Should socialists vote for Kerry or Nader?

[Michael Costello]

I am a small-s socialist. I believe workers should, as soon as possible, own and control the means of production. I think profit, rent, interest and so forth should be abolished.

From my perspective, especially with the DLC (and Clinton talking about in his book which I browsed how he joined the DLC because he was pro-business and for money to the military) and the right-ward lurch of the Democrats over recent years, I can't really see much of a difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I want radical, revolutionary change, and when I listen to Tom Daschle, Kerry, Lieberman, Bill Clinton and so forth, I can't tell you how much it turns me off. From my perspective, which I consider working class, but I suppose you could say "left" as well, I am so far from what Kerry or Bush are for that they both look near each other to me.

A vast number of the poor, working poor and working class blue collar people in this country do not vote. The Democratic party does not speak to these people, its policies are not for these people and it certainly is not run by these people even though they are about 80% of the population.

Considering Europe in the 20th century, the communist party was France's largest political party in 1956, their election wins were suppressed in Italy in the 1940s (by the US), and as late as 1976 they were getting over 1/3rd of the vote, less than 5% away from the Christian Democrats. I feel closer to this tradition, I see a battle, a class war between capital and labor. I see almost any appeasement of imperialism or capitalism as awful. I actually think the Comintern and European communist parties betrayed the European working class by giving in to capitalists too much.

Anyhow, 49% of eligible voters do not vote, but neither of the two parties represents these people, who are mostly within the bottom 80% or so of the national income scale. Kerry doesn't appeal to these people or represent them, but people here are apoplectic about Nader, happy the Democrats are trying to block these people's choice to vote for him and so forth. Frome exit polls it showed Nader's main base of support in 2000 were from the lowest income groups (4%) and the least was from the highest income groups (2%).

The socialist and labor parties in Europe pushed aside the liberal parties in Europe in the 19th and earliest 20th century. It's time for that to start happening here. I can live with another 4 years of Bush, since Kerry doesn't represent me anyhow.

[Warpy]

1. This Socialist will be doing some nose holding

and voting for Kerry. If Bush gets another four years and who knows how many Supreme Court appointments, this country is finished.

[Deja Q]

12. I dare say we're finished now.

* has more and more of the world turning against him every day, not to mention the rift here at home.

Corporations' own antics get more and more bold and boisterous. People, regardless of political orientation, can only whine "People should have good paying jobs". I work with a REPUBLICAN who is pro-Bush and is still angry over what corporations are doing. She's naive politically, but the fact she cares about people puts her well and above many in this joke of a society.

The people themselves, many of them, are losing their ability to be compassionate. I don't say it lightly when I say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." There's a hidden message here as well, though it's somewhat obvious... People who used to be compassionate are now downright rude and disrespectful.

More people lose their jobs and those who still have their jobs now do much more work - for no pay increase. Meanwhile, corporations profits continue to go up (can you say "OUTSOURCING" and "TAX EVASION", folks?) Reagan started the corporate trend with nobody since stopping their evil. Given that, until 2002, workers did 2x the amount of work since 1980, CEOs made 1024x that of the worker... (with the gulf even further because of outsourced workers with us at home still doing even more and more work, getting stressed and burned out, you name it...)

Not to forget the national debt - which became an issue during Ford's time when deficits started to grow. Carter didn't help. Reagan and Bush I made catastrophic levels out of it. Clinton, much to his credit, re-balanced the books. Bush II has since put deficits to lengths that made Reagan and Bush I's incompetencies look like well-thought brilliance by comparison.

Not to mention *'s misuse and abuse of power which has led a lot of the world to be wary of us. We all now know what the neocons will do. With Kerry in power, they will still try to raise the upper hand. If you thought Clinton's capitulance was one thing, just wait for how they'll pull Kerry's strings. Hell, the neocons might rig a new war PROMPTING Kerry to do what they secretly want.

The seeds had been sewn in 1980. They were given decent weather and fertilizer for 22 straight years. Since then the weather for these merchants of Satan has been positively flourishing for them.

Sorry. I am a pessimist. I think we're beyond "too late".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. If they voted, parties would listen

Not voting and not paying attention are the most irresponsible things one can do to their own rights.

If they voted, they'd have that much power...they abdicated their resposibility to make themselves heard when they took the bait.

[FighttheFuture]

3. If this is what you feel then vote for Bush...

This is your best chance for change that you want, alas, it will be pretty bloody, and if it fails, well, WE ARE ALL SCREWED!!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

4. This is an excellent question

And it's not only an American question. Even in Europe, the drift from labor to business has been formidable. Chomsky has an interesting analysis on zmag.com on this very subject.

The Democratic party needs to get back to its Roosevelt roots and start focusing on the working person again.

[dammit905]

7. It's much easier to vote 3rd party in Europe

Most countries in Europe don't have a winner-take-all system. Just sayin'.

[Michael Costello]

14. Chomsky article

I suppose you mean this article

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=5694

This article is interesting.

Chomsky doesn't say it, but you can perhaps derive the idea that while Kerry may not be the best candidate for American workers, he may be the best candidate for working people around the world.

[Dirk39]

21. Hello from Germany:

Today a poll was published in Germany by the "Spiegel" (comparable to Times Magazine in the USA):
when asked, would you vote for a non-blairist new left party, 32% replied: "yes, maybe" and 6% replied: "yes, for sure".
Our Socialdemocratic Party has lost about half of it's members since Schröder is our chancelor and in the election for the european parliament, the SPD got the worst results in the history of the party: only about 20%.

More and more, I guess, if I would be a US citizen, I would hold my nose and vote for Kerry, without illusions.

On the other hand, I simply don't understand the irrational hatred against Nader here at DU.
A lot of the times, it seems to reveal more about those, who hate him, than about Nader.
It seems to me, Nader reminds these people of the integrity they abandonned. You don't even have to be Sigmund Freud to clearly see that there is something in this hatred that exceeds the cause by far.

And although I'm far left as you are, Kerry is definetely different from Bush. Although leftists like us might see not much of a difference between the DLC-Democrats and the Republicans. There is no way to compare Kerry with Bush and his criminal gang.

Read what he did write as a young guy about Vietnam. Read what he did 1992, when as a senator in the congress, he wrote along with Hank Brown:

The BCCI Affair
A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
by
Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown
December 1992
102d Congress 2d Session Senate Print 102-140
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

At least in 1992, Kerry still had integrity and courage. Something Bush never ever had.

I did just read a wonderfull interview with Patti Smith in the German Rolling Stone - she will hold her nose and vote for Kerry, too; but she's still supporting Nader.

Hi from Germany,
Dirk

[LoZoccolo]

24. Nader? Integrity?

- There is little difference between the parties (lie).
- Al Gore would have started the Iraq war (lie - should have at least done minimal research before lying).
- Nader will take more votes from Bush* than Kerry (lie).
- Nader will not campaign in swing states in the 2000 election (lie).

Sorry, I can't think that someone who says stuff like that, or his fervent supporters, can come up with good ideas that will work when they pretty much seem to get Bush* re-elected again. I do not trust him anymore.

The reason we are angry is because they are willing to give up a lot of what they want (and quite frankly, what other people want and need) to try to get a bunch of other issues that most people don't even understand (clue: they should get other people to support those issues and no candidate could ignore them).

[Dirk39]

28. Hi,

As a German, I'm not in any way in the position to judge, but:

I did write:

"Although I'm far left as you are, Kerry is definetely different from Bush."

"Although leftists like us might see not much of a difference between the DLC-Democrats and the Republicans. There is no way to compare Kerry with Bush and his criminal gang."

"Kerry still had integrity and courage. Something Bush never ever had."

"Patti Smith will hold her nose and vote for Kerry"


Your reply:
Fuck off: Nader is evil

C'mon, stay on my couch and think about yourself a bit!
Sigmund Freud

[LoZoccolo]

31. The comments were directed at Nader, not you...

...regarding his "integrity", which is seriously tarnished with these major lies he's told (the four points I make).

[Slickriddles]

27. Wie geht's

It's not an irrational dislike of Nader, Dirk. The way our presidential election is set up with winner take all in each state, and and almost evenly divided electorate, a vote for Nader helps Bush. I intend to vote for Kerry because it might be my last chance to vote and I'm not going to waste that. Just this week the Supremos decided I have to give my name to any cop that asks WTF My Name from now on is William Orville Wrights or Bill O. Wrights.

[2Design]

5. now what do you think...when you are on a democratic message bd ...duh

[thebigmansentme]

6. vote for kerry

i'll tell you why after the election

[Deja Q]

8. We need a society that promotes life and balance... (long and insulting)

Not exploitation, greed, disposable commodities (which also includes people as being disposable)

I think a society can be made that promotes these good values that still allows people to be free. Free as nonviolent people who can be themselves while being able to contribute. Free but who also need to take an active interest to make sure society remains free.

Greed and money clearly promote violence and other wrongdoings.

The trouble is the mindset, however. The first generation to switch to a new lifestyle will have the most trouble. That's why we're in the mess we're in. Once the darkness crept in and took over as gradually as it had, people became accustomed and lost their own focus.

The trouble is, thanks to our misuse of oil by our disposable way of life, this is a form of society we MUST turn to in order to survive as a species.

People NEED to be self governing. Or else we become a fascist sate. While our constitution claims this, there is no followthrough. Not these days, certainly.

Anyone who disagrees with me can do what they can to make 100 trillion dollars and tell me how long they'll live after our oil-driven economy crumbles. Whether it be 2, 10, or 20 years, the end of life as we now know it WILL happen within our lifetime. 20 years if we're lucky, but I say the crash is about 8 years off.

The change won't happen. War and armageddon seems far more likely.

Just my two cents.

(oh, this post contains many passive slams against our society as it is. See if y'all can find them all! :-) )

[Democracy Died 2004]

9. I don't know where my

political leanings are right now. I had to put them away for the good of the country. i will vote for Kerry for the good of the United States. In an ideal time I would probably be for someone closer to my beliefs.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

10. If you stop rowing ......

.. <vote for Bush> .. you'll only have further upstream to paddle if you ever do get your day in the sun... at least with a vote for Kerry.. you'll hold some ground.

Personally & philosphy I think you're about 20 or 30 years too early in gaining much ground in the mainstream. Once the technological revolution goes full force with nanotechnology, quantum processing, genetic engineering, and telecommunication & data/digital transfer&storage.. you're going to be in a better position since drudgery work is going to be much less, white collar work is going to be spread globally and the Haves are going to just HaveMore. Then the sociological shift will have to happen.

[2Design]

11. go back to sleep

[Career Prole]

13. Nader says you should vote for Kerry

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1972353

[jayavarman]

15. "small-s socialist"??

"I am a small-s socialist. I believe workers should, as soon as possible, own and control the means of production. I think profit, rent, interest and so forth should be abolished."

Small-s?

What is a Large-S?

What then is Marxism? Communism?

That mini definition doesn't bear a whole lot of resemblance to any kind of socialism I've ever seen practiced.

Are you for the total aboilition of private property as well?

Who owns these 'means of production'? The "workers"? The government? If one of the workers wants to sell his share of said 'means', would he be allowed to? To whom? If he can't sell it, does he really own anything at all?

I'm interested to know more about this small-s . . . . what's up?

[kiahzero]

17. Large-S = Socialist Party

same as small-d versus large-D Democrat. It's used to clear up the ambiguity between a proper and general noun.

But feel free to remain paranoid, however.

[jayavarman]

19. Don't know about 'paranoid', but as one who knows a good bit about

Socialism, Marxism, etc . . . . It's a pet peeve of mine when people spout off about stuff they don't understand all too well. The original poster espouses a Marxist world view & then calls it socialist. Even more amusing is the OP's linkage in his 4th paragraph of the 'Comintern' and 'European socialist parties' in the context of postwar Europe.

The Comintern was founded in 1919 as an effort to foment a worldwide Marxist-Leninist revolution. More important, in this context, is that the organization ceased to exist in 1943 when it was abolished by Stalin.

Rather than paranoia, my post came from an interest into how well developed the OP's politics & knowledge about what he was talking about were.

If you are interested in any of this, it's easy enough to start research on google, begin reading about it & after a while be able to make historical & ideological arguments which are rooted in fact.

Here's a link to start your quest: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Tentatively voting for Kerry.

As a socialist, I've recently decided to hold my nose and vote for Kerry. The only reason being that bush is such a threat to all that is decent in the world. I have no illusions that should Kerry be elected (I still think it unlikely) he has the courage, or for that matter, the ethics, to effect any real change. At best, we can hope for President Kerry to slow down the drive for corporate control.

[durutti]

18. Neither.

Nader's a thinly-veiled Buchananite whose only interest is in self-promotion. Kerry is as bourgeois as they come and doesn't differ qualitatively from Bush.

[dumpster_baby]

20. Vote Nader (or Green/Socialist) if you are in a GOP/Dem "safe" state

If you are in a swing state, vote Kerry.

Pretty simple, hmm?

[H2O Man]

22. true socialists for Kerry

true anti-socialists for nader.

[eridani]

23. I say Kerry--and start running candidates for local office, dammit!

Whether Green, some variety of Socialist, or Democrat. Why do so many socialists withdraw from participating local governance, as if it is too demeaning to come down from mental castles in the sky and start arguing with their neighbors in the public sphere about local policies?

I asked a peddler of some socialist paper (at a health care demo) why her party didn't run someone for sewer commissioner. She sez "Why would we want to do that?" And of course they have someone that no one has ever heard of running for president. She didn't even know about Milwaukee's 'sewer socialism' in the early 20th century. The Socialists in the Eugene Debs era weren't so highfalutin'. Whassup with that?

[scarletwoman]

25. "I can live with another 4 years of Bush..." How nice for YOU!

Yes, this election is all about YOU, and how YOU can preserve your precious principles.

Never mind that 4 more years of bush* are guaranteed to do further substantial damage to the WORKERS (not to mention UNIONS!) of this country, while Kerry at least, is making a commitment to raising the minimum wage, among other things.

Funny thing, I thought that "socialism" was all about the WORKERS -- but apparently it's really just about YOU, and what YOU can live with.

Thanks for clearing that up.

sw

[mellowinman]

26. Kerry!

Vote for Kerry, and watch the Right go into meltdown!

Vote for Kerry, and lobby the shit out of the new Democratic government!

Vote for Kerry, and Unite with the Democrats for a common goal, and give the Dems a chance to take the right steps to uniting our country once again.

Vote for Kerry because the first Bush term was a nightmare, and a second would be far worse.

Vote for Kerry because this is serious shit, and making a statement has its place and its time.

Vote for Kerry because if you don't, this may be the last chance anyone gets to actually vote at all.

No, I am not being overly dramatic.

And if you say I am, I'll just die.

[Zorra]

29. If Bu$h wins, you will never vote freely again.

Think about it.

[JI7]

30. there are poor people that vote republican because they are anti gay

or anti abortion. not all poor people are socialists or would support those policies.