Jakze przyjemnie jest zobaczyc autobus z amerykanska rejestracja, ktory przywiozl dzisiaj do Vancouver okolo 8-ej rano, grupe Concerned American Citizens for Democracy, Justice and Al Gore. Zaraz dolaczyli do nich, oczywiscie "spontanicznie" Young Socialists of Canada, Young Communists of Canada, The Anarchists i Communist Party of Canada-chapter B.C, czesc z nich z zakrytymi twarzami, prawie wszyscy z bandami na glowach. Oczywiscie chodzi o "Gore-Truth", "Bush-Lies", "No more Bushes", "Justice and Democracy = Gore-Lieberman", "No more Fake Ballots and Election" i jeszcze pare innych napisow, powielonych na ulotkach. Musze przyznac, ze zainteresowanie nimi bylo olbrzymie- ale inaczej, bo jezeli nie liczac 5 policjantow na rowerach, dwoch samochodow, rownie policyjnych, to zatrzymal sie tylko jeden przechodzen, ale tylko aby pozwolic swojemu psu obsiusiac kolo autobusu. Tak mi sie przypomnialo, ze niedawno w Seattle(konferencja WTO), te same grupy wandalizowaly szyby wystawowe, atakujac miedzy innymi obecna administracje Bialego Domu, za sprzedaz "witalnych interesow klasy robotniczej". No coz, widac z tego ze zmienili zdanie i widza w osobach Gore-Lieberman obroncow. Zreszta, czytajac ponizszy belkot z Kaliforni, nie ma wcale co sie dziwic, ze Marxism-Leninism nie jest wcale obcym Demokratom. Juz nie wiem, czy nawet kon sie z tego smieje. Why Revolutionary Leftists Should Vote for Gore By John Brown Childs Frontpagemag.com | November 7, 2000 URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/politics/childs11-07-00p.htm VOTING FOR GORE, the Democratic Party candidate, can make a difference, but in a way that is more complex in its possibilities than simply going for "the lesser of two evils." In suggesting this I am drawing on the work of Antonio Gramsci. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian social justice activist died as a result of his illegal imprisonment by the fascists in the 1930's, but his thinking on social action remains valid today. Gramsci advised that there is a difference between two wings of most national power elites, and that this difference has real consequences for grassroots political action, despite the fact that those wings are both aimed at supporting the status quo. Gramsci's analysis has direct relevance to the debate among progressives about supporting or not supporting the Nader/La Duke Green Party candidacy. This debate pivots around the question of whether the Republican and Democratic party organizations are really just one party, so a vote for the "liberal" Gore is essentially a meaningless choice, and a vote for Nader an important statement based on real difference. I believe that Gramsci would say that, to the contrary, a vote for Gore is a meaningful choice. He observed that, although power elites work to maintain the status quo, they also tend to fracture along a major fault line. On one side is the emphasis on maintaining the status quo by granting some concessions (compromises) to diverse groups in order to include them in society and blunt their opposition. The other side of the fault line emphasizes a repressive response to public pressure, one which involves withdrawals of any previous concessions, and the implementation of increasingly tight top-down controls to "maintain order." For Gramsci, each of these two tendencies produced very different environments within which social justice action could occur. The compromise-oriented wing we can call "Concessionary." The conservative/repressive wing of thought we can call "Anti-Concessionary." In the United States, since the Presidency of Franklin Deleano Roosevelt, the Concessionary wing generally appears under the label of "Democratic Party," and the Anti-Concessionary wing generally appears under the label of "Republican Party." For the Concessionary wing, the tactic of compromising with social movements that push on it from outside, requires that such concessions have real meaning for those to whom they are given. The Concessionary wing operates on the assumption that such steps, because they are tangible, not just symbolic, will give (some) people a sense of real inclusion, and this will in turn reduce the pressure on the status quo. In this approach, the slogan is, in effect, "give them an inch and they will be satisfied." The New Deal response of Roosevelt to Depression-era social crisis is a classic example of such Concessionary compromise. By contrast, the Anti-Concessionary wing usually views such concessions as really dangerous. It fears that those "given an inch will demand, and maybe take a mile." Consequently, very real and bitter disputes erupt between these wings. Roosevelt, although he was a millionaire member of the upper class, was viewed as a dangerous, socialistic traitor by the anti-New Deal conservatives of his day. This view is directly related to the different responses of these two wings to broad grassroots political/social pressures. This split over whether to emphasize concessions or repression in power elite thought and action has direct consequences for the type of social struggle that can be waged from the grassrooots. In a Concessionary environment, social movements have some important maneuvering room. They can potentially take the concessions that are meant to muffle their aims, and use them instead to further societal transformation. In this sense, the conservatives are right to be fearful of concessions. Such concessions can lead to more demands, and more social action, which in turn can start to reconfigure the society at large. By contrast, a more repressive Anti-Concessionary environment will restrict maneuvering room. In that setting, people find themselves forced to simply defend and survive against continuous batterings. In that context, the social justice activists are hard-pressed to hold onto gains from previous struggles and are less able to push forward with proactive expansively transformative strategies. If Bush and other Anti-Concessionary politicians win big, then we will be more likely to face this type of negatively hard-edged environment in which a range of diverse issues from Indigenous sovereignty, through worker's rights, environmental justice, women's health, anti-discrimination projects, and multiculturalism (to name but some) will be under ferocious assault from the White House, the Congress, and the courts, including the Supreme Court. For example, Doug George-Kanentiio, Akwesasne Mohawk columnist for NEWS FROM INDIAN COUNTRY recently warned that of "the two presidential candidates, Texas Governor George W. Bush draws the most apprehension from Native People." George-Kanentiio points out that the famous Iroquois Confederacy, the Haudenausaunee "People of the Long House," have not forgotten Bush's "1999 remarks challenging aboriginal status....Bush said that it was his opinion that Native Affairs should be primarily an individual state matter, rather than one of US federal concern." For many Iroquois, and other Native Americans, says George-Kanentiio, such a policy "may well mean the abrogation of all treaties, and the withdrawal of Federal assistance as mandated by current custom and laws leaving Native nations at the mercy of unsympathetic governors and malicious state legislators." (10/17/2000, American Indian Cultural Support) By implication, Native American activism under a Bush administration will be forced to defend itself against systematic attacks on sovereignty, and will be unable to attend to other vital social/economic/legal/cultural issues of importance to Indigenous communities. Similarly, but in a very different zone of struggle, Kate Michelman, President of the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League, points to the probability that George W. Bush will roll back reproductive health gains that have been achieved through many years of dedicated activism. Gloria Feldt, of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says that a Bush victory, "will be devastating to reproductive rights and health as we have come to know it in this country." (Robin Toner, "Different Sides on the Abortion Issue See Stark Contrast in Candidates," THE NEW YORK TIMES, 27 October 2000). An Anti-Concessionary victory by Bush will require rear-guard defensive action, that drains energies away from on-going work on behalf of women's health and well-being. In Congress itself, the positive results of years of social movement activism can be seen in such groups as the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Women's Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Such groups, and their individual members, can and do often act as allies to grassroots community activists. For example, we know about the courageous action of Representative Maxine Waters, who challenged the CIA regarding importation of drugs into the barrios/ghettos of the U.S. An Anti-Concessionary victory will leave such inside allies even more stranded than they now are as a result of previous conservative advances. So, despite the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole, do have a fundamental status quo commonality, their quite distinct, even contradictory, Concessionary and Anti-Concessionary stances can have importantly different consequences for grass roots social justice action. The Nader/La Duke/Green Party campaign is raising vital issues that are being suppressed and ignored in mainstream politics and media. And to their great credit, the raising of these issues is taking place despite being unjustly excluded from the locked-down Gore/Bush debates. The Nader/La Duke/Green campaign is part of a global grassroots democratizing resurgence from Chiapas to the Niger Delta; from the recent election victory of Marta Suplicy of the Brazilian Workers Party in the important city of Sao Paulo to the inspiring organizing in Seattle, and from the Southwest Network for Economic and Environmental Justice in the U.S. to the activism of the Cree First Nations people in Canada. In this decade we will need increasing mutually respectful coordination of these and the thousands of other distinctive organizing efforts developing around the world. Ironically however, a vote for Nader/LaDuke in states where the presidential contest is extremely close, could result in a Bush victory. Such a victory would make virtually impossible any kind of broadly effective multi-dimensional proactive strategy, drawing from the valuable Green Party positions, as well as those that include Native Americans, Women's groups, labor, civil rights activists, and envionmentalists. Instead, we will have to scramble to defend against repressive conservative measures aimed at obliterating gains achieved in the past. We are not faced with a "lesser of two evils," "tweedledee/tweedledum" homogeneity in the Bush/Gore "contest." Rather, we are confronted by a fundamental social-battlefield difference between "Anti-Concessionary" and "Concessionary approaches." Consequently, the real choice in this election is between a social-political environment including government hostility to previous social gains, expanding repression in which we have our backs to the wall; and an environment in which we can strategically maneuver toward the making of a society of the people, by the people, and for the people. John Brown Childs is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. E N D --------------- Pokazano nam na liscie kilka razy "zdolnosci" gubernatora Busha. Well, najciemniej jest zwykle pod latarnia. Wobec tego troche o "NOTORYCZNYCH PRAWDACH" AL GORE'A, dosc zalosnych, ale smiechu. 1. Wersja krotka http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Record_shows_Gore_long_embellishing_truth+.shtml 2. Wersja dluga http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/A_long-History_of_questionable_statements_and_claims.shtml 3. Page inspired by Vice-President Al Gore, founderfather of Internet(USA News Today) [..] In their search for "Good News About Teens," (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000417/matt.htm) U.S. News found a teen against drunk driving, a teen against gangs, a teen against littering, a teen for education, and -- a teen for Planned Parenthood. The headline called 17-year-old Matt Oppenheimer a "Teenage Dr. Ruth." Young Matt felt the sex-education classes at school weren't deep enough, "So he went to Planned Parenthood to learn more, and there, an activist was born. Last year, Matt lobbied the Idaho Legislature against a bill requiring parental consent for abortions, partly because he'd heard about a pregnant girl who'd begged a friend to punch her in the stomach. 'She didn't know what her options were,' says Matt. 'She felt trapped. She felt she couldn't talk to her parents.'" U.S. News rhapsodized: "Now the other kids know they can ask him when they have questions they can't ask grown-ups. Where can I get birth control pills? How much do they cost? What is Depo- Provera? Both abstinence and contraception are OK in Matt's book." They also championed, "Anonymous teen chat rooms and Internet bulletin boards offer more openness." All the U.S. News Web site links were to "hip, nonjudgmental" green-light-to-teen-sex sites, like gURL.com and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). The whole idea was inspired by US Vice-President, founderfather of Internet.[...] W.Glowacki
