Kasama

Non-dogmatic…fiercely revolutionary

Eric Mann’s 10 Reasons For Obama Vote

Posted by Mike E on October 24, 2008

 

Eric Mann (of the LA Community/Labor Strategy Center). is a well known veteran activist who advocates a strategic engagement with American elections. Jed suggested we post this because it represents a coherent statement of this position that is being widely distributed among radical activists.

 

“Obama is a Black man running for president in a white settler state. Regardless of how much or little he chooses to campaign on race or against racism—and in my view it is far more than some of his critics think—Obama is Black. Everyone knows he is Black and the Republicans are making it a referendum against Blacks and for white supremacy.

The election of a Black president in a country built on conquest and slavery is almost unimaginable. And it cannot be imagined without the foundational work of Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois, Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, Jr. Huey P. Newton, and Malcolm X. Obama is running as a Black man at a time when one million Black people are in prison. He is Black at a time when the Black community is on the defensive and under siege, Black when many of its most gifted and dedicated organizers are tired, not discouraged, but exhausted from the assaults of the reactionary decades from Reagan to Clinton to Bush. Obama is Black as opposed to white, as in white supremacy, white racism, white chauvinism, white xenophobia, white fascism, white racist mobs, white McCain and white Palin.”

For the full article

 

 

Ten Reasons We Should Turn Out the Vote for Barack Obama

by Eric Mann

This article was written to encourage strategic and tactical discussions about the election. The author strongly encourages comments to be posted at the end of this article.

For those of us who are in the Civil Rights, Immigrant Rights, Women’s Liberation, Environmental Justice, and Anti-War Movements, for those of us on the Left, the election of Barack Obama is of the utmost urgency. Voting for Barack Obama is not enough. In the next two weeks we need to put all our energy into getting out the vote to elect Obama and defeat McCain.

Because of his brilliant organizing, the possibility of an Obama victory is palpable. Because of the racism of this country and the strong reactionary elements of the general population, the threat of a McCain victory is only too real.

The stakes leave no room for passive support. The Republicans coalescing against Obama are carrying out a calculated strategy to preserve and extend the victories of Reagan and Bush. If it can be imagined, they intend to take the country even further to the right. They want to destroy what is left of democratic liberalism, destroy the Civil Rights and Black Liberation movements, destroy the Immigrant Rights, Women’s Liberation, LGBT, Anti-War movements, to destroy the Left.

To his credit, unlike Al Gore and John Kerry, Barack Obama is fighting back against the Right. Whether or not he cedes too much to them, which I believe he does, his election is a direct challenge to the neo-cons, the racists, and bellicose fascists who have controlled the White House, the media, and the political discourse in this country for decades. For all of us who consider ourselves “on the Left” and “organizers,” for those of us who have a base, for those of us who are working in low-income Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander communities and doing anti-racist work in white working-class communities—this is a turning point in history. We understand the stakes of a racist McCain victory only too well, and we are the ones who can be pivotal in turning the tide for Obama. It is time for the antiracist Left to show the muscle of our community organizing and put that energy into the Obama campaign for the next two weeks.

For some of us, we are already there. For others, you are needed. Obama needs and deserves our full support. As a strategist and tactician, you weigh all the arguments, all the options, but when the time comes, you must go into battle with great energy and enthusiasm. You must fight to win. Now is such a time.

We have to work for Obama’s election and fight to win. Right now the Obama campaign is calling for the most intense involvement by those of us who support his candidacy. Our job is very straightforward. The Obama campaign urgently needs us to contribute money, to phone bank, to protect the vote at ballot boxes where the Republicans will try to steal the election (that is, every ballot box), and to hit the ground in aggressive door-to-door organizing in swing states. For those of us who do not live in a swing state that means traveling to Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, Colorado and other states where the margins are still too close to call.

I am an organizer, that is what I do. In this election, reflecting my own views on the subject, I am committed to working on two major campaigns.

The Strategy Center’s No on the Six Campaign.This is a state-wide campaign in California that opposes six reactionary ballot initiatives. We are doing citywide lawn signs, on-the-bus organizing, phone banking, and precinct walking to defeatThe Six. Two initiatives, Propositions 6 and 9, would further criminalize Black and Latino youth. Two bond and sales tax proposals, Proposition 1A and Measure R in Los Angeles County, would pass regressive taxes and bonds for pork-barrel, environmentally dangerous rail and highway projects that would further attack the funding for a clean fuel bus system, the centerpiece of our environmental plan. Two propositions attack LGBT people and women. Prop 8 tries to overturn gay marriage, and Prop 4 threatens women’s reproductive rights through the onerous requirement of parental notification for minors. I work for this campaign through the Strategy Center in a broad coalition with many other progressive, grassroots groups. See www.noonthesix.org

The Obama CampaignI am working to elect Barack Obama president of the United States. I have attended a two-day training at Camp Obama along with 350 people in Long Beach, along with thousands throughout the state and tens of thousands throughout the country at similar trainings. Many people are going from California to Nevada, a neighboring swing state with five electoral votes, to turn out the vote for Obama. I am working with the phone bank team to make phone calls to Nevada to elect Obama. I will be spending the last long weekend of this month through Tuesday, November 4 splitting my time between the No on the Six and the Obama phone bank teams.

Here Are Ten Reasons to Turn Out the Vote for Barack Obama

1) Because Barack Obama is Black and qualified, Black and liberal, Black and can be elected the first Black president in the United States.

Obama is a Black man running for president in a white settler state. Regardless of how much or little he chooses to campaign on race or against racism—and in my view it is far more than some of his critics think—Obama is Black. Everyone knows he is Black and the Republicans are making it a referendum against Blacks and for white supremacy.

The election of a Black president in a country built on conquest and slavery is almost unimaginable. And it cannot be imagined without the foundational work of Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois, Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King, Jr. Huey P. Newton, and Malcolm X. Obama is running as a Black man at a time when one million Black people are in prison. He is Black at a time when the Black community is on the defensive and under siege, Black when many of its most gifted and dedicated organizers are tired, not discouraged, but exhausted from the assaults of the reactionary decades from Reagan to Clinton to Bush. Obama is Black as opposed to white, as in white supremacy, white racism, white chauvinism, white xenophobia, white fascism, white racist mobs, white McCain and white Palin.

Barack Obama is a Black Harvard graduate, a president of the Harvard Law Review, married to Michelle Obama, a Princeton graduate. They gave up jobs in corporate America to do work among the urban poor and working class. He is charismatic, a great debater, and a man of intellect. He is so much better qualified than John McCain that it is a testament to the racism of the U.S. that McCain is still in a close race. This is a white man who is clearly unhinged even in a prepared debate and has nothing to run on but the “Abuse of the Day” against Obama and his family.

Barack Obama is a gifted organizer who deserves the support of every dedicated organizer in the country. As a Black man in a white country, he out organized Hillary and Bill Clinton and their ostensibly unbeatable machine, a blow from which they may never recover. He is out organizing the Democratic Leadership Council, the anti-liberal caucus of Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman that has dominated the Democratic Party since the defeat of Mondale and Dukakis. Obama has a very good chance of out organizing the entire white, Christian, conservative, aka fascist clique that has run this country since Reagan rose, Gingrich organized, Clinton capitulated, and Bush/Cheney took the dictatorship to its highest levels.

Electing a highly qualified, brilliant Black man against a Neanderthal white man is a major step forward in history and a high stakes fight that we need to be part of. It will be a major setback to the forces of white racism in the country and a real encouragement of the broad anti-racist coalition that is at the core of the Obama campaign. Let’s turn out the vote for Obama. Now.

2) Because a Black man is being attacked by a white lynch mob and we have to throw our bodies in front of them and beat them back.

The McCain/Palin campaign rallies are becoming Klan rallies. Shouts of “traitor,” “terrorist,” “treason,” “liar,” “Hussein” “kill him” and “off with his head” have rung from the rabid racists at McCain and Palin rallies. Palin whips them up and McCain sometimes doesn’t challenge them and sometimes goes through the motions, all the while praising them to the sky as “loyal Americans.” These are the very kind of people who have populated lynch mobs in the past. They are capable of carrying out their threats. What part of “off with his head” do we not understand?

If many in the Democratic Party in fact conciliate with this racism by refusing to call it by name, preferring to use the vague term “extremism,” Obama does not. At the last national debate he told McCain that some of his supporters have crossed a line by calling him a terrorist and proposing to kill him. McCain responded by saying how great and patriotic his supporters are. Do we really have to invoke King and Malcolm, Medgar Evers and Emmett Till, the Birmingham children and Bobby Hutton to understand that the assassination and lynching of Black people is deep in the DNA of white and U.S. culture and is a clear and present danger today?

John Lewis, the civil rights veteran from SNCC and now a U.S. congressperson from Atlanta saw it clearly,

What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. George Wallace [the racist governor of Alabama] never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.”

We cannot stand by while a rabid white mob attacks a Black man screaming “Hussein, Hussein,” “the one over there,” “the F-ing Harvard Graduate,” “the uppity one,” “terrorist” and—we must take this very seriously—“kill him” and “off with his head.” The McCain forces are the forces of evil and must be defeated.

McCain and Palin should be under arrest for encouraging, inciting, aiding, and abetting, racist hate crimes. Let’s turn out the Vote for Barack Obama, Now.

3) Because there are differences of life and death significance to our communities between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Obama is advocating many positions that are conservative, and some, like his proposals to expand the war in Afghanistan and violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, that are reactionary. But there is still a profound Left/Right battle going, albeit within the confines of U.S. electoral politics and the two-party system in 2008. While he does not have a comprehensive progressive program, there are some key issues on which the difference between Obama and McCain are Black and white.

Let’s look at some of the real choices Obama is making.

  •  
    • Economic Crisis, Housing Crisis. Obama has supported the $750 billion bail out for U.S. financial markets. This is a major setback for working people. He is now arguing, however, that now it is time to bail out not “Wall Street” but “Main Street.” He is calling for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures by any bank or company that receives any U.S. government aid. Is that enough? Of course not, but he is the only candidate even talking about helping people losing their homes in the foreclosure tsunami. If such a moratorium is imposed, it can lead to far more stringent demands to extend and expand that moratorium. By contrast, McCain is talking about letting the free market run its course.
    • Woman’s Right to Choose. Obama vigorously defends a woman’s right to choose. When asked in the last debate if they would make Roe v. Wade a “litmus test” in the selection of Supreme Court justices, both Obama and McCain, after considerable dancing, said yes. McCain said that he could not imagine a qualified candidate who would not want to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obama said he could not imagine a qualified candidate who would not defend a woman’s right to privacy—making abortion a right.
    • Unions, Third World. McCain said free trade was great and accused Obama of holding up trade with Columbia. Columbia is governed by one of the worst military dictatorships in world, propped up by the CIA, the U.S. military, and cocaine traffickers. At this time, I do not assume Obama wants to dismantle Plan Columbia. If he does not, that will be a major post-election confrontation with him we will have to have. But Obama did say that he could not support trade with Columbia while its government was imprisoning and murdering trade unionists. This is significant. Obama has campaigned for the right to organize unions for workers in the U.S. and proposed laws to encourage those rights. While that in itself is major, there is no history I know of for a U.S. presidential candidate to openly expose the murder of trade union organizers in a country that is allied with the United States and to call for their right to organize against U.S. transnationals. In the middle of a high-profile nationally televised event, just the mention of trade unionists existing and being under attack in the Third World is a moment of rupture in the imperialist ideological sphere. By contrast, McCain is a union buster at home and a supporter of terror, torture, and the suppression of unions and the Left abroad.
    • Equal Pay for Equal Work. Obama defends equal pay for equal work and McCain opposes it. In the final debate, Obama raised the example of a lawsuit filed by Lily Ledbetter, a woman who tried to sue her employer for paying her less for the same job that a male employee was getting paid more to do. Obama talked of working in Congress to extend the statute of limitations in Congress on her case so that it wouldn’t be dismissed. McCain snickered, What do we want to do, keep these cases going 20 or 30 years after the fact?
    • International Relations. Obama talks about American exceptionalism, American power, and the “responsibility” of the United States throughout the world. In short, his view is imperialist and his objective is still U.S. world domination. But we should not underestimate what is at stake in his proposal for “unconditional conversations” with heads of states that the Bush administration has named in the “Axis of Evil.” Obama has held his ground on the importance of “conversations and negotiations” and has challenged the policy of sanctions and invasions. This is a clear signal to people in the Third World, and the European nations who disagree with the Bush doctrine. Under an Obama administration, there may be alternatives for people in the Third World to the decades of napalm, blockades, shock and awe, and invasions that they have suffered under Republicans and Democrats alike. Obama recognizes that the U.S. is a declining empire and is trying to signal that it can’t continue to throw its weight around in the failed policies, as he calls them, of Bush and McCain. Obama’s argument for greater use of negotiations and discussions—as well as some of his reservations about massive military deployments—is likely to reflect a tactical debate between pragmatic imperialism on his side versus neo-con messianic imperialism on that of McCain. Again, both share the imperialist goal of U.S. world domination and the control of the politics and economy of Third World nations.

But that is a split in the ruling class that is of great importance to anti-war, anti-imperialist organizers in the U.S. and to governments and movements in the Third World. Let’s be clear. McCain supports “the surge” and future unilateral military aggression. He talks always about the hard line and views the solution of every problem through a military lens. We cannot allow his unstable hand anywhere near the nuclear button.

I think that most Blacks, women, and trade unionists would argue there is a profound benefit for an Obama victory and a profound danger in a McCain election. I do not think that those who are working to overturn the rightwing clique controlling the Supreme Court that is ruling out of order every civil rights and civil liberties case will argue there is little difference between Obama and McCain. I think trade unionists in Columbia, militants and governments in Venezuela, Cuba, and South Africa, as well as those governments and NGOs who witness the daily bullying and dictatorial practices of the U.S. at the United Nations—all see a profound difference between the candidates and are deeply invested in an Obama victory and a McCain defeat.

Let’s turn out the vote for Obama, Now.

4) Because John McCain is a war criminal.

How do you think McCain ended up in a POW camp in North Vietnam in the first place? Did the North Vietnamese come to the Naval Academy to kidnap him? No, he was flying a mission over North Vietnamese territory, violating their sovereignty, dropping bombs on civilian populations in an attempt to destroy their power plants and utilities, impose terror from the air, and knowingly cause civilian illness, starvation, death and destruction.

McCain was part of a group of air pirates who flew missions of destruction over Vietnam. After already having bombed North Vietnam, as the L.A. Times reports, “In August 1967 the squadron he joined had destroyed a power plant in Hanoi. Two months later, the plant had been rebuilt and was back on the Navy’s sites. McCain begged for the mission. ‘The earlier raid was the pride and joy of the squadron. I wanted to destroy it again. I was feeling pretty cocky as well.’” He flew the mission and was shot down in his efforts to kill. He wasn’t feeling as cocky at that point. He was captured by the North Vietnamese. McCain is a war criminal for his actions; for he admits he begged for his mission and felt destroying the power plants of another country to be his “pride and joy.”

His actions stand in profound contrast to the millions of people in the U.S. who dedicated and, in some cases, gave their lives to end the war in Vietnam. He is a disgrace to the many GI’s who refused to kill civilians, to those who resisted the draft and risked exile and imprisonment, to those who joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who testified in the Winter Soldier hearings (see Clay Claiborne’s film Vietnam: American Holocaust), and to the courageous veterans today who are speaking out against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The actions of the United States government, the U.S. Navy, and pilots of death and destruction like McCain led to the murder of three million Vietnamese civilians and one million combatants all trying to protect their country from a U.S. invasion. McCain was part of the force that inflicted poison gas, assassination squads, napalm, Agent Orange, rape, and premeditated murder against the people of Vietnam. The U.S. systematically committed crimes against humanity in Vietnam and John McCain was a willing, enthusiastic perpetrator. John McCain should be tried for war crimes in violation of the Nuremburg statutes.

Let’s turn out the vote for Obama, Now.

5) Because Sarah Palin’s election would turn the women’s movement on its head—Palin is a fascist, a racist, a white separatist, and a misogynist

There is nothing funny about Sarah Palin. (Tina Fey’s brilliant parodies are the exception.) But do not laugh at Palin any more than you should laugh at Bush. She is not stupid. She is deadly serious, armed and dangerous. She is tied to extreme vigilante groups who want to secede from the United States because they feel it is too liberal and too multi-racial. She uses oil revenues to buy the loyalties of people in Alaska, tying their futures to the global warming that will in fact destroy Alaska and the planet.

She and McCain will cut social services, already hanging by a thread. They will ramp up the police state and the war on terror. She has broken with John McCain by proposing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and is moving ever further to his right. Some speculate she is doing this out of a lack of discipline. Others think she wants to position herself even more strongly with the extreme Right base in case McCain loses and she wants to pursue other national elected positions.

She has drawn the fascist mobs to the campaign and operates in the tradition of reactionary demagogues Father Coughlin and Lou Dobbs. She is the hit person against Obama, the warm-up act for McCain that gets the white mob into a racist rage. She will support a police state and will lock us up without a second thought. And the talk of her being one 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from the presidency is not a joke. She may be a future president of the United States if we don’t defeat McCain.

Governor Palin believes a woman who chooses to have an abortion is a sinner, period. She believes that such is the case even if the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy forced on her through rape or incest. She is an enemy of the movement for reproductive rights. Her message to desperate, working class women is that being a loyal wife is a woman’s best chance for escaping poverty, your subjugation is liberation. She appeals to misogynist men and assures them that their domination of the family is God’s will. While she has been able to get out of the house with five children to pursue a professional career, her gender politics will prevent most women from doing the same—locking women in the home as single parents or prisoners of their husbands—as she leads choruses of “Stand by Your Man.” Her election will be an attack of Roe v. Wade, women’s reproductive rights, and women’s liberation.

Let’s turn out the vote for Barack Obama, Now.

6) Because the McCain campaign is an attack on the Left.

The McCain campaign wants to kill the Left in the U.S. and internationally, kill social security, the social safety net, and anything “social” including even the hope of social-ism. Obama is being attacked as an enemy because he is Black and because he is a moderate liberal. The attack on the Left broadly defined must be met by a counter-attack against McCain and for Obama in the last two weeks of this campaign.

Look at McCain’s targets:

  • William Ayers, billed a “terrorist” by the McCain camp, worked against the war in Vietnam in which four million people were killed. Ayers is a symbol of the anti-war movement and its most militant wing.
  • Reverend Wright. Reverend Wright is a respected theologian whose “crime” was saying that racism is “endemic” to the United States and that the U.S. sees the world through the eyes of an empire.
  • ACORN is being attacked by the McCain campaign for registering Democratic-leaning voters. ACORN may have gotten some bad names in the voter registration process but none of those people could vote or be counted. By contrast, the Republicans prevent people from voting who are registered to vote, deny valid signatures and voters, and close down polling places in Black and heavily Democratic districts. They defy the electoral process and have stolen state and national elections.
  • Socialism. McCain has begun attacking as “socialist” Obama’s efforts to make income taxes more progressive and to use some of the wealth to help the poor. McCain said, “At least in Europe the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language.” McCain proposes cutting capital gains taxes and giving more subsidies to the rich.

Obama’s ties to Ayers were minimal and nothing to apologize for. His ties to Reverend Wright were profound and his disassociation from his mentor deplorable. Obama’s distancing himself from ACORN reflects weakness. But, as Reverend Wright pointed out, Obama is a politician running for office; he makes his tactical moves according to his strategic aim of getting elected. I wish that Obama would defend socialism but he is not a socialist and if he were, he would not be the Democratic nominee for president.

Whether or not Obama chooses to disassociate, denounce, or distance himself from the anti-Vietnam war movement, from the rhetoric and analyses of the Civil Rights and Black Liberation Movements, from grassroots voter registration, and from socialism—those of us on the Left have our own interests in this election that include but also go beyond Obama’s objectives.

Whether Obama chooses to identify with or to renounce these connections, we on the Left need to grasp that these attacks from McCain are against us, not just Obama. If McCain is elected, what do we think he will do to those of us who fought against the war in Vietnam and are fighting to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq? What will he do to those who will continue to speak and act against the endemic racism of the United States, or to those of us who would study and advocate socialist alternatives to capitalism? I fear for those on the Left who do not see the writing on the wall.

Let’s turn out the vote for Barack Obama, Now.

7) Because an Obama victory will be a defeat for the Clintons.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been treacherous opponents of Obama. They are threatened by his possible victory and are doing very little to help him. At a white tie dinner John McCain told a great joke. He brought down the house when he observed, “Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats, I can’t shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me. I’m delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary!” Obama understood only too well the truth of that statement.

The Clinton’s opened up the floodgates of racism against Obama during the Democratic primaries. I made the argument then that Hillary Clinton was forming a white bloc with John McCain to defeat Barack Obama. I wrote an article that documented this in great detail: Hillary and John: The White Bloc That Must Be Stopped.

Throughout Hillary’s campaign she argued that only she and McCain were qualified to be president and Obama was not. She ran that ridiculous ad campaign, “Who do you want to answer the phone at 3 in the morning?” She told the press that she and John McCain had the standing to be commander and chief and Obama did not. As she realized her dreams of victory were slipping away, her campaign reached its moral nadir. She told voters in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and throughout the country that she did not think that “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” would vote for Obama. Hillary and Bill Clinton have opened up the door for the racism of the McCain/Palin campaign, aiding and abetting their “dear friend” John McCain.

Hillary also made continued false claims that Obama was not supportive of women (meaning her). Only when it was absolutely clear she was losing did she come out as a born-again feminist, a white feminist, attacking Obama. In so doing she set the conditions for “her friend” John McCain to pick Sarah Palin to mine the anti-Obama sentiment Hillary had agitated among Democratic white women voters. Fortunately, Obama is winning more and more women voters. Needless to say these women include the Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Indigenous women among whom he is also polling strongly. Women recognize how important is his defense of choice and his support for equal pay, and they are impressed with the way he relates to the women in his life, a strong Black partner and his daughters.

The Clinton’s, when they were in office, brought us the end of welfare, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Effective Death Penalty Act, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. They typify cynicism and opportunism. Hillary has demanded the vice-presidency and now has demanded an appointment to the Supreme Court as the price of her jaded support. Obama has refused.

When Bill Clinton was on David Letterman, Chris Rock was also a guest. During Clinton’s interview with Letterman he barely could say anything good about Obama and kept referring to McCain as “my friend” and “a war hero.” After Clinton left, Rock went off on him, “Is it me or does Clinton have a problem saying the name Barack Obama? He doesn’t get it, he keeps talking about Hillary. Hillary lost! Hillary lost. It wasn’t sexism. She ran against a Black guy nobody ever heard of and he beat her. She lost.”

If Obama wins in spite of the Clintons’ treachery it will strengthen his hand against the Democratic Leadership Council that they control—the hard core of conservative center-right Democrats. It is good to see Hillary Clinton campaigning for Obama. She has no other choice. She too fears eight years of a McCain/Palin ticket and fears her own isolation in the Democratic Party. The Clintons are a Trojan Horse inside the Obama campaign. But Obama is beating the Clintons, Yes He Can. An Obama victory would weaken the Clinton oligarchy.

Let’s turn out the vote for Barack Obama, Now.

8) A victory for Barack Obama will usher in a revolution of rising expectations.

If Obama is elected he will do so with the support of 95% of the Black vote and the highest Black vote in U.S. history, along with enormous numbers of white, Latino, Asian, and Indigenous peoples. He will attract a very large and energetic white vote with a strong anti-racist orientation. He will win over the majority of young people who are more influenced by the victories of the Civil Rights Movement than the crimes of the Klan and the White Citizens Councils.

Listen to how in every talk, besides his recitation of the obligatory “the American people” a dozen times, he goes out of his way to say, “My election is for everybody. The red states and blue, for the middle class, for Blacks, whites, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Indigenous peoples.” The mentioning of specific oppressed nationality peoples and cultures is in itself a major breakthrough in the public discourse of race in the country. Notice that the Republicans and most Democrats will never acknowledge that those communities even exist because to do so creates a momentary awareness that whiteness is not the norm, that whites are not the boss. It also creates support for group-specific demand development among oppressed nationality peoples.

After an Obama election the entire field of “community organizing” will get a major boost. I was there when Kennedy was elected and Johnson beat Goldwater. Those elections raised hopes that helped the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left and later the Black Liberation, Women’s, LGBT, and Environmental Justice Movements. Obama will have to decide, after he is elected, what policies he wants to carry out. If he betrays his best promises or carries out his worst, I believe he will receive significant organized opposition with demands that he change his policies.

I was also there when John F. Kennedy moved to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and tried to assassinate Castro. I was there when Lyndon B. Johnson initiated and then tried to disband the poverty programs, when Johnson escalated a genocidal war in Vietnam. These actions by Kennedy and Johnson led to more protests, not less. They led to the emergence of some very principled left liberal Democrats, and the radicalization of many formerly Democratic liberal students who came to see that more radical, structural, revolutionary change was needed.

I hope that Barack Obama understands that the U.S. is a declining superpower in a multi-polar world. I think he knows full well the economic crisis facing U.S. and world imperialism. I think he may propose a less bellicose and a less aggressive foreign policy if only to protect the system itself. Regardless, my argument is not that we work to elect Obama based on an ability to predict all of his actions or choices.

I think every successful organizer has to have an independent program and an independent grassroots base. I am part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center, and the Bus Riders Union. I work in alliance with thousands of grassroots groups reflected, in one instance, by the 12,000 social movement organizers who attended the first U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta in 2007.

I hope that Obama, as a former community organizer, will understand pressure from his left. Even if he does not always respond to our specific demands, it will be the job of the movements to assess his response and figure out our best tactics to win our demands.

I hope that we can make sure that Obama respects the civil rights and civil liberties of protestors and reigns in the campaign of terror against protestors by local police, the National Guard, and the U.S. military. An Obama administration cannot sanction the level of brutality and repression against demonstrators that the Bush police state has perfected. Under pressure from the Left, I believe he could expand civil rights and civil liberties and expand the rights of protest and demonstration, which in turn would help the movement further. Can I guarantee that? Of course not, but I do believe that the entire climate for anti-racist, anti-poverty, environmental justice, immigrant rights, anti-police state, anti-war organizing will be radically improved by an Obama victory.

Let’s turn out the vote for Barack Obama, Now.

9) Because I have faith in the Obama supporters, faith in the Black community, faith in the grassroots Left.

Obama supporters

I spent a weekend at a Camp Obama training program in Long Beach and have since been going to phone bank at the local Obama headquarters. They are a wide variety of folk coming from many different points on the political spectrum. They are decent, hard working, motivated, and wonderful people. There is a movement atmosphere among the group. I was deeply moved by the 350 of us who came to the Obama training. We worked together from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday in a very intensive organizer training program. On every break I asked people, What is the most important thing about an Obama victory for you? I was surprised by the number and diversity of answers. “Because he is so intelligent. I am sick of having a stupid president.” “He is the most ethical, the most humane.” “He will defeat Karl Rove.” “He is the most qualified Black man.” “Because he will help me not be ashamed to be an American.” “Because I was involved in the Civil Rights Movement and had lost hope. This brings me from ‘We Shall Overcome’ to ‘Yes We Can.’” “Because I want my children to see we can elect a Black president.”

Of the 350 people who attended, 100 were Black, 15 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 15 were Latino, and more than 200 were white. This election is drawing a line of demarcation among white people that is very profound—a civil war within a larger civil war, the anti-racist whites versus the racist whites. Just as in the Civil Rights Movement, a large anti-racist white bloc is consolidating itself as a critical ally of communities of color. Remember, these are white folk voting for a Black man for president of the United States. We should not underestimate the good intentions and high levels of activism and sacrifice of the Obama camp and their critical role in history in the years ahead.

The Black community

The Black community is driven like nothing I have seen since the March on Washington, the fight against segregation in the South, the fight against racism and police brutality in the North. The Obama campaign has a mass character to it that is unprecedented in U.S. politics, having sprung from the traditions of Black protest, Black rebellion and Black organizing. In the past months I have spoken with many Black members of the Obama Campaign and the Bus Riders Union. Having grown up in Jim Crow segregation, many say how hard it is to believe that Black people could come from slavery to the possibility of electing the first Black president of the United States. While that makes them very hopeful, in the same sentence they also talk of wanting it so badly they cannot acknowledge it. They do not want to get their hopes up and let the white racist voters crush them. They fear something bad happening to Obama. They fear the white backlash and fear another set of hopes dashed against the rocks of racism by this country. They are working with all their heart and soul for Obama but do not want to acknowledge how much this election means to them because, if he loses, they don’t know if they can bear the pain.

There is no community stronger and tougher than the Black community. It has suffered more pain in America than at times is humanly imaginable. Today more than a million Black men are in prison and millions more are being hunted down by the police as we speak. And yet, the Black community has a power and resilience that is legendary, a long history of leading the anti-racist and Left movements in this country. Its capacity to recover and fight back is admired by friend and foe alike. Still, we cannot let a McCain victory happen, we just cannot. An Obama victory will raise the spirits and fighting capacity of the Black community.

There are some who worry that Obama will co-opt the Black community. They think that Black people who are against the growing police state or the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will look the other way if those policies are carried out by Obama. Some have expressed a fear that Black people will protect and defend Obama in a way that brooks no criticism, giving him a free pass at a time of crisis. But while that is possible, it would contradict everything I have seen in 40 years of organizing. My experience says that it all depends on how you organize and how well you grasp and assert your own independence and initiative in the united front.

I have been in social movements that helped elect and then challenge mayor of Newark Kenneth Gibson, and Los Angeles mayors Tom Bradley and Antonio Villaraigosa. Obama is a brilliant organizer, a brilliant politician. He has his own program, his own priorities, and he will fight to win support for them. Cooptation is not the most helpful concept, taking the focus off our own role. Obama will do what he has to do. It is for those of us who are organizing in low-income communities of color, those of us who consider ourselves good strategists, good tacticians and organizers—it is for those of us who have a grassroots base to drive our own programs, our own demands, and to develop the tactical plans to win those demands.

After the election, in just two weeks, thousands of grassroots groups that have been working on life and death issues for decades will be in the much stronger position of being able to place their demands on a more receptive Obama presidency. As just a few key examples of structural demands we must raise:

  • Dramatically cut the $400-billion military budget. Massively expand social services and direct transfers of money to the unemployed, the poor, and those facing foreclosures and evictions.
  • Release the vast majority of the one million Black and 500,000 Latino prisoners incarcerated in the U.S. gulag. Provide humane treatment for those who remain, including plans for parole and rehabilitation.
  • Remove all combat and occupation forces from Iraq and provide support for the self-determination of the Iraqi people. End the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. End the military threats against Iran, and Pakistan.
  • Provide free, safe, and legal abortions for women. Do not impose parental notification. Provide U.S. funds for birth control and sex education in the U.S. and Third World.
  • Pass a new provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, strengthening Title VI, that will allow grassroots parties to sue government agencies over racial discrimination and to block federal funding to racially discriminatory projects based on disparate racial impacts.
  • Stop the environmental disaster of “clean coal” ethanol and nuclear power. Dramatically expand clean fuel bus transportation and dramatically restrict the auto.
  • Stop the ICE raids and surveillance on the 12 million immigrants in the U.S. Offer them amnesty. Take down the wall with Mexico.
  • End the blockade of Cuba and stop U.S. subversion of the Venezuelan revolution.
  • Support self-determination for the Palestinian people and protect their right to a viable homeland.

Those of us who see ourselves in a united front alliance with Obama and with his millions of supporters should carry out a policy of simultaneous alliance and challenge, defending his candidacy and challenging some of its key policies. The Right is like a pack of attack dogs. They will not stop even after Obama is elected. If they lose the election, they will begin attacking the Obamas the day they take office. They will try to subvert his presidency at every turn. We want to build an alliance with Obama against the Right, a united front against racism and fascism that never loses sight of our unities with him and with our stand against the barbarians at the gate. At the same time, we want to build stronger grassroots movements to his left that can carry out their own independent programs and tactical plans. For grassroots organizers we are working with millions of other Obama supporters who can be won to a broader progressive and Left agenda in the process of fighting for an Obama presidency. We need organizers who do not sit on the sidelines of history but see their participation in this historical battle as a major development that can expand the chances for more radical and revolutionary changes in U.S. society.

Let us be able to rejoice in an Obama victory and then face the inevitable challenges together. I am convinced that many of the people who are working so hard for Obama—who are making millions of phone calls, contributing their money, and going door to door for his election—will expect the most of him. They will not go quietly into the night if he betrays their trust. Obama has argued to his supporters that he expects us to keep up the organizing to keep him on track, that the role of those who work to elect him will be to organize to push him once he is elected. There are millions of people working their heart out for his election who will be there to take him up on his post-election offer.

Let’s turn out the vote for Barack Obama, Now.

10) Because it’s time to act. Here is what you can do.

There are at least four major ways you can take positive action in the next two weeks to elect Obama and defeat McCain:

  • Contribute funds to the Obama Campaign. Over three million people have donated already. Obama raised $150 million in September from 632,000 people, an average of $86 per contribution. My wife Lian and I have contributed to his campaign and plan to do so again in the next few days. Whether you give $25, $50 or $100, consider that another 600,000 people will be doing the same. If we each do this, we can raise another $150 million in the next two weeks to elect Obama and defeat McCain. Last minute ads to counter last minute attack ads from McCain are needed and funds are essential. Every McCain ad is an ad against liberals, against the Left, against Black civil rights leaders, against socialism, against any progressive future.
  • If you are not in a swing state, phone bank into swing states with your local branch of the Obama Campaign. Also consider volunteering to travel to your nearest swing state the last weekends before the election or whenever you can to go door to door turning out voters. The more experience you have, the better, but the Obama campaign is good at plugging you in.
  • Become a poll worker. There are millions of people who will vote for the first time or vote after years of absence. The polls will be jammed. The Republicans will commit any crime under the books to deter voters in Democratic districts and Black voters in particular. We need election protection. People who have signed up as poll workers in L.A. are already saying that South L.A. and East L.A. are under-staffed. We can assume that communities of color will need special attention and that this is a critical job.

There is work to be done, and it is great to be an organizer, not a bystander. Obama is making history and so should we. It our job to be part of this historic movement and to come home with a victory in hand.

* * * *

A respectful acknowledgment of the historic presidential campaign of Congressperson Cynthia McKinney.

The candidate with whose views I most agree is former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney, a dynamic Black woman running on the Green Party ticket. I know many people of good faith and good politics who are working for her. I encourage them to carry out their plan to its fullest and wish her campaign the greatest success. She should be encouraged for what she is doing. At this point this is not the choice I am making in my own tactical assessment of the best way to confront racism and empire. When the election is over, whether Obama is elected or McCain, we all have to work together in a broad united front against the war in Iraq and racism at home. Any tactical disagreements on this election, no matter how profound, should not divide us in our broader long-term objectives. At the end of the day, we are sisters and brothers in the struggle.

* * * * * *

Eric Mann, a veteran of the Congress of Racial Equality, Students for a Democratic Society, and the United Auto Workers, is the author of: Comrade George: An Investigation into the Life, Political Thought, and Assassination of George Jackson, Dispatches from Durban: Firsthand Commentaries on the World Conference Against Racism, and Katrina’s Legacy: White Racism and Black Reconstruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

58 Responses to “Eric Mann’s 10 Reasons For Obama Vote”

  1. Linda D. said

    In line with this post, I rec’d the following from some in the Obama campaign just today. (It is interesting to me from the point of view of “identity politics”.)

    Watch Rinku Sen on Meet the Bloggers at 1pm ET: http://meetthebloggers.org/?utm_source=rgemail

    Joining Sen will be bloggers Adia Harvey Wingfield (Racism Review), Joshua Busch (Double Take 08), and Liliana Segura (AlterNet). All three have written extensively about this topic, as you can see from the material below. Check out their articles, and join them in the live blog discussion today at 1pm ET/10 am PT at Meet the Bloggers.

    White Progressives Don’t Get It — Rinku Sen, Applied Research Center
    Reject the Hate in ‘08! Don’t Fall for Racist Tactics — Joshua Busch, Double Take 08
    Backlash: Six Challenges to McCain’s Racist Fearmongering — Liliana Segura, AlterNet
    How White Privilege Works — Adia Harvey Wingfield, Racism Review
    Tell McCain to End the Politics of Hate — Brave New Films

  2. Tahawus said

    Also of interest is Nicholas Kristof’s NY Times op-ed “Rebranding the U.S. With Obama” – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?em

  3. Jose M said

    I appreciate this post so very much.

    It is eye opening to me to see that the position I occasionally held (due to my ignorance) was a typical abstentionist one.

    Now I see that this election has much higher stakes and deeper meaning than people like the RCP like to give it.

    This isnt to mean that I will vote for Obama. I will not. But as Zerohour and I discussed, it is something that has made me interrogate why as communists we are opposed to Obama. And it is a question I have no clear answer for.

    So I would like there to be a lot of debate over this, and I want to hear more from people like TNL and then Jed and Mike.

    If there is one thing that I think this article is correct on, it is that there is the POSSIBILITY of the creation of more space for radical organizing if Obama gets elected. And I think that things will become much harder if McCain gets elected .

    And my position is not as simple as “voting for the lesser evil.” Like I said, I wont vote, and I dont support Obama,even if he is less evil than McCain. They are both imperialist politicians who will continue this system’s horrors here and around the world. On that we should not be deluded. But I do think, as others have noted, that it is a statement against white supremacy in which communists can build on using our own independent program, allied with obama supporters.

    These are my thoughts as of now, I expect them to change a bit as discussion continues and time passes.

  4. LS said

    I highly respect Eric Mann and the amazing organizing work he has done over decades. Particularly given who it’s coming from, this is a significant and powerful piece. I appreciate your printing it here, despite key Kasama folks having previously expressed sharp disagreement with such a perspective.

    I am in overall agreement with the sentiment of this piece – that we need to vote for Obama to strike as strong a blow as possible against white supremacy (among other reasons, but that is central at this point).

    But I don’t agree with all of Mann’s formulations.

    My main criticism politically is that he characterizes the left’s relationship with Obama as a ‘united front.’ I don’t think that’s right. Maybe Mann doesn’t mean to use the term ‘united front’ in a precise Marxist sense, but more in a ‘popular usage’ kind of way. But I’ll assume he meant it in a more precise way.

    Mann says:

    Those of us who see ourselves in a united front alliance with Obama and with his millions of supporters should carry out a policy of simultaneous alliance and challenge, defending his candidacy and challenging some of its key policies. The Right is like a pack of attack dogs. They will not stop even after Obama is elected. If they lose the election, they will begin attacking the Obamas the day they take office. They will try to subvert his presidency at every turn. We want to build an alliance with Obama against the Right, a united front against racism and fascism that never loses sight of our unities with him and with our stand against the barbarians at the gate.

    I come to essentially the same practical conclusions as Mann, that we should vote for Obama; we should fight tooth and nail against the racist right wing attacks on him; fight to win all that can be won in terms of significant reforms under an Obama presidency (mainly on the domestic level); while challenging his administration (most obviously on ‘foreign policy’).

    But I think it’s fundamentally wrong (in Marxist terms) to think we can form a united front with the political head of U.S. imperialism. We don’t live in an oppressed nation where we can ally with significant sections of the bourgeoisie to advance the socialist revolution. While there will be some bourgeois forces in the oppressed nationality movements that can be won to the broad united front for revolution in the U.S., we should be clear that that’s not what a President Obama would represent. He does not come out of the Black freedom movement and does not represent that movement, even as a bourgeois force within that movement.

    Mann refers to “a united front alliance with Obama and with his millions of supporters…” It is precisely the millions of his supporters that are essential to win to the united front against imperialism to make socialist revolution in the U.S. But we shouldn’t have illusions that Obama will assist the left in bringing his base into the united front against imperialism. On the contrary, he is trying to do the opposite – bring his base more solidly under the leadership of the imperialists (not an easy job given the depth of the systemic crises going on).

    So, we would not be in a united front with a President Obama. That said, communists’ decisions tactically and strategically on how to relate to a President Obama should be quite flexible, and should be characterized to a large degree as Mann says, by fighting against the racist right wing onslaught that will come against him from day one, while also leading movements with clear political independence and initiative.

    A correct understanding of both the history and dynamics of national oppression in the U.S. as well as the mass line will be hugely important for getting our bearings and figuring out how to organize and respond to changing dynamics under a potential Obama administration.

  5. nando said

    Jose writes:

    “If there is one thing that I think this article is correct on, it is that there is the POSSIBILITY of the creation of more space for radical organizing if Obama gets elected. And I think that things will become much harder if McCain gets elected .

    I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that we dig into these matters — and not simply adopt a view without deep discussion. And after all, how can we engage with people who disagree with us, if we haven’t seriously considered their arguments.

    there is a possibility for the creation of more space for radical organizing if obama is elected.

    Not mainly because he is “more progressive” — but precisely because the clash of “rising expectations” with the fact that he is NOT “for the people” could create an important opening.

    But I think there is ALSO a possiblity of “more space” if McCain is elected…. (as the presidency of Nixon showed.)

    In other words, i don’t see why anyone should assume an Obama presidency is better for radical organizing than a McCain presidency.

    And further, I don’t think we should decide our stand based on what is ‘better’ for radical organizing in some narrow sense.

    And finally, i deeply believe if we urge radical forces to enter the Obama campaign (on bourgeois terms, dispersed into the bourgeois aparatus, to conduct politics-as-usual there with “phone banking for obama” etc.) we will squander what radical forces we can influence.

    We need to gather revolutionary forces under a revolutionary banner, not hand them back over to the liberals they have rejected.

    The best way to create “space” for radical organizing is to take up energetic work as revolutionaries and (as Mao says) “create favorable conditions through struggle.”

    We have often discussed Mao’s concept of “hasten and await.” There are objective changes that we must “await” — that turn the objective conditions more favorable to reaching millions. But we can also hasten those openings by building and consolidating revolutionary forces, identifying the ways of conducting revolutionary work under non-revolutinary conditions, and struggling to win people away from the illusions and destructions of tailing the liberals.

  6. Jose M said

    Mike,

    thanks for the post. I agree.

    Do you mean that there could be “more space for radical organizing” if McCain is elected due to the discontent his victory would mean (as well as his later policies)?

    We do need to act as revolutionaries at a time like this, while of course engaging the millions of people who really are caught up in illusions. How we are to do that, I dont think anyone really knows, but it is up to us to discuss this, come to conclusions and then implement them in practice. I get sick and tired of the RCP continuously printing articles on how Obama is a “black face on a rotting empire” while they do nothing whatsoever to engage those who sincerely believe in obama. We need to break with that and do something meaningful.

  7. Mike E said

    exactly: a McCain presidency would mean
    a) great soul searching within the democrats, and dissary.
    b) a real sense that ‘this musta been stolen”
    c) a sense that “change” isn’t ocming within the system
    d) outrage over the policies that would follow.

    My overall points are:
    I don’t think there is any reason to believe Obama is better for revolutionary politics than McCain.
    I don’t assume that Obama is better for the people of the world.
    There is a narrow (even a U.S. nationalist) perspective that sees this just in terms of black advancement. Important, yes. But let’s not leave empire and war aside.
    And finally, the idea that “we’ (by supporting and pressuring Obama from within his campaign) would “help” push things in a better direction — is (pardon the harshness) absurd.

    I have seen this argued for decades. And have never (ever!) seen any evidence of truth.

    It is like prayer — it never changes anything, it doesn’t affect the universe, but the illusion of prayer reappears over and over among the faithful for reasons that have little to do with evidence or results.

  8. Mike E said

    exactly: a McCain presidency would mean
    a) great soul searching within the democrats, and dissary.
    b) a real sense that ‘this musta been stolen”
    c) a sense that “change” isn’t ocming within the system
    d) outrage over the policies that would follow.

    My overall points are:
    I don’t think there is any reason to believe Obama is better for revolutionary politics than McCain.
    I don’t assume that Obama is better for the people of the world.
    There is a narrow (even in some ways a U.S. nationalist) perspective that sees this just in terms of black advancement. Important, yes. But let’s not leave empire and war aside.
    And finally, the idea that “we’ (by supporting and pressuring Obama from within his campaign) would “help” push things in a better direction — is (pardon the harshness) absurd.

    I have seen this argued for decades. And have never (ever!) seen any evidence of truth.

    It is like prayer — it never changes anything, it doesn’t affect the universe, but the illusion of prayer reappears over and over among the faithful for reasons that have little to do with evidence or results.

  9. Jose M said

    Hmm…good points.

    If McCain wins, I think there can and will be a great sense of betrayal and awakening amongst the people. It will be like “wtf! we went out in record numbers and put all our hopes in this election and now they are gone.” A great deal of disorientation, one in which we would need to fill the gap and provide that real hope.

    I do also think that pressuring Obama and thinking he will capitulate makes little sense. Isnt it what happened with Johnson, Kennedy, etc?

  10. carldavidson said

    To Mike:

    It’s only a prayer if you’re waiting on Obama to do something, or not.

    The whole point, to my way of thinking, is what we do, what we consolidate, what we deploy, what we put forward.

    If those are a prayer, then it’s only because we have no theory, program, platform or line of march–election or no election.

    The ball’s in our court in regard to these tasks, not Obama’s or McCain’s.

  11. Name (required) said

    The biggest problem with this piece is that it is arguing for an all consuming push to elect a man who is essentially already elected. At what point, after having assured that the evil John McCain won’t gain the presidency, does your activity and the effect of a massive win for Obama ACTUALLY LEGITIMIZE THE VERY IMPERIALIST POLITICS YOU CLAIM TO OPPOSE!!!

    Even on pragmatic grounds, which are problematic in their own right, Mann’s statement fails. The political facts of the situation are that Obama is swinging the massive block of voters that are FAR to the right of “the left,” with which Eric Mann is concerned. In effect his real base is coming home, and in the process so-called progressives are contributing to their own IRRELEVANCE. As the political mainstream solidifies ever rightward even the most tepid leftism becomes ever more “out of touch”.

    Now is exactly the point to switch gears (assuming this was ever the intent of groups like Progs for Obam) and bring to the fore a revolutionary anti-capitalist vision for the people to consider. Instead, these forces will organize as a social-democratic rearguard to fight off anyone to the left of Obama, and as they do so they will espouse platitudes about influencing Obama even as he moves further and further away from them.

    The whole program is exactly the CPUSA program of United Front, only with a farcical twist. The forces that Mann represents are going to switch towards an argument for a new New Deal as their sheep’s clothing. They might even be taken up on that language, but the actual “new deal” that will be formed between capital and everyone else will be a step backwards. What is truly disturbing is that some people arguing for this political road understand the way that WWII intervened in the capitalist crisis last time, and expect the same to happen this time, and they would STILL prefer to play this charade rather than put an end to capitalist rule outright.

  12. RW Harvey said

    Regarding electing Obama, I first turn to a psychological process called “displacement”: “the unconscious transfer of instinct energy from its original object to a new object. [This displacement] brings about a transfer to that new object of emotional interests and attitudes that were once appropriate to the old object.”

    This is the seduction that is Obama’s election. Liberals, progressives, radicals and revolutionaries of all kinds, in voting for Obama, are about to take all their fierce instinctual desire for justice and an end to racism, their love of freedom, and their hatred of white supremacy that was forged in the civil rights movement and transfer that onto — and make equivalent with — the placing of Obama in the White House! In this way many hope (consciously or unconsciously) that the difficult work of uprooting racism will be eased by this election (and for some finally settling the question of whether or not America has finally lived up to its exceptionalist promises as the land of the free). These are indeed noble sentiments but in this historic moment they are misplaced/displaced.

    While I think that the election of even a reactionary Black president in 1950-1970 would’ve objectively been a serious blow to white surpemacy and racism, that time has clearly passed. Haven’t we seen enough Black reactionaries like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell to at least be a little suspect as to what Obama will and won’t be able to do? Can’t we call out reaction and racism while simultaneously exposing Obama as a frontman for empire?

    Second, it is a mistake and a sin against materialist analysis to think that Obama will usher in a period of rising expectations. That may be the energy that is mobilizing his campaign but the current crisis of imperialism is already mitigating those possibilities and the maneuvering room for America, and with that setting some context and complex tasks for the orgainzing of revolutionaries. Actually the best maneuvering the rulng class has done to date is to create the Obama candidacy. To vote Obama with the idea that his ascension to the White House will be a blow to racism and a step towards progress is a set up of monumental proportions. If you thought Bush was unaccountable to criticism because he was hearing the voice of God, wait until an Obama regime is held beyond criticism because to challenge a Black president is racist! The US ruling class would love this corralling of liberals into their reactionary agenda (recall if you will the dividends paid out by the reflex of labelling all criticism of Israel as antisemitic — especially the paralysis of liberals).

    Lastly, Mann’s essay is particularly dangerous in that it takes the lesser of two evils and flips it to make Obama v. McCain appear as if it is the choice between Good and Evil, thereby adding the ever-appealing energies of righteousness and zealotry to voting for Obama. If we forget who is behind Obama and who Obama serves we are in for the greatest sucker-punch that bourgeois democracy has delivered since FDR.

  13. Ka Frank said

    I agree with many of the comments above, including the argument that there will be important openings for revolutionary work under either an Obama or McCain presidency–though with Obama as a newly elected president it might take longer for progressives and far broader sections of people to see that they are not getting the “change” they expect from an Obama administration.

    What about Mann’s argument that an Obama election will be a body blow to white supremacy? Will an Obama administration change the horrendous living and working conditions for the vast majority of Black people and other people of color? Will it put an end to police brutality, to ICE raids, to militarization of the border, to the prison-industrial complex, and to the countless ways that white supremacy is woven into the fabric of capitalism? Just as under the Clinton administrations, American white supremacy will be “kinder and gentler” in tone, with more of an emphasis on multi-culturalism, but its substance and fundamental nature will not change. Only revolution can accomplish that.

    To a certain degree, the election has become a referendum on whether a Black man can be elected and serve as President of the U.S.–Empire. Yes, the organized forces of bigotry are rearing their ugly heads in this campaign and this should be denounced and opposed, both before and after November 4.

    But once Obama is elected, which is extremely likely right now, and takes office, our job will not be to form an “anti-racist united front” with Obama, but to take aim as the new administration and the imperialist state that it represents. This will require some tactical flexibility and a good grasp of the mass line, and may take some time to gain traction as the promises of “change” turn into systemic and vicious attacks on the people of the world and the U.S., but it must be done.

  14. leslie1917 said

    I think it’s more important how people who vote/support Obama understand that vote/support than whether they vote/support him.

    My own approach–which I realize may be considered eclectic, opportunist, fence-straddling, etc–is:

    1-I live in a so-called battleground state, and I’m going to vote for Obama because:

    (a) a McCain-Palin victory will give a green light to white supremacist, misogynist, Christian fundamentalist, etc. sentiments, groups, and movements

    (b) any nominations that McCain makes to the Supreme Court or other federal courts will almost certainly contribute to decisions that will make life worse for women, peoples of color, the working class, leftists, etc. than will any nominations Obama might make,

    (c) McCain’s domestic policy agenda, to the extent it gets implemented, will also make things worse for these folks than Obama’s will

    2-But I’m not campaigning, driving people to the polls,handing out literature, etc. for Obama because I think I and other revolutionary minded people have more important things to do, especially since so many things cry out to be done, and we have so little time to do them. Among these more important things are:

    (a) exposing Obama’s approach to international issues (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, the lopsided distribution of the world’s resources) as exemplifying US imperialism at its most vicious and (as opposed to Bush, McCain, Palin) perhaps smartest

    (b) exposing Obama’s approach to the economic crisis as one whose overwhelming concern is with the well-being of finance capital

    (c) exposing why electoral politics in the U.S. (including the Obama campaign) are primarily a way of limiting, diverting, sabotaging, and befuddling the struggle for large-scale change in the U.S., to say nothing of revolutionary struggle

    (d) trying to help build generally revolutionary struggles and organization, and spending time campaigning for Obama sure as hell won’t do that.

    My approach is summed up by four slogans (yes I know the fourth is clunky and imprecise, but you get the drift):

    No to McCain/Palin

    No to illusions about Obama/Biden

    No to bipartisan imperialism

    Yes to uniting with people in the U.S. and internationally in the struggle against imperialism, capitalism, national oppression, racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression.

  15. TellNoLies said

    Well said Leslie1917!

  16. Mike E said

    What strikes me about Leslie’s argument (aside from her sincere and important desire to ultimately find a way toward a more radical politics in the U.S.) is her assumptions about the power of voting.

    It stands out because she is very specific about saying she will cast her INDIVIDUAL VOTE for Obama — because that individual vote matters (even if she is not registering others, or bussing voters to the polls.)

    The assumption is that this individual vote for Obama has more potential impact than an individual decision not to vote — and to explain that abstention to twenty or fifty people.

    Underlyng all this is the assumption that it is (somehow) the people who decide which of the imperialists rule. That she HAS to vote, because (somehow) it matters whether or not she does. It is not because she thinks she can speak better to Obama supporters, but literally because she thinks her vote can help decide who rules the U.S., what policies get carried out and on on.

    Especially in cases (like this) where major election do not appear close — (Johnson Goldwater, Reagan Carter) it is clear that (in many ways) it is the ruling establishment who picked the winner, not the people. This is not some sinister hidden committee, or some monolithic fraternity of imperialists — but a complex, fractious, evolving process of decisionmaking involving levels of power, centers of power, and different instrumentalities (military, media, funding, etc.) But the fact remains that ultimately (and essentially) the decision is made by a ruling class (in the sense that they approve the major candidates, and often decide which of them will ascend).

    Who decides what is a key issue or a gaffe? And what is not? Who decides what gets driven home on the news every night, and what gets passed over with no interest?

    Over and over the crucial emerging argument of this election has been made (as we have documented here on this site) that Obama is the best way for U.S. imperialism to get a new international blank slate after years of aggression and fiasco. While to the voters it is said that “its the economy, stupid” — i.e. that increasingly there is a need for a fresh stat on domestic credibility too.

    That’s why Obama is being selected — and the selection is ultimately not by individual voters like Leslie who believe they are personally (somehow) “making a difference” through their individual votes. But it is by a system (and its political kingmakers) who have reached a consensus (well before the election, apparently).

    Let me put it like this: The monsters who rule the U.S. (and who profit most from its empire) have crushed countries, murders countless people, exploited billions, bought and paid for politicians like race horses — and (to me) the notion that these criminal empire-makers would stop every four years, and hand over THEIR disagreements for the PEOPLE to decide, strikes me as naive in the extreme. they don’t. they have a method where THEY pick their next leadership AND where they legitimize (and test) their new chief using the trials of debate and national elections.

    In the most mechanical sense, the actual picking is verified, and finalized, by votes across the country. But to think that “the people decide” and “your vote makes a difference” is (i believe) to buy into a set of assumptions that are not true, and that obscure an understanding of how things really “work.”

  17. TellNoLies said

    For most of my adult life I have chosen not to vote and have used it as an opportunity to speak not to twenty or fifty people, but usually considerably more than that. I think that activity probably contributed in positive ways to some people’s development of revolutionary politics. But I also think that there are times when such an approach has the opposite effect, namely of convincing people that revolutionaries are out of touch with what is at stake in an election. (I think for example, that this was the net effect of my vocal opposition to the Jackson campaigns.)

    Over the past month we have seen the McCain/Palin campaign become nakedly racist in ways that have drawn widespread condemnation in the corporate media and that are being roundly rejected by the electorate. In such a context I think it makes much more sense to argue for people to vote for Obama “without illusions” than it does to explain a decision to not vote.

    Whatever else they (rightly or wrongly) think is in play in this election, almost everybody, including the racists view it as a referendum on racism and the political equality of Black people. Barring a coup or something similar, Obama is going to win this election. But I want it to be a fucking landslide. I want this election to make it that much harder for raving bigots like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to get a hearing. And in this regard, my vote WILL count.

    While I think I have fewer illusions about the power of my vote than most people, I also think lots and lots of people who may not yet think of themselves as revolutionaries think about their vote in a similar manner. They know that Obama will continue to wage imperialist war. They know that he won’t change all sorts of things that desperately need changing. They even know why (some of) the rulers of this country see value in Obama. Their vote for him is calculated and contextual. There are times when I might argue with their calculations. This is not one of them.

    This is, to take a touchy moment from the RCP’s history, something of a Boston busing moment, where a determination to distance oneself from anything having to do with the existing capitalist state blinded some sincere revolutionaries to the “which side are you on” nature of a fight against racism and called into question their leadership in the eyes of the majority of revolutionary minded people from there on out.

  18. leslie1917 said

    Mike says:

    “It is not because she thinks she can speak better to Obama supporters, but literally because she thinks her vote can help decide who rules the U.S., what policies get carried out and on on.”

    Yes, voting for Obama makes it easier to speak to his supporters, to unite with aspects of why they’re voting for him, and struggle against the misguided aspects of why they’re voting for him. And that’s an additional and admittedly more compelling (from the standpoint of aspiring revolutionary practice) reason to vote for him.

    And, yes, it’s pretty clear that Obama is the candidate of large sections of the bourgeoisie, probably a majority of it and/or probably that section that has the best understanding of what’s in the best interests of the bourgeoisie. And yes, the vote of one person makes zero difference. But in discussing whether to vote for Obama or not, I think the criteria is to act in a way so that if others acted in that way, things would be better for the oppressed and exploited of the world (and, yes, that’s a paraphrase of a principle most fully articulated by Kant whose philosophy epitomizes bourgeois ideology in many ways, but I think the paraphrased principle is applicable here).

    As my previous posting indicated, I don’t deny that the primary aspects of the Obama candidacy and electoral politics are the things that need exposing as contrary to the interests of the oppressed and exploited of the world. But the secondary aspects can’t be neglected, and they lead me to think it makes sense to vote for Obama (but not campaign, etc. for him).

  19. RW Harvey said

    Again, can’t we expose and call out racism without voting for Obama? If the 2008 presidential election is primarily a question of taking an anti-racist stand does that mean that we could never not vote for a presidential candidate in America until all racism is eradicated? Every election in the US has its seduction: the next Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade, ending the war (in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.), and now a stand against racism and white supremacy. All of this embedded and crusted over with myth that this system can really be influenced by voting. The poisonous liquid that makes palatable all the “reasons” to vote is the mother’s milk that American capitalism/imperialism is the exception. How will we wean people from this if we cannot relinquish the teat?

  20. RW Harvey said

    Oops… please insert “a presidential candidate of color”

  21. Linda D. said

    If we solely interpret support for Obama as strictly being anti-racist—although I have maintained all along that we should be on the alert, vigilant, taking on and exposing all racist attacks—think we are selling the people a little short (as if they are some malleable blob, and only care about one issue or aspect).

    Chris Rock when asked by Larry King—basically how “proud HE must be to be voting for a Black man,” (also insinuating that that is why Chris Rock supported Obama), said: “Hey man, I’m not voting for Flava (Flavor) Flav…”

    Being more revolutionary-minded I don’t have some illusions about Obama the candidate, or his role in the U.S. imperialists’ schemes, or what this system is really about. At the same time, the imperialists are not some monolithic bloc but have their own contradictions, and some of those cracks and fissures in the ruling class can also work to our advantage. One of the biggest arguments I’ve had so far, starting months ago, with some old friends who are staunch Obama supporters, has been over Afghanistan and Pakistan. However…

    Mann says: “Those of us who see ourselves in a united front alliance with Obama and with his millions of supporters should carry out a policy of simultaneous alliance and challenge, defending his candidacy and challenging some of its key policies.”

    Think LS made a good point in comment Nº 4 as to a misuse of the term “united front.” While I don’t see forming a united front alliance WITH OBAMA, I do see tapping into the overwhelming progressive sentiment of the millions of his supporters, and who are his supporters for a myriad of reasons. Some of that started in the beginning of his campaign–to end the war in Iraq, and that issue unleashed a lot of basically anti-imperialist forces—not exclusively in the U.S. but worldwide. It is interesting to note, that every single Mexican newspaper and news station has been reporting daily for months on the election (sometimes the lead story), and in particular Obama—vs. Bush (and McCain and formerly Fox). There is much emphasis on the outright hatred of Bush, the “Bush doctrine”, etc. It is not so much that people here are so completely enamored with Obama, although many can identify with him, but their hatred for U.S. imperialism is steadfast. However, the Obama phenomena has not been lost on a wide array of mexicanos. A day doesn’t go by without someone asking me if I think a Black man could ever be elected prez. in racist Amerikkka, and what would that mean for Latinos, the treatment of immigrants, etc.

    LS also states: “A correct understanding of both the history and dynamics of national oppression in the U.S. as well as the mass line will be hugely important for getting our bearings and figuring out how to organize and respond to changing dynamics under a potential Obama administration.”

    Without watering down our revolutionary politics and stance, and in continuing our struggle with people, what I think we need to do is to unite with people’s better sentiments. The contradictions (or disagreements) we have with the people should not be viewed as antagonistic. Our joint antagonisms are with the ruling class and the imperialists as a whole. Whether or not the people are going to be able to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire” in SOME FASHION is, IMO, going to be more determined by what is happening in the objective situation and the world, rather than any progressive section of the people being able to have some meaningful impact. (Just look at the economic crisis, which has become pandemic.) But in the eyes of the majority of people, Obama has come to symbolize a “hopeful” glimpse of the future (which has been predicated on the past life and death struggles of the masses, and in particular based on the battles of the most oppressed, i.e. African Americans and the oppressed nationalities.). McCain represents the opposite, in all facets—including his bolstering of the Christian fundamentalists. And that McCain/Palin would automatically want to overturn Roe vs. Wade is not something to be taken lightly, especially seeing as the majority of people are in support of women’s rights and are pro-Choice. For the people, neither is this election simply about upholding some false sense of “democracy.” To simply dismiss THIS bourgeois election outright is, to me, not understanding the particulars both amongst the people as well as the current machinations of the bourgeoisie. If the political landscape (not just in the U.S.) has not been changing over the last 4 years, there would not have been the need to nominate Barack Obama in the first place.

    The stakes are a lot higher than just some particulars around Obama. Bush ran on a ticket that mostly revolved around the “war on terror” using scare politics, terrorizing people (and adding a long list of justifications for further oppressing the people). The “war on terror” has hardly been mentioned of late. But just today I posted an article on K. Threads (“news and analysis”)—“US considering implications of nuclear decline” which said in part:

    “The mighty U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons, midwived by World War II and nurtured by the Cold War, is declining in power and purpose while the military’s competence in handling the world’s most dangerous arms has eroded. At the same time, international efforts to contain the spread of such weapons look ineffective.

    ”Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for one, wants the next president to think about what nuclear middle-age and decline means for national security.”

    Undoubtedly there will be many disappointments for people who are pinning all their hopes on Obama, but I think the current atmosphere is a lot more conducive to making revolutionary inroads amongst the people, who, in general, are much more receptive, are scrutinizing the government (and media) a whole lot more, etc., than even just a few years ago.

    I think it is an error to just look at bourgeois elections in some blanket way, without analyzing the particulars, and most especially the mood of the masses, although over the years I have certainly fallen prey to that way of thinking. In case anyone is interested, I would like to draw your attention to an article I wrote back in April (appropriately April Fool’s Day) about the Mexican elections with López Obrador. Kind of changed some of my knee-jerk thinking on this. Must note that TNL has since enlightened me more about the Zapatistas—who apparently did not simply boycott the elections but set up alternative organizations, etc. But my examples around the Zapatistas are not what I am focusing on. The article:

    http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/linda-d-badiou-mexico-and-how-the-people-stir/
    “Badiou, Mexico and how the people stir”

    But here is something I have never understood and hope someone can enlighten me about: The World Can’t Wait campaign. I know several of you were very active in this, and big supporters and I am not in any way trying to belittle your work. But from the get I just couldn’t understand how this ultimately wasn’t reformist, with mainly focusing on throwing Bush the bum out. And frankly, the struggle around Obama seems to me to be dealing with a much more “difficult truth”, than with W who is universally despised.

  22. Really what I have been looking for, I am going to send all of my friends here,good luck with your endeavors, your a genius.
    Lilu Sexton:)

  23. TellNoLies said

    Is fighting for reforms “reformist”? To my mind, all serious revolutionaries fight for reforms, whether its land reform, the impeachment of Bush, an end to a war or for immigrant rights or whatever. Some revolutionarioes fetishize framing their reformist demands in “revolutionary” language, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t fighting for reforms. The question is the relationship between HOW the fight for reforms is waged and the preparation of forces for revolution — politically, ideologically, organizationally. Refusing to participate in reform struggles on principle is, to my mind, the definition of sectarianism and nobody who has made an actual revolution has ever adopted such a posture for long.

  24. Tahawus said

    Of interest: dead prez’s take on Obama – http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=28131

  25. Zack said

    The arguments around the idea that perhaps after the Obama win many of his progressive voters will be disillusioned by the reality of the constraints this system will put on him (compelling them to become more radical?) reminds me a lot of discussions that went on and around the World Can’t Wait after the democrats dominated in the 2006 elections.

    …and what happened? Did the war get de-funded? No. Did the impeachment process get started? No, it was “off the table” -Pelosi…

    I think this has been a determining factor in creating the situation we currently see today around the anti-war movement… small and marginalized.

    I guess what I’m getting at is this; sure, things could go in a direction where people get mad as hell and don’t take it anymore, but that’s not how we’ve seen it go down in recent past regarding similar anti-war sentiments being placed in the ballot box.

    First time tragedy, second time farce?

    * * * * *

    Tahawus, thanks for the track… I like!

  26. RW Harvey said

    When I add together the current economic crisis, China’s global rise, Russia’s stirrings, plans to morph the was in Iraq to include a war in Afghanistan, a significant number of Republicans endorsing Obama, Brzezinski as Obama’s “chess master,” Biden’s recent remarks about the “coming test” in the next 6 months and imploring people to “stand by Obama” no matter what happens, and Obama’s consistent pitch for national unity, I get: World War 3.

    Who better than Obama to lead America into a global conflagration that will serve, as “America in Decline” sharply noted, the “purgative function” of attempting to realign global capital and keep America as the empire du jour?

    While war serves the purgative function for capital in crisis, war also serves as a force of “punctuated equilibrium,” leaving normal times in the dust and revealing the threshold of rupture and potential revolutionary (as well as counterrevolutionary) transformation. If we fail to see these rising conditions, and fail to see Obama as the heir apparent, the shepherd that will lead the flock into the new millennium, then we fail the masses of the world’s people.

    Forget united fronts with Obama, forget Obama as a blow against racism. He is the next FDR (who seduced the CPUSA as well), only this time it will not be 12 years between 1929 and the US entry into the was in 1941. The pace is quickening, the crisis is deeper and more intractable and more unpredictable. Who better than an African-American DEMOCRAT to pull this off after 8 years of Bush/Cheney? That’s one of the reasons it is so wrong to paint Bush as EVIL and Obama as GOOD.

    So many of us continue to suffer the betrayal of all our immersion in America as the Land of the Free. The hypocrisy that opened out eyes and brought us to the doorstep of revolution was but the first step, a step filled with anger at being betrayed and an unconscioius desire for America to really be as we were taught it was. So many around the world still come to America with that vision in their hearts; so many want to see America “work” by electing Obama. But anger at the hypocritical betrayals is a fast burning fuel, easily given to sputter whenever the system — and it is a system — adapts and offers up another candidate, or law, or judge, for us to slip back into… “maybe America can live up to its promise.”

    This is a system that can do nothing else but plunder and exploit. And it is about to go to war. Anyone who is willing to support Obama must also factor in this too, and be wiling to explain to the people of the world why we followed this president into the jaws of hell. Techtonic shifts are occurring right under our feet (and noses). As Yeats wrote: The whole world changed, changed utterly. Whether or not the terrible beauty of revolution is born is a very, very open question.

  27. Ka Frank said

    What are the different sides going to be in the World War 3 you are writing about? I don’t see it in the current shape of things in the world.

  28. RW Harvey said

    A good question. It could very well be the West (US, Britain, Europe, et al.) vs. China and Russia (though where India will fall out in this is not within my understanding but they will clearly be a player; perhaps the recent US-India nuke deal was an effort to pull India more into the US orbit).

    It could start with moves into Afghanistan and Pakistan (how often does Obama have to mentin this for us to fia=nally believe him?) that will be the tripwire for Russia to stir even more forcefully, while China waits it out.

    A terrorist attack could be the rallying cry for the US to put their bootheel down hard somewhere in the world in a way that opens new doors to troop deployment, and/or brings other countries into the fray against US moves.

    These are some of the scenarios that come to mind, and as I said I am adding up things that I see (perhaps others can draw a more clear and compelling picture of what revolutionaries should be preparing for).

    With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, US strategic thinktanks turned to prepare for eventual war with China while moving to surround Russia and consolidate influence in Central Asia. The architects of empire never sleep.

    My overall point is, the noose is tightening around global capital, drawing all the major payers into competitively close quarters and inevitable frictions. The tinder is so very dry and the sound and sparks of steel against stone can be faintly heard and dimly seen on the horizon. My other point is that the moves towards World War are easily rationalized away and denied because, like lobsters, we swim for now in a slowly heating pot, focused on “our” national crisis and the promises of “our” elections.

  29. red road said

    Have serious/revolutionary Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, or any other trend in any imperialist country ever had a full consideration of bourgeois elections, their effect on the proletarian class struggle and the struggles of other revolutionary classes, and how serious revolutionary political education, training and struggles should be conducted in the course of bourgeois election campaigns?

    Such consideration would have to be based upon understanding the class nature of the state, as analyzed and detailed by Lenin in State and Revolution, and further trace the development of the bourgeois state through the stage of imperialism with its distortion of politics relating to the embedding of significant (previously antagonistic) class relations into systems of privilege that earlier were characteristic of the labor aristocracy.

    It seems that the question of the class nature of the state and the need to end the bourgeois state as the keeper, enforcer, defender, and aggressor of capitalism and imperialism, has been all-to-rarely discussed in detail, and “out among the masses.” Commonly, imperialism has prolonged non-revolutionary periods of time, so this may not be so surprising.

    But there are times when crisis mounts and the best laid plans of empire come a cropper; in such times, especially, those who yearn for the end to the mistreatment and suffering of every kind which is basic to the system’s rule, and who dream and plan for another way, should get busy, organizing, exposing, wrenching people out of reliance on the falsehoods of bourgeois politics, and building struggles and schools of political empowerment and revolution. It seems there may be more than a little of such an opening in the times we are in, yet exposures of bourgeois elections are not so commonly seen around here.

    True, we do not have organizations, party or mass, of the class-conscious proletariat and of other potentially revolutionary classes.

    And so many people lose hope, all too often, or attribute great things to obama, though they really know better, and some surrender to the tide, saying they will vote, or campaign, though they really don’t believe in his claim or fame as a changeling, or they maybe project he will, despite all that has come out, that he will be the shapeshifter, as some mutter god willing underbreath.

    It is hard for such folks, and it does pull on all too many of us, given the rich history on this stuff. But it is disingenuous to say we are voting for obama but do not buy the illusions, anymore than bill’s claim that he held a joint, but didn’t inhale.
    Communists need to undertake serious work, and regarding this election, summation, that we can mount serious political challenges in the period ahead—and in the elections ahead.

  30. H. Sendai said

    Hey:P

    Well I guess we are entering the final stretch :). As always it will come down to the swing voters, though I have to admit that I have never seen a presidential race loose as much steam in its final moments as this one has. Once again we seem to be choosing between the lesser of two evils and we are simply shooting for everyone to walk away unhappy:(. Regardless of your political affiliation I would simply encourage you to get out and VOTE on November fourth, and show your support for American political institutions.

  31. Mike E said

    I think that TNL’s argument about wanting to use “our” votes to help give as big a win as possible to Obama is problematic from several sides. First because the key point of an election is vetting and then legitimizing the new imperialist chief — and I think that “we” should NOT participate in that legitimization. (Especially when it has such clear international implications. )

    Second, because of where the “we” now stands.

    There are moments when the revolutionary forces really HAVE social weight — and where we can (conceivably) shift that weight to (tactically) help prevent a dangerous fascist trend from legitimizing its plan for a coup d’etat.

    But if you have no social weight, even those tactical moves are meaningless. You are not “throwing your weight” in any way that can be decisive, you are throwing away your scattered revolutionary forces by sending them into the indoctrination school of bourgeois politics.

    And one sign of how that indoctrination works is that we can see (in our own discussion) many of the major illusions of bourgeois politics repeated, as if they are simply true and factual.

    One example:

    Sendai writes:

    “Well I guess we are entering the final stretch :). As always it will come down to the swing voters….”

    That remark “as always” is (imho) an example of absorbing bourgeois conventional wisdom as if it was true.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the key “deciders” of the empire and its future are the “swing voters” (who are, as we all know, by definition the least politically committed parts of the population).

    On the contrary, “as always” it comes down to whether the political establishment decides there will be some huge “game-changing” event. It comes down to whether there is a sudden “gaffe” or a “scandal explosion” that could reverse the trends.

    “As always” the outcome of these contests is often decided in how the issues are posed to “the voters.” And (in that sense) the Republicans have half a point when they say “the media fell in love with Obama” — not JUST the media, but sections of the military, the corporate heads, the political kingmakers, have clearly gone for a shift to Obama — and leaned away from what McCain represented. And that lean then gets represented in how the population (the voters) sees and hears the “issues” couched.

    Why does “bill ayers” not “resonate” one year, while “willie horton” does? And if the political establishment suddenly used bill Ayers to beat Obama with, (i.e. if they gave credibility to the “runs around with terrorists” charge) couldn’t (wouldn’t) the “swing voters” swing?

    I think it is worth asking (and re-asking) in a very basic way: to “the voters” pick the president, or are “the voters” corraled (one way and another) as sections of the political establishment fight to “frame the questions”?

    I do not believe (for a second), that these master of empire (after killing, conquering, exploiting billions around the clock) then suddenly (every four years) open up their disputes for the “swing voters” to decide. That is what they teach in civics class — but that is as much a distortion as “land of the free and home of the brave.”

  32. Jose M said

    Mike put something in a new light for me.

    While I liked reading what TNL and Carl had to say on their reasons for voting for Obama, when Mike explains that we do not have the “social weight” to make an impact in that arena, in a way puts things to rest.

    I think that if we were a larger, organized force and developed reasons for engaging the election (by voting or whatever), our impact and decisions would matter and have implications for people.

    But I agree with Mike. Sending us out today to vote will accomplish nothing. Just buying into the illusions of the Obama campaign. If we do the whole “obama without illusions thing”, doesnt that mean that we still have illusions of his presidency meaning anything progressive for the people by voting for him?

  33. Mike E said

    Jose is expressing what I was trying to get at:

    “If we do the whole “obama without illusions thing”, doesnt that mean that we still have illusions of his presidency meaning anything progressive for the people by voting for him?”

    In previous elections, people argued “hold your nose and vote for Mondale” — that at least had the virtue of being accurate (i.e. they were holding their nose, and they were voting.)

    That slogan doesn’t appear any longer. And the “Vote for Obama without illusions” has the advantage of being (a) even more favorable to the Democratic candidate, and (b) more questionable factually.

    Without wanting to reduce our nuanced debate to a soundbite, I have to say: I don’t believe it is possible to “Vote for Obama without Illusions.”

    I think the pull towards voting for Obama expresses and concentrates precisely illusions — about Obama, about what this election “represents,” about what voting actually expresses, about what the real impact of joining bourgeois camps in this way, about whether the people have real power in the ballotbox.

    In other words, no matter which of the diverse arguments motivates the voting — I believe it represents precisely an embrace of the key illusions this system promotes about the “democracy” of its electoral process, and about this election in particular.

  34. red road said

    There will come a time when an effective mobilization of increasingly revolutionary classes will rally to the rejection of the imperialist system and its bourgeois electoral system and its media/information arsenal of mass deception/distortion. Then an effective condemnation and boycott of the process will be linked to powerful political initiatives and uprisings that will truly reframe the political environment. We can measure our current situation against the strategic necessity, in time, of bringing such a situation into reality, as a crucial step in the development of revolutionary forces.

    Before that time, there may well be times when revolutionary forces amass such a basis that revolutionaries may run for office in order to popularize their program, further advance their influence and organization among key sections of the masses and generally, and actually force changes in the political landscape through tactical but conditional support for certain candidates. (This, btw, will not resemble the fatuous claims of “conditionality” that was seen in the “part of the way with LBJ” or the current “Obama, Yes but without illusions,” or any other opportunist excusing their political bankruptcy with a “voting while holding the nose”). It will be based on the development of revolutionary forces or nationalist forces or issue-oriented forces becoming united and organized enough to move en masse, and maintain/build that unity and organization through the entire process, exhibiting not only the program but the emerging sense of popular power as well as exposing the mechanisms of bourgeois electoral deception, corruption, and disempowerment. These will be powerful lessons in advancing the revolutionary classes toward the struggle for power.

    Limited and less-well-defined conditional involvement already takes place in numbers of local campaigns, but they reflect the limited strength and consciousness of radical power centers, as well as the domination of that process in most locales by various opportunist and careerist forces. Nonetheless, there is some important work done in some local elections that provide useful lessons for revolutionary class-conscious forces when considering electoral work as tactics in a larger revolutionary strategy in the future.

  35. Linda D. said

    First to TNL…who was speaking to “reformism”: He said–”Is fighting for reforms “reformist”? To my mind, all serious revolutionaries fight for reforms, whether its land reform, the impeachment of Bush, an end to a war or for immigrant rights or whatever.”

    I think there are differences amongst the different struggles–and it’s not just “whatever.” I suppose one could make the case that unless we are embarking on insurrection, and a purist view of rev., any struggle short of that would fall under reform. But that’s not how the world works, and if that were our m.o., we would be reduced to some foco, or isolated group. To me there is a difference bet. what I interpreted as the thrust of WCW, which put the emphasis on Bush (and his impeachment), vs. e.g. the attacks on immigrants–who are not just exploited, oppressed and abused in the U.S. but in their native country as well. (I favor the old War Crimes Tribunals that the rcp initiated year’s ago.) On the other hand, maybe I have a limited understanding of WCW, but kept wondering — okay, so we get rid of Bush, and then what?

    Would like to address a question to Mike, José, and/or Red Road, etc. — who got into this “Obama without illusions” notion. Obama aside, how do any of you see uniting with those whom I perceive as having “better sentiments” (in terms of say, anti-war, anti-racist, etc. attitudes) — the many who are for now uniting around Obama? Frankly, those are the people I am concerned with, whether or not they harbor some illusions re the elections, or bourgeois democracy.

  36. RW Harvey said

    Always an important question linda d: how do we unite with others who see the world differently? On one level I think as revolutionaries we are way too self-conscious about either winning folks over vs. alientating them. I think we begin by engaging in honest dialogue about what motivates their choices/decisions and how that differs or coincides with ours… like we would with anyone.

    We also need to relax a little and realize that we don’t have all that much control over what they do and what they believe and, more importantly, whether or not they vote for Obama does not mean that they are lost to the cause of revolution (and, frankly, this applies to a good portion of those who would vote for McCain). Unity and difference are constantly ebbing and flowing — thus the importance of democracy within the revolutionary organization. I think it is time to break free of the old-RCP energy of feeling proud that we “got one” if they came to an event or took action, and then feeling shame if we “lost one.” The alchemy that combines a living revolutionary assessment and approach, with revolutionary activists, with the masses of people, with the objective conditions demands ceaseless reevaluations and course corrections.

    Truth be told, even if I “convinced” someone that voting Obama was not that great an idea, I can never know if what I conveyed was the sole or entire reason they took that step — human motivation and psychology is way too dynamic, and needs to be met with a dynamic, materialst, and psychologically sophisticated approach to revolutionary transformation.

  37. Zack said

    “human motivation and psychology is way too dynamic, and needs to be met with a dynamic, materialst, and psychologically sophisticated approach to revolutionary transformation.”

    I second that.

  38. Jose M said

    Linda:

    just want to make clear that when Ive spoken about “obama without illusions”, i am referring to communists who buy into it.

    dealing with the people is a whole other consideration of course and i am in agreement with RW Harvey, I think he gets the general orientation that we should follow.

  39. TellNoLies said

    Mike,

    The argument on the basis of our social weight applies equally to calls not to vote. The abstention of the folks here will no more delegitimize Obama than our votes will legitimize him. The issue here is not primarily the weight of our votes (or anti-votes). This is really, given the size and organizational state of the forces involved, an exercise in analyzing a particular conjuncture and in analyzing the role of elections in bourgeois rule. And I also agree with the invocation of the categorical imperative here — there is a value in acting in a manner in which one would want a larger revolutionary left to act.

    There is at the heart of your argument a mechanical and ultimately conspiratorial view of how elections work as if “the ruling class” is a monolith that scripts everything out for the passive consumption of the rest of us.

    You write:

    “I do not believe (for a second), that these master of empire (after killing, conquering, exploiting billions around the clock) then suddenly (every four years) open up their disputes for the “swing voters” to decide.”

    There are two problems here.

    The first is of course that the voters (generally) DO decide, within the range of choices presented to them.

    The other is that you don’t seriously address why they actually might — not out of faith in the democratic wisdom of the people, but out of the need for a mechanism that tests the ability of competing programs to command legitimacy.

    There is something tautological in your argument here as well. Significant forces within the ruling class, forces central to the coalition that still controls the government, have done everything in their power to make Wright and Ayers into major scandals. The fact that they have failed is taken as evidence that a pro-Obama consensus in the ruling class has emerged that has decided to deny legs to this story. Completely absent from this picture is the electorate itself. The ruling class and its media outlets are rallying to Obama because he is going to win and he is going to have power that they all want to be close to and because their job is always to legitimize whoever is or is going to be the face of the system. And part of this logic is precisely the movement of the people themselves towards Obama.

    I really think Gramsci is key to getting a handle on how this shit really works. Elections legitimate the system not because they are expertly choreographed pieces of theater, sort of like professional wrestling, but because they involve real contradictions and struggles over the direction of the society. Yes they are highly constrained. But it is a profound mistake to think those constraints mean that there is nothing really at stake in them. The ruling class is not monolithic. It uses elections to determine the relative strength of its differnt fractions (and their programs) and their capacities to exercise hegemony on behalf of the class as a whole by building electoral coalitions. It counts on the reproduction of the dominant ideology and various shabby legal and extra-legal methods to keep the debate generally within “acceptable” parameters. But precisely because capitalism is such a dynamic system the, coalitions are constantly shifting and there are disagreements over what those parameters are. An example of this is the remarkable insertion of “socialism” into public discourse at exactly the moment any sensible ruling class wouldn’t want the word bouncing around, namely at a moment of profound crisis. But there it is, because the section of the ruling class represented by McCain/Palin really are unwilling to retreat from free-market fundamentalist dogma that they have not only been feeding everybody for the past several decades, but which some of them actually believe, crazy as that may sound.

    There is a sort of half-baked Gramscianism that imagines in every election a fortuitous set of “divisions within the ruling class” that are just there for “progressives” to take advantage of. Thats not how things work either and I fully understand the negative response to that sort of thinking.

    Both of these approaches (the RCP’s and the CP’s if you will) have in common an overly schematic view of elections in which they are always the same — either an exercize in legitimation or an opportunity for the “anti-monopoly coalition.”

    I think rather we need to understand them as having a shifting character depending on the character of the political contradictions within the ruling class that are in turn connected to the overall stability of the system. Under conditions of relative stability and consensus within the ruling class, elections really do become a process of simply legitimizing that consensus and the differences between the candidates tend to be largely cosmetic. But when crises emerge sharper differences emerge and the elections can become places of actual contestation. There is a complex dance that takes place here in which efforts are made to conduct the contest according to the rules for normal conditions, but in which there are real fears that the other side’s program will endanger the whole system. We see this right now in all the anxiety swirling around McCain’s selection of Palin. But we also see it in McCain’s talk about Obama’s socialism. This has the whiff of simple electoral desperation, but I think it reflects a serious (and not neccesarily wrong) line of thinking among McCain’s neo-con backers that the situation is very brittle and that Obama’s program to “save the system” runs the real risk of unleashing more radical popular demands that the system just can’t meet.

    What all this is getting at is the ways that an unfolding crisis for the system is likely to get played out in the electoral arena. My view is if revolutionaries stand outside that process they give up an opportunity to really and sharply expose the nature of bourgeois democracy not through propaganda but through mass experience. The revolutionary left in the US has not been good at “doing” elections. Whether that means participating in them or pointedly abstaining from them we have precious little to show for it. This is, in my view, largely one more expression of the objectively shitty propspects for revolutionary politics that have obtained for so long in this country. But if we seriously think those prospects won’t last forever and that eventually crises with the potential to become revolutionary situations will come along I think we need to know how to fight in this arena in a genuinely revolutionary manner, that is in a way that will actually be able to sharpen up divisions within the ruling class and expose the limits of the whole system. And like all forms of struggle this is something we can only learn by doing, by getting in the mix and running the risks of being overwhelmed by the cooptive logics and all that shit.

    I don’t pretend to know precisely what this might look like. All the recent examples of left interventions in the electoral arena from WWP to the Greens to the Jackson campaigns are richer with negative lessons than positive ones.

    Last week the NYTimes endorsed Obama. In the online edition, the editorial seemed to be oddly illustrated with an image of Abraham Lincoln, which at first I took to mean that they thought Obama was Lincolnesque or something (which may have been true also). But on closer inspection it turned out to be an interactive feature in which you could call up a PDFof each of the NYTimes presidential endorsements going all the way back to Lincoln. (check it out here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/timeline/lincoln-1860.pdf ) So I read the endorsement of Lincoln. And it was a bizarre and compelling reminder of just how non-omniscient the ruling class really is. It applauded Lincoln’s refreshing honesty on the question of slavery but then assured the readers of the Times that Lincoln wouldn’t be able to do anything to dislodge it even if he really wanted to, because he would be checked by a certain Democratic majority in Congress. They simply assumed the essential stability of the system and believed that between Lincoln’s conciliatory temperment and the Democratic majority in the Senate nothing could go wrong.

  40. TellNoLies said

    oops again.

    The quote from Mike that should precede all the stuff in the box that I actually wrote is:

    “I do not believe (for a second), that these master of empire (after killing, conquering, exploiting billions around the clock) then suddenly (every four years) open up their disputes for the “swing voters” to decide.”

  41. RW Harvey said

    I am sure I am missing something, but what exactly is the split in the ruling class that is reflected in Obama v. McCain? If we could understand this it may assist in clarifying how revolutionaries can relate to this realm of the struggle.

  42. redflags said

    I smoke cigarettes without illusion. That’s as far as I can go.

  43. TellNoLies said

    The (emerging) split in the US ruling class is over how to deal with the overall crisis in US hegemony arising from long running balance of payment deficits and related problems. Essentially the empire has been living on the credit it obtains from controlling the international reserve currency and things are starting to come apart. In the long run it is clear that this can’t continue and US domination in other spheres (political, military, cultural, etc…) will suffer accordingly, as in fact we are already seeing.

    For roughly the past 30 years the US has been governed within a neo-liberal consensus. This is unravelling literally before our eyes. Its been coming for a while, but its really only been very recently that its even been possible in ruling circles to articulate any sort of critique of that consensus.

    The neo-cons view is that the US needs to aggressively use its overwhelming military supremacy to impose its control globally, especially over geo-strategic resources like oil and natural gas. Domestically they believe they can maintain the legitimacy of their rule on the basis of white supremacy/religious conservatism. To the degree that their base is sectoral it is in energy, aerospace and military production.

    While the neo-cons are a minority within the ruling class they have had the advantage of a more or less coherent plan. On the other side has been a motley collection of unreconstructed Keyensians, Clintonites and the like united around the proposition that “that won’t work.” What Obama represents is an attempt to cohere these forces around an alternate vision that, as I see it, has three main elements: 1. Less military unilateralism, 2. Restoring the US’s domination in production through an industrial strategy and reversing at least partly the crazy financialization that has taken place, and 3. A reorganization of the racial order to accomodate both generational changes in consciousness and demographic shifts arising from immigration. There are some important differences also around the rights of women, the urgency of the environmental crisis, and culture war stuff. The sectoral basis of this coalition is less apparent, but I would note the support of information technology companies and, paradoxically, a “bullish” section of the financial sector that was aware of the precariousness of the situation there before most everyone else.

    I don’t want to overstate the sectoral bases of this split because I don’t think sectoral interests are the main thing underpinning these differences which are really ideological and grand strategic. Nor do I want to say that one side is actually “right” in the sense that their plan stands the better chance of rescuing US hegemony. Its tempting to look at the neo-cons and say they’ve already run the US into a ditch, but the structural basis of this crisis is deep and the (still emerging) vision represented by Obama seems to entail some very big risks — big and potentially unsustainable expenditures on reindustrialization and the unleashing of expectations among the historically excluded.

    That said I think its important to acknowledge that there IS a tension here between international and domestic dynamics. Obama seems likely to be able to restore some lost US prestige internationally at least in the very short run, where I think he is more likely to (both deliberately and accidentally) energize popular movements domestically. My view of this is that the empire is on the ropes and that no amount of multilateralism is going to alter the fundamental structural weaknesses of the US’s position. The Europeans are demanding and will probably get a new Bretton Woods which will NOT reestablish US domination of the world financial system. On balance though I think popular and revolutionary forces worldwide have more to gain from revitalized popular movements inside the US than they do from the likliehood of “Crash” McCain’s completely wrecking the US’s international standing.

  44. Zack said

    Hahaha, Jed.

  45. Jose M said

    TNL:

    what will your vote for obama accomplish?

    What will the vote of all the radicals and communists for obama accomplish?

    As I said earlier, we have no traction to make any sort of difference, even if what you were saying about Gramsci’s theories applying to us were true (which im not saying they arent).

    Why buy into the illusions of an imperialist candidate – which you are clearly doing, since by you voting for obama you have illusions about what can be accomplished – when we can instead attempt to build a revolutionary pole?

    Why do we need to engage in bourgeois elections in order to delegitimize them? Why not create an alternative aside from that?

    If we use voting as a means to engage the masses, arent we implying to the masses that voting can mean real change?

    ********

    Voters do not decide the direction of society. If anything, you proved Mike’s point.

    Yes, voters can decide and influence who wins WITHIN THE CHOICES PRESENTED TO THEM, which means candidates and officials that have actually been approved by various levels and sections of the ruling class.

    And I dont believe there is anything “conspiratorial” about acknowledging that the rulers of this system are busy murdering milions of people around the world – and then seeing how naive it is to think that they stop all of this process (or halt it, or put it up to a vote) so that the people can decide “what they want.” This how things work.

    ****

    As a side note: this all very new to me. These new arguments have made me question and struggle why we should not (or should) engage in bourgeois elections. Never before did I have the ability to do this, so I appreciate that we can do this.

  46. Eddy said

    This changes the subject a bit, but how do commentators to this thread analyse the Nader campaign? Here’s today’s email.

    October 29, 2008

    Howard Zinn now says he’s voting for Nader.

    The famous historian lives in Massachusetts, where Obama is ahead by 20 points.
    Zinn created a stir earlier when he said he was voting for Obama.
    He legitimately took some heat for supporting the corporate Obama.
    But late last night, Zinn admitted in an e-mail to our campaign that he made a mistake and now says he will vote for Nader.
    And Zinn urges all people of conscience to vote for the true progressive in slam dunk states.
    Of which there are now many.
    (Zinn says that in non slam dunk states, he urges people to vote for Obama. We obviously disagree with that bit of advice.)

    Or as Ralph Nader put it today:

    “A vote for Nader/Gonzalez on November, rather than being wasted by piling onto an Obama landslide or McCain implosion, will produce a stronger hammer and watchdog for what millions of Americans want — including public Medicare for all with private delivery and a living wage for the one in three workers who don’t make one.”

    “Unless millions of voters of conscience choose the progressive hammer and watchdog of Nader/Gonzalez, millions of votes will be tactically wasted and serve only to increase the mandateless landslide of Barack Obama.”

    Who does Nader represent in all of this?

  47. Mike E said

    I think of Nader as a liberal, running on a social democratic platform, backed by a green party.

    And i have always thought of his social base (especially in his more successful 2000 first run) as the highly discontented middle classes — who still that change can be achieved through some structural reforms of the existing society.

    And those are important forces for us — and what they experience, think and learn matters for the future of a revolutionary movement. Unfortunately many of them concluded from 2000 that it is nuts to support a “third party” and that it amounts to inadvertant spoiler support for the hard right. These forces became much more mainstream, more loyally Democrat and more cowed after Gore “lost” Florida.

  48. TellNoLies said

    Jose M asks some questions:

    “What will your vote for obama accomplish?”

    Not much. Like my attendance at many demonstrations it will be a drop in a bucket. Its main importance, like any of our decisions to vote or not, is as an object of discussion, a way of making our analyses concrete by deriving actions from them, and by compelling others to discuss them. In the past I chose not to vote in order to provoke people to think about political options outside of elections, in particular revolution. This time I am choosing to vote really to provoke my revolutionary-minded comrades to think more seriously and systematically about what elections are, how they work and the like.

    “What will the vote of all the radicals and communists for obama accomplish?”

    A little more, since they are a bunch of drops in the bucket. But the same principle applies.

    “As I said earlier, we have no traction to make any sort of difference, even if what you were saying about Gramsci’s theories applying to us were true (which im not saying they arent).”

    This is of course true of ANY path we choose. What difference will our attendance at an event about Nepal make? Or a demonstration against police brutality? At our present level of unity and organization everything we do is mainly modelling to ourselves and the small number of people around us paying attention what we think should be done on a larger scale.

    “Why buy into the illusions of an imperialist candidate – which you are clearly doing, since by you voting for obama you have illusions about what can be accomplished – when we can instead attempt to build a revolutionary pole?”

    I don’t accept either of your premises: that voting automatically entails illusions or that it is exclusive of the work of building a revolutionary pole. I believe that an Obama victory will be an important blow to white supremacy, a major obstacle to the unity of oppressed people in the US, and that conditions under an Obama administration will be significantly more favorable to the work of building a revolutionary pole than under a McCain administration. I DON’T think Obama will solve the most pressing questions facing humanity, which I believe can ONLY be solved through revolution. I am part of the Kasama Project and despite my disagreements with almost everyone else in it over the elections I think its work is important.

    “Why do we need to engage in bourgeois elections in order to delegitimize them? Why not create an alternative aside from that?”

    Because we need to be where the masses are, and for the present the electoral arena is where much of their political education is taking place. Because the masses learn through experience and the actual limits of the electoral process can only be discovered by pushing that process to its limits. We can theorize and propagandize on what those limits might be based on previous experiences, but the actual limits, the breaking points if you will must be discovered in practice. If revolutionaries don’t accompany the people through this process they won’t be able to do the critical work of summation in a way that is really grounded in the practical experiences of the masses.

    “If we use voting as a means to engage the masses, arent we implying to the masses that voting can mean real change?”

    It does mean “real change.” It doesn’t mean revolutionary change. It doesn’t mean the changes we most desperately need. But the system doesn’t stand still. It changes all the time and elections are one of the mechanisms through which that happens. Pretending otherwise flies in the face of peoples actual experiences. People know that a Republican president will likely result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a halt to progress on marriage equality, a war with Iran sooner rather than later and so on. Do you seriously think the choice of who will be President doesn’t matter concretely in the lives of millions of people, that they will really pursue IDENTICAL policies?

    “Voters do not decide the direction of society. If anything, you proved Mike’s point.

    Yes, voters can decide and influence who wins WITHIN THE CHOICES PRESENTED TO THEM, which means candidates and officials that have actually been approved by various levels and sections of the ruling class.”

    I chose my words deliberately. I understand the real constraints and limitations on the choices available through the electoral process and I want others to understand them as well. But this means not pretending there aren’t real differences in play as well. The process of vetting and approving candidates is a complex one and it doesn’t neccesarily reflect some sort of ruling class consensus. There are sections of the ruling class who consider Obama completely unacceptable. A candidate is considered “serious” if they command the support of a significant fraction of the ruling class, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t serious contention involved.

    “And I dont believe there is anything “conspiratorial” about acknowledging that the rulers of this system are busy murdering milions of people around the world – and then seeing how naive it is to think that they stop all of this process (or halt it, or put it up to a vote) so that the people can decide “what they want.” This how things work.”

    This is a caricature of my views. I don’t think that our rulers put their rule or its essential features “up to a vote.” And they certainly don’t stop anything in order to do so. But when they have elections they are, in fact, putting some things “up to a vote,” specifically tha actual programmatic differences between the candidates. What these are isn’t always easy to pin down because election campaigns are also processes of putting together coalitions and as the coalitions grow or shrink or otherwise shift so do the differences in the programs they will attempt to implement if they take power. For example, today Obama recieved the endorsement of the president of the far-right Cuban American Foundation. Presumably they saw the writing on the wall, that Obama was going to win, and realized that if they could help deliver Florida they might have some voice in matters relating to Cuba that they otherwise would not have if Obama won without them.

    “As a side note: this all very new to me. These new arguments have made me question and struggle why we should not (or should) engage in bourgeois elections. Never before did I have the ability to do this, so I appreciate that we can do this.”

    I’m a little unclear what you mean by this. Are you a former RCPer saying that you haven’t had a chance to hear a revoolutionary argument for participation in elections or rather that you’ve never heard the arguments against participation before? In any case I appreciate having the space to argue it out as well.

  49. Jose M said

    TNL, thanks for the reply.

    What I meant by my last comment is that in no other place was there the space or opportunity to debate these sorts of things, and really put out what we think. I feel comfortable talking her on Kasama because I can present my views without reprisal, and I know that other comrades can reply to what I have to say. So I can learn.

    I have more questions than statements to make, thats for sure.

    I think that participating in anti-police brutality event or something around Nepal would be far more beneficial than voting for obama (which you have acknodwledged is powerless). cant we lead people in understanding the limitations of the bourgeois electoral system without actually voting in it? Im not the one suggesting to abstain from elections and thus distance ourselves from the masses. I of course believe that we need to engage the people, their hopes, illusions, and why we think there is a need for revolution.

    I agree that there are differences within candidates, differences that have real implications for millions of people. Here in California we are voting next week on Prop 8 (amongst many other Props) that will decide whether the state will legalize gay marriage or not. If I was registered to vote, I would vote no on it (meaning I approve of gay marriage). But this of course is not the same thing as choosing one imperialist candidate over the other – even if there are policy differences.

    But does that mean that we vote for obama and further his campaign because his policies will have better implications for the people? Or do we lead the people in understanding the nature of his politics? There needs to be a time when we say, “ok, both of these candidates have policy differences which mean a lot for millions of people. but we need to move beyond those reforms and take up actions towards understanding that this system in its entirety cannot meet the needs of the people.” I know you understand this, I just wanna make a point.

    But I do agree that by obama winning, there will be more democratic “space” so to speak, for our organizing, than there would be under McCain. But, didnt Barack vote for new Patriot Act (or was it another surveillance program?).

    Looking forward to your reply.

  50. Some of us still don’t ‘get it’. Getting a ‘vote’ out of you is the least important thing. We’re arguing for approaching the election and the movement around it as organizers, not just someone who goes inot a booth for a fe minutes.

    What’s the difference? After I posted an article on the union battles for Obama here in Beaver County, one of my long-time semi-anarchist critics said we had nothing to show for it, because Obama was listening to other ruling class bigwigs. So I offered this reply:

    How would you know, ‘m’?

    You have no real idea what we’re doing on the ground, even though we’ve reported on it here and elsewhere. Your cynicism blocs you. You just don’t get it after all these years. If you want socialism or any other kind of radical change, you have to go to the working class, where they happen to be; you don’t just play ‘waiting for lefty’ or run around with red flags and hope they’ll come to you. And then you work with their allies as well, against the main immediate enemy.

    We went into this with an independent base of organization of 80-100 workers united around ‘Out Now,’ HR 676, and Green Jobs.

    That’s still our key stands, but we’ve added Kucinich’s 16-point New Deal plan to project into the Bail-out battle.

    But we’ve nearly doubled our size in the last nine months, made new allies in other unions, made new alliances in the Black community and with antiwar Obama youth at some local campuses.

    We also now have an online public face, Beaver County Blue, which puts out a left-progressive pole and is widely read among unionists and Black activists.

    We demonstrate against the war every week, but we build strong organization that belongs to us, and operates within the milieu I write about. Some of the local Dem incumbents worry, but we’re widely appreciated as a source of good ideas and tireless work.

    We work with IVAW here, as well as MFSO, and together with other peace groups and a state senator, we now have resolutions in the statehouse to yank the PA guard out of the war.

    We circulate hundreds, if not thousands, of items against all kinds of repression on our national P4O lists, and forward them to many others. In Denver, we worked on the IVAW security team to lend a hand with a successful action.

    So we’re doing well, but always hope to do better. We’re far from perfect.

    But this won’t satisfy you. You’ll cherry pick another demand or another event to strike a pose, so no matter. [He complained we didn't cover the IVAW bust in NYC]

    But the fact remains that we’re building serious organization for serious work. You can call it ‘pandering’ or whatever you like, since our local opposition knows better, and it really doesn’t matter what you or your local compatriots, the Pittsburgh student anarchists, think about this, because, first, they rarely think things through much at all, and second, they hang up near the University of Pitt, and are completely irrelevant to the actually class struggle unfolding here. Fine by us, since there’s plenty of sane and radical working-class youth here for us to relate to with politics that can go somewhere.

    It’s actually quite refreshing outside the cul-de-sac of the ‘left bloc’ swamp. You’re welcome to stay there, if you insist. But if you ever want to put that baggage down, you’re welcome here, too.

    It’s still worth discussing this here. But now the framework is different. It’s way past time for winning any of you or your supporters to this struggle, or even just to vote.

    You’re either here or you’re not.

    But it might be a good time to compare and contrast: What have those who stayed out of this battle built and gained in this period, as opposed to those who took a different approach?

  51. RW Harvey said

    Thanks, TNL, for your efforts at clarification.

    First, I think this is a pre-war period, pre-world war as I said earlier, because the crisis is that deep. To me this means that ideas of refinancing, reindustrializing, and reorganizing capital will come not before a war but as a result of one… all of Obama’s promises notwithstanding.

    It is important to distinguish between neoliberal (which I believe began with Reagan and accelerated and was sold under Clinton, a Democrat), and neo-cons, a specific and powerful grouping that turned the neoliberal agenda towards actual war, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq (mobilizing the Christian fundamentalists against the Islamic world and establishing the necessary beachhead in the Middle East and Cenrtal Asia — one has only to count the number of bases and naval fleets in the area).

    From this perspective, it appears that McCain is continuing the neocon agenda of America’s war against the Islamic evil, while Obama is rallying the entire nation a la FDR for the GOOD WAR against much larger adversaries and in order to reorganize global capital and restore the empire. In a word, McCain’s ambition’s are way too narrow given the extent of the crisis — which explains somewhat why conservatives and Republicans are jumping ship to Obama’s BIG picture approach. This, then, is the difference (but hardly a fundamental split jeopardizing the rulers ability to rule… for now anyway). In fact, Obama’s much-touted ability to restore America’s prestige in the world will be primarilty directed at organizing the international coalition required to prosecute a world war.

    Under Obama, I would not plan on any real alterations in the economic picture, at least ones that will work for any length of time; nor would I see any right-wing shifts regarding attacks on social programs at this point. This is because there are bigger agenda items (Russia, China, Central Asia, perhaps India). When looking at Obama domestically it is important to differentiate between actively promoting and saving things like Roe v. Wade, certain civil liberties and civil rights, and allowing them to remain untouched and status quo. Because a world war calls and national unity between the races, the classes and the genders will be decisive in mobilizing for the next GOOD WAR, Obama will appear to be more progressive domestically. This, more than anything else, is Obama’s mission as figurehead for this next phase of righting the America empire via world war.

  52. TellNoLies said

    Despite my dabbling, my prognosticating powers are more limited than all that. I’m not at all clear on who you think the US is going to wage World War III against. Europe? China? I just don’t think things proceed in this sort of automatic way. There is a certain logic to war built into capitalism I will concede, but I don’t see where you get your certainty about impending world war. I’m not saying it WON’T happen, only that we really can’t know. I think there is some value in thinking through possible scenarios (including world war) so long as we don’t confuse what we are doing with a predictive science.

  53. Eddy said

    TellNoLies wrote:

    Despite my dabbling, my prognosticating powers are more limited than all that. I’m not at all clear on who you think the US is going to wage World War III against. Europe? China? I just don’t think things proceed in this sort of automatic way. There is a certain logic to war built into capitalism I will concede, but I don’t see where you get your certainty about impending world war.

    Could approach this from the other isde of the equation?

    What are the reasons that you think it won’t be a consequence of the present crisis?

    Certainly, at the point where it’s ‘crystal clear,’ outbreak will be months away.

  54. Mike E said

    I think there has been an assumption among some communists that inter-imperialist was is inevitable — and that rivalry leads toward war.

    In some ways those assumptions of “typical motion” were hit hard by the outcome of the U.S. Soviet rivalry — where the resolution involved the collapse of one bloc, without war. (It was a possibility that the RCP rather militantly labeled impossible at that time.)

    Since the collapse of that “bipolar” world (in late 80s-1992), there has been unusually muted rivalry between great power — it has existed, and given rise to different policies and conflicts, but it is marked by the fact that no power (or bloc) arose to challenge the U.S.

    I believe we need to understand what impact the increasingly entwined finance and production of our world have — while capital flows relatively freely without regard to “spheres of influence” or blocs.

    What should we assume are inherent pulls and tendencies of global capitalism? What have proven to be particular outgrowth of the European rivalries of the 19th century (giving rise to the Franco-Prussian war, and serving as an organizing framework of the two world wars)?

  55. RW Harvey said

    You make a very good point, TNL; it’s not like I/we want to run around like chicken-littles shouting “war is coming, war is coming.”

    What I’ve tried to do over the past few years is to go back to Lenin’s point that no matter the international enmeshment of capital, when it comes to crisis capital becomes profoundly national (capitalists like Prescott Bush trading with the Nazis until being forced to cease nothwithstanding). When the economic crisis is profound enough, eventually this means war (see also “America in Decline”).

    As Mike also points out, crisis leading to war is not a mechanical kind of thing (his example of the Soviet bloc collapsing without a superpower war is a good one). Yet, perhaps, as I am arguing, the crisis at the global level has not achieved stranglehold proportions as this current one seems to be doing. Perhaps, also, it is the depth of crisis that has to be analysed with regards to war and not just imaigning that every interimperialist conflict leads to war at all times; in other words it is not inevitable absent the right conditions and then it becomes inevitable.

    The two explanations most offered by progressives as to why the US won’t and can’t go to war are, respectively: one, they WON’T because globalization has so enwrapped the planet that they would be virtually fighting against themselves since they are invested everywhere, and, two, they CAN’T because they are overextended militarily in Iraq. First, the capitalists will indeed make war and destroy investments they have built when the home nation is threatened, figuring that the rebuilding will be profitable and the potential gains of winner-take-all is significant. Second, the US military, the best equipped in the world, need not commit ground forces in every situation when an air force, a navy, and well-placed nukes can do the trick.

    I’ve used sources like Chalmers Johnson (”Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire”), and Michael Chossudovsky (”War and Globalization”) for a look at the percolations of empire and global competition; Naomi Wolf (”End of America”) for the documented loss of civil liberties and potential martial law; Zbigniew Brzezinski (”The Grand Chessboard”) for US strategic assessments; and Nouriel Roubini for depth of analysis regarding the intractable nature of the economic crisis. Plus a distinct dash of Freud and the existentialists for some reality checks as to the nature of human unconscious — individually and collectively.

    While no one can predict the exact machinations that will precipitate war, we revolutionaries must keep a soft but steady gaze to that horizon (while also examining the periphery) and that eventuality. Soon it will be time to leave Bush-Cheney behind (Cheney as strategic mentor) and replace them with Obama-Brzezinski (with Zbig as the grand master of international chess). Recall if you will, Zbig “found” Obama at Columbia University and the recruitment and grooming began in earnest.

    In a recent talk by journalist Robert Fisk that I attended I was struck be his characterization of the establishment, by the Anglo-American alliance, of a line of listening posts, nuclear submarines, military bases, and occupying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan runnng from the north pole in an arc past Russia, Central Asia, and India, all pushing east towards China… now he did not claim that war was in the offing, or that China was the next rival to be targetted, but I took his observation to heart.

    Then there is my subjective reading of Obama and his role and ability (”uncanny”?) in rallying national unity at this moment in history — even rallying leftists of all kinds — and Biden’s recent indications that “some kind of test” is in the offing in the next 6 months for the Obama regime…

    So a mixture, for sure, of study and conjecture and intuitions — and these are how I am reading the signs….

  56. Eric Mann said

    First, thanks to Mike Ely and Kasama’s readers for such a rich, engaged discussion.
    I read every comment and felt I could spend another article just writing responses, but let me make a preliminary response to some of the critiques being made against my arguments.

    I think one major disagreement we have is that I see the U.S. as an imperialist racist white settler state. I see the national question re oppressed people inside and outside the united states as the primary contradiction. If a white mob is yelling, “Off with his head,” what kind of communism or socialism or revolutionary ideology would say we should sit out that fight?

    Of all the comments, the one that moved me the most was the reference to the Boston bussing situation and the RCP’s support for Louise Day Hicks and the white racist mobs.

    TellNoLies Says:
    October 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    This is, to take a touchy moment from the RCP’s history, something of a Boston busing moment, where a determination to distance oneself from anything having to do with the existing capitalist state blinded some sincere revolutionaries to the “which side are you on” nature of a fight against racism and called into question their leadership in the eyes of the majority of revolutionary minded people from there on out.

    Bussing was a civil rights issue, a democratic right for Blacks to go to any school, including predominantly white schools. Bussing was supported by the vast majority of Black families, though not without reservations. So when it began, white vigilante groups attacked the Black children in Boston, threatening to kill them. Every decent white person–priests and ministers, the entire civil rights movement and most of the new communist left–rallied to defend the Black kids. Bizarrely, the RCP called bussing a sham reform that would divide the working class. They ended up opposing Black people’s right to go to any school they wanted to and objectively supported the white mobs. And this was not academic. I was in Boston at the time and heard the RCP speakers and felt they were racists and frankly, cruel and anti-Black. Coming out of the civil rights movement and having worked in Black communities for 5 years by then, and 30 more years since, I had such a visceral dislike of the RCP that it turned me against communism altogether for another 3 or 4 years. It was only when I met oppressed nationality communists talking about the fight for democratic rights being part of the national question and how communists had to rally to defend Black and Latino peoples, on immigration, housing, against police brutality, only then did communism become attractive to me.

    So, one of the reasons I give for why we should work to elect Obama is that he is a Black man being attacked by a white mob. Isn’t that enough for anti-racist communists to get? This is not just a split in the ruling class–it is a fight between liberal bourgeois democracy and fascism. If you don’t agree that that is important because you think they are both capitalist, I urge you to visit the Buchenwald camps where the Jews, Gypsies, and Communists were taken. I urge you to revisit how the communists led the anti-fascist united front. When you hear McCain and Palin say that “spreading the wealth around” is socialism, they are lying, sure, but isn’t it important that Obama is even talking about that? Why are we so afraid of the Democrats, so afraid of being ideologically contaminated?

    In Los Angeles, my organization the Labor/Community Strategy Center is often at war with the Democratic party, we seek liberal and progressive allies and then sometimes they are hard to find. But today in our No On the Six Campaign we work with the Democrats to oppose two propositions that would imprison Black youth, we and they support Gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose. In _What is to Be Done_, Lenin says that a communist (as opposed to an economist) must be a tribune of the people and respond to all forms of oppression, e.g. including the suppression of Greek Orthodox priests.

    Today, did you see the Republican convention? A bunch of pasty-faced fascists, all white and yet not seeming to notice the absence of any Blacks and Latinos. Do we not understand we are in an anti-racist united front?

    In my politics, I am working to build an antiracist, anti-fasicst, anti-imperialist united front. That is not a slogan but an operative theory. I wish everyone was anti-racist, *and anti-fascist *and anti-imperialist. But many people I know are anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti-war, and that’s pretty good because when Palin says, “We want to kill Al Qaeda and Obama wants to read them their rights” the crowd goes crazy, and the Republicans are screaming about torture.

    I won’t go on elaborating on what were my main points in the article. Basically, I believe that if you are successful on the left you live with real people, work with real people. If your entire union wants to go on strike you don’t say, “This is a bourgeois struggle because you only want a better price for the sale of your labor power.” No, you join the strike, fight against the leadership of the trade union bureaucracy, and help the union win. I just heard Barack Obama on his paid spot yesterday. Its tone was civilized, humane, and decent, focusing on the real problems of working people. I disagreed with many of the things he said and I have an organization that is far to his left. The day after the election I do not plan to attack him politically, nor will he care, but I will be part of an organization whose members, as individuals, are working for Obama and want him to win. I have confidence in my politics, in the Black community, and in the part of the left that is, like Carl Davidson explains, building actual mass movements.

    If comrades are debating whether or not to vote before a major turning point in US history when I am proposing turning out the vote for Obama, then we are pretty far apart. Did you notice I also said in my article that I am working with an independent movement to build my and our own base, far to the left of Obama? On election night we are having an election night party for the volunteers of the No on the Six campaign. I will not be with the Obama folks on election night, not that I wouldn’t want to, but because my own organization will have 100 to 150 volunteers, perhaps 50 Black, 50 Latino, 20 Korean and Asian/Pacific Islander who have worked together for 3 months on the No on the Six campaign. We will be rooting for the defeat of these reactionary propositions. Our organization does not endorse candidates but I think 95% of our members will be rooting with all their hearts for an Obama victory. It is great to have a multi-racial base, to have an organization, to have left politics, and to not be isolated.

    For those who point out the dangers of an Obama presidency, because he is, as I stressed in my article as well, commander in chief of US imperialism, we share those concerns. But I do believe that the Mexicans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Palestinians, Cubans, South Africans and every third world revolutionary I know will be hoping that Obama wins and McCain loses. Are they wrong too? I urge you to write them to explain their naivete, or perhaps, look in the mirror and take another look at history passing you by.

    For concern re length, I’ll stop here. I have put up a new post on my blog with a couple more points of response along with excerpts from many other comments posted here that struck me–Part One: Responding to Criticisms of *Ten Reasons We Should Work to Elect Obama*. I would welcome continued discussion there or here, whatever works best and is most appropriate. I plan to post my responses to other critiques and feedback that I have been getting to my article there soon.

    Again, the discussion here has been great and you have been very generous to me and my article. Let’s keep the dialogue and debate going.

  57. Eric Mann said

    First, thanks to Mike Ely and Kasama’s readers for such a rich, engaged discussion.
    I read every comment and felt I could spend another article just writing responses, but let me make a preliminary response to some of the critiques being made against my arguments.

    I think one major disagreement we have is that I see the U.S. as an imperialist racist white settler state. I see the national question re oppressed people inside and outside the united states as the primary contradiction. If a white mob is yelling, “Off with his head,” what kind of communism or socialism or revolutionary ideology would say we should sit out that fight?

    Of all the comments, the one that moved me the most was the .

    TellNoLies Says:
    October 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    This is, to take a touchy moment from the RCP’s history, something of a Boston busing moment, where a determination to distance oneself from anything having to do with the existing capitalist state blinded some sincere revolutionaries to the “which side are you on” nature of a fight against racism and called into question their leadership in the eyes of the majority of revolutionary minded people from there on out.

    Bussing was a civil rights issue, a democratic right for Blacks to go to any school, including predominantly white schools. Bussing was supported by the vast majority of Black families, though not without reservations. So when it began, white vigilante groups attacked the Black children in Boston, threatening to kill them. Every decent white person–priests and ministers, the entire civil rights movement and most of the new communist left–rallied to defend the Black kids. Bizarrely, the RCP called bussing a sham reform that would divide the working class. They ended up opposing Black people’s right to go to any school they wanted to and objectively supported the white mobs. And this was not academic. I was in Boston at the time and heard the RCP speakers and felt they were racists and frankly, cruel and anti-Black. Coming out of the civil rights movement and having worked in Black communities for 5 years by then, and 30 more years since, I had such a visceral dislike of the RCP that it turned me against communism altogether for another 3 or 4 years. It was only when I met oppressed nationality communists talking about the fight for democratic rights being part of the national question and how communists had to rally to defend Black and Latino peoples, on immigration, housing, against police brutality, only then did communism become attractive to me.

    So, one of the reasons I give for is that . Isn’t that enough for anti-racist communists to get? This is not just a split in the ruling class–it is a fight between liberal bourgeois democracy and fascism. If you don’t agree that that is important because you think they are both capitalist, I urge you to visit the Buchenwald camps where the Jews, Gypsies, and Communists were taken. I urge you to revisit how the communists led the anti-fascist united front. When you hear McCain and Palin say that “spreading the wealth around” is socialism, they are lying, sure, but isn’t it important that Obama is even talking about that? Why are we so afraid of the Democrats, so afraid of being ideologically contaminated?

    In Los Angeles, my organization is often at war with the Democratic party, we seek liberal and progressive allies and then sometimes they are hard to find. But today in our we work with the Democrats to oppose two propositions that would imprison Black youth, we and they support Gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose. In _What is to Be Done_, Lenin says that a communist (as opposed to an economist) must be a tribune of the people and respond to all forms of oppression, e.g. including the suppression of Greek Orthodox priests.

    Today, did you see the Republican convention? A bunch of pasty-faced fascists, all white and yet not seeming to notice the absence of any Blacks and Latinos. Do we not understand we are in an anti-racist united front?

    In my politics, I am working to build an antiracist, anti-fasicst, anti-imperialist united front. That is not a slogan but an operative theory. I wish everyone was anti-racist, *and anti-fascist *and anti-imperialist. But many people I know are anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti-war, and that’s pretty good because when Palin says, “We want to kill Al Qaeda and Obama wants to read them their rights” the crowd goes crazy, and the Republicans are screaming about torture.

    I won’t go on elaborating on what were my main points in the article. Basically, I believe that if you are successful on the left you live with real people, work with real people. If your entire union wants to go on strike you don’t say, “This is a bourgeois struggle because you only want a better price for the sale of your labor power.” No, you join the strike, fight against the leadership of the trade union bureaucracy, and help the union win. I just heard Barack Obama on his paid spot yesterday. Its tone was civilized, humane, and decent, focusing on the real problems of working people. I disagreed with many of the things he said and I have an organization that is far to his left. The day after the election I do not plan to attack him politically, nor will he care, but I will be part of an organization whose members, as individuals, are working for Obama and want him to win. I have confidence in my politics, in the Black community, and in the part of the left that is, like Carl Davidson explains, building actual mass movements.

    If comrades are debating whether or not to vote before a major turning point in US history when I am proposing turning out the vote for Obama, then we are pretty far apart. Did you notice I also said in my article that I am working with an independent movement to build my and our own base, far to the left of Obama? On election night we are having an election night party for the volunteers of . I will not be with the Obama folks on election night, not that I wouldn’t want to, but because my own organization will have 100 to 150 volunteers, perhaps 50 Black, 50 Latino, 20 Korean and Asian/Pacific Islander who have worked together for 3 months on the No on the Six campaign. We will be rooting for the defeat of these reactionary propositions. Our organization does not endorse candidates but I think 95% of our members will be rooting with all their hearts for an Obama victory. It is great to have a multi-racial base, to have an organization, to have left politics, and to not be isolated.

    For those who point out the dangers of an Obama presidency, because he is, as I stressed in my article as well, commander in chief of US imperialism, we share those concerns. But I do believe that the Mexicans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Palestinians, Cubans, South Africans and every third world revolutionary I know will be hoping that Obama wins and McCain loses. Are they wrong too? I urge you to write them to explain their naivete, or perhaps, look in the mirror and take another look at history passing you by.

    For concern re length, I’ll stop here. I have put up a new post on my blog with a couple more points of response along with excerpts from many other comments posted here that struck me–. I would welcome continued discussion there or here, whatever works best and is most appropriate. I plan to post my responses to other critiques and feedback that I have been getting to my article there soon.

    Again, the discussion here has been great and you have been very generous to me and my article. Let’s keep the dialogue and debate going.

  58. Don’t vote out of fear…

    Talk by Alan Maki in Duluth, Minnesota;

    September 18, 2008 as part of a forum:

    “Which way for labor in the 2008 Elections.”

    Which way for labor in the 2008 Elections… this is our topic. I have heard comments here that Obama and the Democrats are going to fix this and fix that. I say this in a friendly manner, not to mock or make fun of any one; but, please, spare me— spare us; capitalism is on the skids to oblivion and Barack Obama is not going to do a damn thing for the working class. My concern is not if Obama will throw a bone here or there to whoever gives him the biggest campaign contributions… and with unions spending over 70 million dollars— not even counting all the woman/man hours being volunteered on his campaign; what we need to be looking at is solutions to problems which will address the concerns of the entire working class. What are such issues?

    At the top of my list is peace; we cannot have guns and bombs and health care and child care; single-payer universal health care or socialized health care— in my opinion we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about socialized health care… we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about socialism for that matter; another working class issue is card check or the Employee Free Choice Act— however, this Act will mean absolutely nothing for workers in 28 states where the reactionary “at-will hiring, at-will firing” legislation is in place— including here in Minnesota and even the big industrial state of Michigan… it has been Democrats who refuse to rescind this most repressive , anti-worker legislation— David Bonior, the great defender of the rights of working people along with John Edwards and Obama have not uttered a peep in opposition to this legislation even as they tout the Employee Free Choice Act… complete hypocrites; we need to be talking about this mortgage question and student debts… these are very important working class issues and in my opinion the solution is the government stepping in and forgiving these debts or at least making student debts payable at 50 cents on the dollar with a token interest of 2 to 3 percent which would be seed money for a federal bank similar to the State Bank of North Dakota. Perhaps the most important issue, working class issue, along with peace and socialized health care is raising the minimum wage to a real living wage— the time has come to stop pulling figures from a hat at election time… there is only one way to once and for all resolve this issue in a way that begins to pry wealth from the corporations and business, and this is to legislatively tie the minimum wage to the cost of living factors as calculated by the United States Department of Labor and its Bureau of Labor Statistics… anything short of this is unfair to the working class and leads to the continued impoverishment of the working class… our goal is to advance in improving the standard of living for all working people— organized labor cannot afford this “club” of impoverished workers to be held over its head by business and the bosses… it is shameful and disgraceful the way organized labor’s “leaders” have continued with this nickel and dime and quarters here and there crap… in fact, what right does a Methodist preacher like John Sweeney have to be speaking on this minimum wage issue at all when many of the present union contracts are little better than poverty wages and he has the gall to take the money from worker’s paychecks for union dues… he does not do an adequate job representing those workers he is being paid to represent, much less represent workers who he has never even consulted with. Yes, he consults with the poverty pimps of all these organizations whose directors and staffs make their living as a result of the disgraceful poverty in this country… but, Sweeney has never consulted with the workers being paid this miserly poverty minimum wage which the employers use to drag down the living standards of the entire working class. Once and for all we need to be clear on this issue… if a job needs to be done, that job should pay the worker doing the job a real living wage… if the employer does not want to pay real living wages then let that employer do the job himself.

    My intent in coming here tonight is not to talk about demands that we need to make on Obama so much… suffice it to say that we will get no more from an Obama Administration than what we have received from George Bush… shit. Maybe even less if I read right where this rotten capitalist system is headed… as many of you know, for months now I have been saying that capitalism is on the skids to oblivion, but this is a matter for discussion for another time.

    What I have not heard from Obama or anyone on his “team” is how any of the fixes will be made for the problems he has articulated so eloquently. It is very dishonest to lead people to believe that their problems are likely to be solved because their problems are now being mentioned after eight years of Democrats acquiescing and giving Bush everything he wanted… especially if the only reason for talking about the problems is to get you to give up your valuable vote with no intent to solve your problems. Usually they call this fraud. Previously we were led to believe that Obama is a “progressive.” We now know nothing could be further from the truth.

    Your vote is very important… or so they say— even if there is the tendency not to want to count votes in this country. However, this is neither here nor there, it is a sad commentary that in a country where politicians and the capitalist sooth-sayers boast to the world that this is the world’s greatest democracy we now have to have people watching closely to make sure our votes get counted.

    But, beyond making sure your vote gets counted there is an even more fundamental issue involved which no one seems to want to talk about… and this is accountability… or, more precisely, getting something of substance from these politicians in return for your vote. Why should we march off to the polls like a bunch of cows being called in from the pasture every election day without getting a single thing in return for our votes?

    As working people, we haven’t received a goddamn thing for our votes for well over sixty years in this country. The politicians— of both political parties— all owned by our bosses have quite literally been shitting all over us. Rita has a beautiful graphic of this on her blog, it is titled “Minnesota Outhouse” I believe… it is a two story out house— politicians use the upper story, the people use the ground floor… I think you get my point.

    If I am distorting this in any way… please set me straight right now before I make a fool of myself and go any further.

    Anyone can run down a list of our problems… from unemployment to the robbery at the pumps to a war for oil in Iraq to home foreclosures and food prices soaring out of control… to poverty wages… to college tuitions soaring skyward as fast as the price of gas at the pumps. And I will give you this, it is better to have a bunch of charlatans at least mentioning our problems rather than a bunch of arrogant crooks pretending these problems don’t exist as capitalism is on the skids to oblivion.

    Obama says he is for ending poverty. I would say the same thing and so would you if you were running for president… it sounds good; but, like me, I would be willing to venture a guess that each and everyone of you would feel obligated to tell people you expect votes from how you intended to help them solve their problems and what actions you intend to take to eliminate this scourge of poverty. Do you know anyone running for public office, especially the charlatans passing themselves off as politicians for the presidency, who would actually say, “I don’t care about poverty?” The question is not whether one acknowledges the existence of poverty; the question is what do you do to eliminate poverty? How do you end poverty when tens of millions of working people are being paid poverty wages? Correct me if I am wrong, but you either provide social programs to overcome the problems associated with this poverty; or, you pay people real living wages… common sense dictates we will have to do both. I have heard no suggestions from Barack Obama he intends to do either.

    What organized labor has not been able to accomplish at the bargaining table, we have a right, and an obligation, to fight for in the state house and in the halls of congress.

    We need legislation to solve the problem of poverty… poverty is a class issue in our country… poverty is a working class issue and we should be concerned with rising the entire working class out of poverty because any worker living in poverty drags the standard of living for the rest of us down— if you don’t believe me you go home and think about this. This idea that there will be opposition to resolving this problem other than in some “incremental” way is foolish. Do you know any banker who will take “incremental” payments on a mortgage if you can’t afford the agreed payment? Go to the SuperValu grocery store down the street here… when you get done checking out, you tell the cashier, “I’ll be paying this in ‘increments’; see you next week.”

    We need a working class solution to ending poverty in this country… this means legislatively establishing a federal minimum wage that is a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors as calculated by the United States Department of Labor and its Bureau of Labor Statistics. To the extent that social programs are used to create single-payer universal health care, rolling back college tuitions or making education, including all higher education free as it should be, the minimum wage can be reduced. Get the government to bring the energy industries under public ownership and reduce the cost of home heating fuels and the minimum wage can be reduced, further. I hope you see what I am trying to do here; I am trying desperately to find ways to help these poor business people from having to pay a higher minimum wage. There is no reason why any worker should be doing any job which needs to be done and not be paid a real living wage for doing that job. If an employer disagrees with this, let that employer do the job himself or pay our heating bills and educational expenses, the rent, health care costs, etc.

    We need to look at the health care issue in the same way. These politicians who talk about how we need to “be patient and let the political process work” will never take care of this health care mess. Look, we all know what we really need is socialized health care. We indicated we would settle for a reform— single-payer universal health care; the politicians smelled blood, they saw weakness… they moved quickly to try to derail our single-payer movement. Our response should be to insist that we will settle for nothing less than socialized health care. People before profits. Health care, not warfare.

    How will these problems be resolved… this is the real question. We have yet to hear the solutions to these very specific problems from Barack Obama or any other Democrat running for public office. If any of you know of one single politician putting forward solutions to any problems, I challenge you to prove me wrong right now.

    Does anyone really expect the workers I represent— casino workers— to make the trip to the polls and vote for Obama? What will they get for their vote if they do vote for Obama? I can appreciate anyone who votes for candidates that have delivered for them, or candidates who might deliver for them in some way, even a very small way, which is always welcome. However, this “I got mine, FU” attitude has to end. An injury to one is an injury to all has to be the mantra of all working people. People should vote for candidates who help them… but, in the same manner, no one should expect casino workers to vote for politicians who do not help them… in fact, we are talking about politicians who have hurt us, Barack Obama is one… and knowingly continue to hurt us… this is an issue of basic human rights, it is an issue of social and economic justice involving the intentional denial of the most basic and fundamental rights to working people.

    Here is the situation of thirty thousand Minnesotans and two-million casino workers employed in the Indian gaming industry across the country find themselves in…

    Casino workers are employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages and have no rights— none, zilch— no rights under state or federal labor laws. Casino workers go to their jobs every day in these smoke-filled casinos, completely at the mercy of a bunch of violent and vicious mobsters who operate and manage these casinos including the casino right here in Duluth. If you think I exaggerate who casino workers are employed by… you go home and google up Frank Fertitta and Station Casinos. These casino managements are the worst kind of sleazeballs and scumballs imaginable. You go home and google up the name Frank Fertitta… and I guarantee you, if you knew this man walked by your child’s school-yard everyday you would live in fear. The Democrats take Fertitta’s money. Over five-thousand casino workers are employed by Mystic Lake Casino… check out what kind of sleaze-ball Stanley Crooks is. His name fits him well.

    I really don’t want to see McCain elected… but, I hope you understand why casino workers are not thrilled about being asked to vote for Obama, who has only made two promises to any of you which we can depend on him to keep: Increasing military spending, getting us into at least one more war in Pakistan and expanding a very vicious and deadly war in Afghanistan where the losers are beheaded and the victors display the heads of the losers on flag poles— this should be a sight for the American people to behold; and continuing this dirty war for oil and regional domination in Iraq… the other promise Obama has made is to re-introduce American youth to a new wave of militarization where, “if we” are at war, everyone will serve— which means American youth will again become acquainted with the draft… this should be an interesting experience for America, too… my prediction is that we will soon see the thousands of the youth now packing football stadiums and arenas to cheer Obama on… these same youth will be rioting in the streets and burning Obama in effigy as soon as the first draft cards are mailed out.

    Where does that leave us on the issues you have spoken about, upon which the Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council and our organizing committees have been very vocal on… more vocal, I would remind you than any of the “leaders” of your unions— the reason I was probably invited here to speak tonight instead of Ray Waldron the President of the Minnesota AFL-CIO is because we have been a clear outspoken voice for single-payer universal health care; “card check” which includes putting an end the biggest obstacle we all have to union organizing— at-will hiring, at will firing, an issue I have raised at every single state convention of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party as a delegate and as a member of the DFL State Central Committee, and in resolutions which have unanimously passed at the precinct caucus level in Roseau County; we have vigorously championed the struggle against racism and for full equality— in the contracts we are mobilizing around, affirmative action for Native Americans is a model for the entire labor movement to emulate if there is a real desire to end racism which Richard Trumka, Jimmy Hoffa and Leo Gerard now find themselves very belatedly lamenting, as you will recall, I was the author of the resolution on single-payer universal health care, which was seconded at the DFL State Convention by our friend here from the USW and passed by 72%.— and I hope you don’t take offense at me saying this, but this past spring you introduced a resolution at your precinct caucus calling for “affordable universal health insurance” which is not the same as single-payer universal health care; in a way, it is kind of funny, because I am probably being attacked by Democrats and Republicans across this state and in Michigan more than anyone else and I am not even running for anything… if the Democrats in Minnesota and Michigan spent as much time campaigning against John McCain as they do attacking me, there would be no question that John McCain would lose these two important states.

    I don’t have time to talk about what is going on as far as trying to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant… let me just say we are hearing nothing from the politicians on this issue either… suffice it to say, jobs on the Iron Range will be lost if this plant is allowed to close… what tax-payers have financed and subsidized, tax-payers should own. I am on my way to a forum in St. Paul on this topic Monday evening… public ownership of the Ford Plant and hydro dam is being proposed as the fix.

    Neither do I have time to talk about water issues and saving the Big Bog from peat mining.

    I have just about used up my allotted time… you agreed to pay my gas for coming here this evening, I am wondering if I could buy a little extra time to say what is on my mind… if I were to contribute the gas money to you would I be able to continue…

    Thank you. I will try to be brief in concluding. Ok, how about I just agree to conclude when I am done?

    As a “red” Finn whose family hails from the Iron Range where it used to be understood that workers are workers and bosses are bosses, two classes who have absolutely nothing in common with the exception that one works for the other who gets rich off of their labor— from the Iron Range today we hear the disgraceful perversions of the words “progressive” and “left” which insult the struggles of our grandparents and parents… some of you, your great-grand parents.

    Many of you have heard about the ruckus at the old “Finn Hall,” Petrell Hall, not far from Two Harbors a couple weeks ago where I was told to take my opinions and “go back to Russia” because I supported the class struggle viewpoint of Gus Hall a viewpoint that used to be the hallmark of the Communist Party USA. I hope that video gets shown all over Duluth and Superior and the Iron Range because I have the right to speak my views. I stand on that right based upon the blood and sweat and struggles of my grandparents— proud “red” Finns— and my own struggles… including standing up in opposition to that dirty war in Vietnam while John McCain was delivering payloads of napalm and cluster bombs on the innocent people of Vietnam, to standing up for the rights of casino workers… no one is going to tell me to “go back to Russia” because I voice opinions counter to their own. I have never suggested that anyone should leave their country because of their political views… although I agree with Dennis Kucinich that Bush and Cheney should be behind bars… just like any other crooks… but, this has nothing to do with the right of Bush and Cheney to express their views it is about criminal wrong-doing.

    Sisters and brothers, comrades and friends, I submit to you, unless working people stand up and say , “Enough,” the pathetic situation in politics we face today will continue to worsen right along side our standard of living which is being driven, down, down, down… I can only say to those of you in this room who think there is some kind of “salvation” to be found in Barack Obama… I ask you to explain what you base your assessment on… as all of you know, I am very open-minded, though class biased; it is up to you to convince me why I, or any casino worker, should vote for Barack Obama. I haven’t heard anything here tonight which would lead me to vote for Obama. As all of you know, I have been a very ardent supporter of Democrats who have a clear track record in defense of standing up for the rights of working people, even when this support has been based upon very minimal accomplishments and less than adequate promises… which most politicians have refused to try to make good on once elected.

    I would not vote Republican unless Lincoln were to rise from the grave… and after eight long years of George Bush, I likely would be hesitant voting for Abe Lincoln if he were to present himself in this election as a Republican. On Labor Day I marched with America in opposition to the Republican Party in St. Paul. Yes, America marched against the Republican Party… it was a great demonstration.

    I don’t share some of your fears of John McCain, even though I detest him and everything he stands for— the guy, and this Neanderthal moron, his running mate— are both a disgrace to the human race— McCain is a warmonger and a war criminal who deserved everything the Vietnamese dished out to him for dropping napalm and cluster bombs on innocent working people and peasants tending to their rice paddies trying to survive— just as we, as working people, are struggling against great odds trying to survive. McCain and his backers should be thanking the Vietnamese people for keeping him alive to run for president with Palin, an uncaring mother who encourages and sends own her son into a senseless oilman’s war because she supposedly communicates with God in strange tongues and God tells her that this war is for Him and not Cheney’s friends at Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil. First a small town in Texas lost its village idiot… now Alaska may lose one, too.

    But, do you conduct your struggles through your unions out of “fear” of your bosses? No. Our struggles are waged on the basis of what is right and just… to improve our standard of living.

    And our electoral struggles should be based upon the same struggles for peace and social and economic justice, with the same courage— without fear.

    If “fear” was to be our guide to action, the “red” Finns of the Iron Range would never have stood up to the mining bosses.

    I can assure you, and I think you know, the “red” Finns of the Iron Range had more to fear from their bosses than we have to fear from John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    Our struggles for a better life as trade unionists have never been based upon fear… ok, for some sixty years the bogey man of anti-communism struck fear into organized labor… but, take a look around you, look at your communities, look at the massive unemployment, look at this dirty war, look at how every stream, river and lake in this “land of ten-thousand lakes” has been contaminated to the point where pregnant women and nursing mothers are warned that consuming the fish from these waters which appear to be so beautiful and harmless, are nothing but reservoirs of death and sickness and deadly cancers as that arrogant plant manager at MinnTac tells a group of trout anglers about their concerns over United States Steel polluting the Dark River… “This is the land of Ten-Thousand Lakes… can’t you find someplace else to fish?”

    We have paid a terrible price because gutless “leaders”— who now counsel that we should consider our choice for president (and most other political offices) should be based upon fear. If I were to allow “fear” to dictate my course in life, I would never enter a casino managed by the likes of a vicious, violent mobster like Frank Fertitta talking union to casino workers.

    I sure as hell won’t enter a voting booth, fearful of John McCain, while getting nothing in return for my vote— the “vote,” which we are constantly reminded, every day, is the most precious aspect of democracy. But, what does your vote mean if you cast it out of fear and you get nothing for your vote as the corporations deliver their “votes” via lobbyists deployed with brown paper shopping bags filled with cash and get everything, and more, than what they ask for… at your expense.

    Because we, as working people, still fear taking the leap to organizing a working class political party, we are paying through the nose at the gas pumps as millions go without health care because politicians like Barack Obama have no shame in standing before America saying he will increase the military budget when each and every worker in this room— along with just about every one else in America understands the basic little truth brought forward over one-hundred and fifty years ago by Karl Marx, that every expenditure on military adventures and armaments is tantamount to taking your pay-check out of your wallet and tossing it into the ocean— would anyone in this room walk out to the end of Canal Street and toss the contents of your billfold out into Lake Superior? What do you suppose would happen to you? The police would probably take you to the psych ward. Yet, this is what these politicians do with your hard earned money… Barack Obama has no shame in saying— as people are homeless and hungry, without health care and can’t afford the cost of college— that he intends to piss your money away by increasing the military budget and expanding these oil wars… no shame. Obama gets no sympathy or support from me.

    The capitalist class feared Karl Marx, in fact, they still fear a man over one-hundred years dead… imagine, the John McCains of this world who we are told we should fear, are themselves afraid of a man who has been so long dead that his remains are most likely mere grains of sand like you have out on the beaches along Lake Superior here. Marx’ ideas so feared, that the mainstream media will not stop their attack. There is a lesson here for us. We need to make the McCains— and Obamas— of this world shake and tremble in fear of the working class, not the other way around.

    I can assure you that Frank Fertitta will fear no one walking into one of his casino operations who fears John McCain. I can assure you, Cleveland Cliffs will have no fear of any man nor woman coming to work in a taconite plant who fears John McCain. I can assure you, United States Steel will laugh in the face of any union leader sitting at the bargaining table who displayed a fear of John McCain. On the other hand, working people will sit as equals at the bargaining table with these greedy, corporate monsters and pigs if working people were to say to Barack Obama, “You aren’t getting our votes unless you provide something in return.” If this were done, you might actually end up getting something other than poverty for your labor. At the negotiating table you threaten to with-hold your labor. At the polls, this is the way to bargain with the politicians, too, by with-holding your vote unless you get something in return that will improve your life.

    Even though you may disagree with me as far as voting for Obama goes, maybe on some other things I have said here tonight we agree… I want you to know, I didn’t hire this guy in the green cap to start clapping for me all night; I hope we can continue to discuss these things as we continue to work together on issues concerning finding solutions to the problems of working people… issues which, I remind you, Barack Obama is not on our side, or, if he is, he certainly hasn’t said— increasing military spending and re-introducing the military draft are not the kinds of things I think of when considering voting for any candidate for public office— even when John McCain and Sarah Palin are waiting in the wings.

    Let me just close with this:

    Some have charged, like Bob Walls of the International Association of Machinists up in International Falls, that I am using the problems of casino workers to advance some kind of far out left ideas and my intent is to destroy the Democratic Party— to Bob Walls and those with such backwards thinking, I say to them, “Solve the problems of casino workers, than I will not have this wide open forum for my ideas that I now do.” But, remember, it was within the last two years that Minnesota Democrats in the state legislature, initiated, and passed legislation, requiring all places of employment to be smoke-free— except for this state’s casinos. The mutterings and musings of this muddle-headed racist bigot up in International Falls passing himself off as a “labor leader” who is as afraid of John McCain as he is of Boise Cascade management… goes right in one ear and out the other ear… just as his mutterings do with most Boise workers who are getting pretty damn fed up with his being afraid of management, and they are getting ready to rumble. If anyone doubts that Bob Walls is the racist bigot I maintain he is, I suggest that you contact Jody Beaulieu, the Red Lake Nation Archivist and Secretary of the Red Lake Nation Tribal Council, to whom I turned over the letter I received from Bob Walls, which makes the leaders of organized labor who “fear John McCain,” two faced hypocrites in saying they are opposed to racism— they have turned in indifference to this racist letter; why is Bob Walls still the International Rep for the IAM some four years after writing such a racist, bigoted and biased letter to anyone? Can such a bigot represent all IAM members? It is almost enough for me to know that Bob Walls is supporting Barack Obama, for me to say I will not walk across the street to vote for Obama, but such bigots will never determine what I say or do when it comes to the struggles of working people for better lives.

    As working people we need our own political Party along the lines of the old Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party which elected two socialist governors— Floyd Olson and Elmer Benson, and John Bernard, that courageous member of the Communist Party from the small mining community, Eveleth, on the Iron Range; miners elected John Bernard to Congress because they knew they could rely on a Communist to fight like hell for them.

    I expect that Barack Obama will not be receiving many votes from casino workers here in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan or Iowa… and, I can assure you, McCain will be lucky to receive ten votes from Minnesota’s thirty-thousand casino workers… we are voting in our way, according to our interests, by voting for neither.

    With that said, Election Day is still a ways off… we could be convinced to change our minds if offered something of substance. I would be a fool to sit here and join the chorus of support for Barack Obama sweeping the country as more than two-million casino workers continue going to their jobs in smoke-filled casinos for which they receive poverty wages without one single right in the workplace under state or federal labor laws as Brian Melendez, the Chair of the Minnesota DFL stood before thousands of delegates and guests right here in Duluth and declared: “We stand in solidarity with our friends operating their casino businesses” while never uttering one single peep of concern for the thousands of Minnesotans employed in these hell holes, and Barack Obama takes campaign funds from the likes of Frank Fertitta… and the Minnesota DFL is receiving campaign contributions from these same casino managements.

    By all rights, given the plethora of problems in our country today, Barack Obama and the Democrats should win in a landslide over the Republicans… if they don’t; it is of their own making. If the race is as tight as they say in Minnesota and Michigan, Obama and the Democrats might want to keep an open mind to the injustices of casino workers… if you ask me, they are kind of stupid if they don’t offer us something for our vote… I have extended our hand… and it has yet to be grasped. A lot worse things have been said in politics then I have said here tonight with the fences ending up being mended in time for an election.

    Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak my views here tonight. I have never had the opportunity to speak to so many rank and file working class activists in one room here in Duluth, maybe after what I said here tonight I never will again. I am thinking, judging from the enthusiastic response to the things I have said here tonight, that we are mostly of like minds even though we may disagree to one extent or another on Obama. There is a lot that one-hundred and twenty workers can do. When I agreed to speak here tonight, I was thinking there would be maybe fifteen to twenty people. I think the turnout and your enthusiastic response signifies a real turning point for politics in Minnesota. Again, thank you for the very warm reception, I apologize for talking longer than my allotted time; and I would ask of you, that if you are considering going to the local casino here to pass some time— and spend your money, that you instead take a walk out in the woods, go fishing, play checkers or cribbage with a friend rather then patronize a business that so ruthlessly exploits working people as the politicians and political hacks turn their backs on us.

    I would especially like to thank Rita and Benny and the members of the Duluth-Superior Club of the Communist Party for all of their hard work and efforts in bringing us together here this evening to discuss the working class and the 2008 elections. I appreciate the opportunity for dialogue with the other four members of the panel here.

    Maybe, also, I should just mention, that around two-hundred people turned out at FinnFest 2008, held right here in Duluth, to hear the prominent and respected Finnish journalist, Tuomas Savonen, talk about the life of Gus Hall; and about sixty people turned out to hear Toumas talk about the life of Gus Hall at the old “Petrell Hall.”

    I find all of this very encouraging, considering the circus being passed off as politics in our state.

    I have some cards here with my blog address… I invite you to check out my blog… feel free to call me or e-mail me… let’s stay in touch.

    Alan L. Maki

    Director of Organizing,

    Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

    Warroad, Minnesota 56763

    Phone: 218-386-2432

    Cell phone: 651-587-5541

    E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

    Check out my blog:

    Thoughts From Podunk

    http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>