, I'm not sure what to do with that, it sounds more like a classification than an argument. Dennis: Should we have supported Johnson in 1964 because the American people were overwhelminly in favor of military retaliation against North Vietnam for the alleged attack at the Gulf of Tonkin that August? You'll have to forgive me, I do not have as much knowledge about the Goldwater campaign as others do. I was given different points of view growing up, with some arguing that Goldwater was some sort of isolationist and others telling me he wanted to nuke everything. As for what we should have supported, there were multiple, functioning mass movements in the country in 1964, and you'll note that most of them did not play electoral politics at all. So the question is not whether they should support Johnson over a Socialist candidate, it was the same question then as now: how do we build a mass movement and among the obstacles that are thrown in our way, which obstacles are the obstacles we want rather than the ones we don't want? How do we divest ourselves from a two-party system in which both parties are our enemies and we are consistently slated to lose despite actually speaking to the needs of the electorate? The simple fact is that the 1964 election was not between us and our enemies. It was between our enemies and themselves. It is a ritual to legitimate the existing government, and in order to successfully challenge that system, we need to ensure the proper conditions for our organizing outside the system. So the question is not which of these pieces of shit smells less, it is which one will more likely allow the conditions for the growth of our movement given that the delegate math does not favor us? Dennis: BTW - did he call for support to Kerensky in August 1917 for "protection" against the Kornilov coup attempt, or did he call for organizing the people to fight back?? I don't know, but the fact that you are referring to 1917 -- a time in which there had been tremendously greater organization by the Left in a country that was in the middle of crisis, than in the two months before the 2016 election -- a very different context -- means that this is an inapposite analogy. - Amith On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Ken Hiebert <knhieb...@shaw.ca> wrote: > To A. R. G. > You are quite correct to point out something missing in my message. Who > was it sent to? I cc'ed it to Clay, but that did not show up on the list. > > The Greens > I am open to the view that the Greens are not a good alternative. But > they are not the only alternative. If I lived in the US, I could use my > vote to support a small socialist group. That would be my way of calling > for the building of a real socialist alternative. > > You say, "There is a fundamental importance to building a separate party > with separate politics. But that cannot be done in 2 months." > I agree. It will take much longer than 2 months. But each time we > postpone it, it will take that much longer. > > Consider this scenario. Clinton is elected this time round, but becomes > very unpopular. In 2020 the Republicans nominate Trump or someone of his > ilk. Then what? > Against that possibility we need to build the strongest socialist movement > we can. Organized socialists will play an important role in any resistance > to Trump or to Clinton. > Now is the right time to be building the socialist alternative. > > ken h > > > On 2016-09-01, at 10:12 AM, A.R. G wrote: > > Ken, > > I don't know who you were asking specifically but I voted for Stein in > 2012. There were crucial differences between Obama and Romney, but I felt > their similarities outweighed those differences such that it was worth > voting for the Greens. I plan to vote for her again. The difference is that > in 2012, I also advocated that those in swing states vote for the Green > Party. > > In this election, I am much less sure. There is a chance that Trump could > win the election, and if so, the differences between his policies and > Clinton's vastly outweigh their similarities. > > I understand and sympathize with the positions some of you have > articulated (although I do not agree at all with Carl's). There is a > fundamental importance to building a separate party with separate politics. > But that cannot be done in 2 months. If the Greens want to be the voice of > those who are disaffected they must start on a much more grassroots level > and build up. From what I have seen, they have only done so in a few > locales and their primary appeal seems to be slagging off the Democrats. As > Clay has pointed out, this is a strategy that does not appear to have many > contemporary benefits and could give rise to considerable costs if it ends > up being one of any number of factors that contributes to a potential Trump > victory -- something that was unthinkable less than a year ago. > > I'd also encourage those of you who are downplaying the difference to look > at some of Trump's most recent policy proposals. Trump is talking about > using Executive Power grabs to re-implement already discarded policy > proposals like S-Comm to start rounding up millions of people. He is > serious about the wall. He is talking about religious and political vetting > for refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan and other (Muslim) countries. He is > no longer speaking in populistic vagueries. He is actually spouting policy > rhetoric about deporting millions of people with almost no process and > turning the United States into an "American" (read: white, Christian) > bastion with Zionist-style racial preservation policies. > > The other policies he has proposed are returns to the Bush administration, > including the implementation of torture. It is true that Obama holds > considerable blame for refusing to prosecute the torturers. But so what? > Between Trump and Shillary, only one is floating the notion of returning to > those policies, and he isn't even cloaking it with euphemisms. Rather than > trying to hide from the law, he is openly flouting it. > > Hillary Clinton is a horrible person. I have no doubt that her victory > will bring about untold oppression. The difference is that she has a Trump > card on us. The other option is considerably worse, so much so that the > difference cannot be thrown aside under the "all of them are horrible" > premise. I feel that some of you on this list are acting as though one can > play in a lion's den and not run into a lion. We are talking about corrupt > elections in an empire in decline during a massive slide to the right, > wherein a combination of NGOs and liberal redbaiters have effectively > compromised any serious sort of mass movement. > > There is a simple truth that we are deluding ourselves into forgetting: we > have already lost the 2016 election. We will not win this round. The focus > needs to be on building a resistance to whoever wins in 2016. Is there any > serious case that can be made that that resistance -- and our connection > with those communities that will lead it -- would be stronger under Donald > Trump than under Hillary Clinton? I doubt it. I think we must swallow our > pride and admit that if we live in swing states, we are in a bind and will > need to vote for the most right-wing president in modern history: Hillary > Clinton. > > I know this will lose me cred on this list but from a tactical standpoint > as a socialist I don't see the way around this; I'm of course, welcome to > alternative visions provided they pay heed to the position we are in. > > - Amith > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism < > marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> ******************** 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. >> ***************************************************************** >> >> I believe you are arguing that this current election is exceptional >> because of Trump's open appeal to racism. I accept your point that his is >> the most explicitly racist campaign in some time. >> If the two main candidates were Clinton and Jeb Bush, would you be open >> to supporting another candidate? >> >> May I ask who you supported in 2012? >> >> ken h >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm >> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/opt >> ions/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com >> > > > _________________________________________________________ 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
