There is a strong movement among Sanders' supporters to either write in his
name or vote for Jill Stein. There's a whole website devoted to the effort of
preventing people from voting for Clinton, and I sent the URL to the list
yesterday, I think. There is also a petition to Ssanders, asking him to leave
the Democratic Party and run independently or with Jill Stein on the Green
Party ticket. There are lots of articles about this floating around which I
haven't posted.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 4:34 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
Frank,
From where I sit, Sanders has been pretty consistent. He talks about a social
revolution, but protects the Empire's World Dominance. His great reforms will
never happen because the money will still be going into our eternal war and the
expansion of the American Empire. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that
when Clinton is declared the Party candidate, Sanders will release his
supporters and delegates to vote their conscience. I suspect that many will
turn to Clinton as the lesser of two Evils. Some of us will look for any Left
Wing candidate as a protest vote, in the belief that either Clinton or Trump
will destroy whatever is left of the once proud Working Class.
But however it goes, we who are not Republicans, have no representation in this
Oligarchy. The Democrat Party is the new Upper Class Party, while the old
Republican Party has become the Party of the Crazies.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just more political dupe and poop. Although I had real hopes for
Bernie it appears he has gone down the same path as any of the big
dogs feeding on the corporate entrails. While initially speaking about
social issues to dupe us he now obviously only wants to dismantle the
democratic party and leave the working class with a republican president who
will further poop on us.
Well maybe the Wednesday after the election he'll invite us all onto
his yacht which he will purchase from all of the GOP/Tea Party thank you
money.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran ;
Bailey
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
crisis
Then I would expect you to criticize Sanders for using the word
socialist so indiscriminately. He does confuse understanding when he
calls himself a socialist and then takes no socialist positions.
On 5/13/2016 4:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
All those people who are talking about a political revolution,
including Bernie, are just talking about a change in the Democratic
party. People want it to represent the interest of low and middle
income people. They want it to go back to a social welfare state
similar to what they remember in the 40's and 50's. Bernie would like
that social welfare state to include the kinds of social programs found in
western european countries.
He's talking about regulated capitalism or social democracy. And
that is what most of his supporters want. They are not really looking
for a socialist state or revolution. But they do want change. Whether
or not that is possible, remains to be seen. But again, all these
labels, these words being used indiscriminately, are very confusing.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left
in crisis
And that is especially not going to happen even if Bernie is elected
president because he has no perspective for abolishing capitalism at all.
That is what makes him a fake socialist.
On 5/13/2016 12:42 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Fact: Any candidate, regardless of Party affiliation, will not,
repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA
is a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the
thorough replacement of an established government or political
system by the people governed".
Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of
the military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a
people's uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie
were elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism
reigns, there can be no compromise.
So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and
Stein in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like this:
I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted
out in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they
like best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game.
But nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and
if that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the
next, in hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the
quarterbacks will dare try something out of left field. They have
all been thoroughly schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They
know all of the rules.
I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to
cheer for one quarterback or another.
Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the
1%, they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us
understand that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land"
is not on the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about
putting our own team on Center Field.
"Preacher" Carl Jarvis
On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-soci
a m ay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
/ 18 hours ago
May 2016 Sanders
By JEFF MACKLER
U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy
itself, has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S.
socialist movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an
extraordinary level of confusion and disarray. The spectacle of
most U.S. socialist organizations’ supporting, in one form or
another, an open Democrat is a sure sign of a left in crisis.
Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his
race with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent
of all remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention
majority and
82 percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates.
The latter have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy
and pledged long ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these
lifelong professional ruling-class politicians will accede to the
“popular will” and shift to Sanders is absurd. But promoting this
illusion is Sanders’ current bait-and-switch tactic.
It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders
to “fight on.” He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED
National Public Radio (NPR) interview: “I think we are perpetuating
the political revolution by significantly increasing the level of
political activity that we’re seeing in this country. I think it is
good for the United States of America and good for the Democratic
Party to have a vigorous debate, to engage people in the political
process” (emphasis added).
NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
“energizing voters” and, therefore, “boosting the Democratic Party
to victory in November.” He contended that Democrats do well and
Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. “So I’m going to do
everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country
and get young people, working people, involved in the political
process.”
Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late
April, Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he
would fight for his delegates to have substantial convention
representation on the Democratic Party’s “Platform Committee,”
where party leaders supposedly would hammer out the program to be
implemented should Clinton win. Only the most naïve in politics
believe that ruling-class policies are decided by a handful of
delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party conventions. Sadly,
however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe that the Sanders
campaign represents some sort of “political revolution”
that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review
this almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a
welcome addition to the periodically orchestrated “lesser evil”
sham employed by ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating
and sophisticated think tanks. They know full well that capitalist
elections are essential to maintaining the myth of democracy, on
the one hand, and to dissipating the anger and hatred at its
inherently anti-working class, racist, and sexist policies into
safe electoral channels, on the other.
Well before Sanders proclaimed his “democratic socialism,” national
polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49
percent of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over
capitalism.
Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism
over socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole
were higher, with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring
socialism—in their view a more egalitarian and less predatory
society, in which human solidarity and social welfare trump the
greed of the elite one percent.
Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past
year as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic
Party. He has consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating
that “dissident”
ideas, or perhaps better, “dissident” rhetoric—as with his
frequently touted expression, “political revolution”—is acceptable
terminology inside this tried and true ruling-class institution,
the nation’s infamous “graveyard of social movements.”
Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics
just as well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of
capitalism’s most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the
feminist, humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned
politician they are projecting as Clinton’s campaign image today.
As we go to press [May 11] a nervous Clinton has moved another step
to the “left,” according to the New York Times, by embracing in
part Sanders’ single-payer “Medicare for all” proposal.
Political discontent rising in U.S. population
In due time, we will all “feel the Bern,” or better, witness the
“fizzle,” when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling
votes on Clinton’s behalf to save the nation from the “greater
evil”—Donald Trump. Step one in the current two-stage “lesser-evil”
game was Sanders’
shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back
into the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders’ making
every effort to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled
into his orbit but might yet decide to quit the electoral shell
game in disgust with the thought of voting for Clinton.
The fact that capitalism’s media pundits felt compelled to lend an
air of legitimacy to Sanders’ fake socialism is an indication of
the questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
percolating in the consciousness of working people.
A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine
percent had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in
explaining why Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party
candidates, largely refrained from the red-baiting tirades that
have been the usual stock-in-trade of capitalist politics.
Attacking Sanders as a socialist might well have the effect of
advancing his credibility, not to mention socialism’s!
In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes
shape in forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of
capital and its liberal “third-party” middle-class-based variants
like the Green Party, working people will find genuine political
avenues and mass organizations of struggle to express their disgust
at capitalist austerity and social regression. This combination of
renewed and massive mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated
and democratically led union fightbacks, and in anti-racist,
anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and pro-environment struggles will
undoubtedly find an expression in the political arena.
But this magnificent and longed for “music of the future,” based on
the deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties,
to be effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the
endless variations of “lesser evilism” that are consciously
presented by the most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist
politics—can only be grounded on the foundation of working-class
independence. The desire for political “independence,” however
vague this term might be, is today gaining ground in the United
States. A full 43 percent of the electorate, according to a recent
Gallop Poll, is registered as Independent, with Democratic Party
registration at 32 percent, and Republican Party registered voters
at 23 percent.
These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where
registered independents are excluded in the primary process,
Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory over Sanders was quite
significant. In states with an “open primary,” that is, where
“independent” voters can participate, Sanders is expected to win a
substantial, but still insufficient majority, as in the June 7 California
primary.
Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full
story since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the
eligible electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual
percentage of all eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent!
The vast majority of non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more
generally, many of whom are consciously excluded due to reactionary
legislation or are disillusioned with the entire electoral charade.
U.S. left collapses before Sanders
There is no doubt that Sanders’ “political revolution” and
“anti-establishment” rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
“democratic socialism,” has captured the imagination of and spiked
interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist
ideas more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the
consciously orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and
its pundits are more than capable of appealing to the best
instincts and highest aspirations of working people for a better
life for all in order to once again lure them into their
life-extinguishing anaconda-like institutional clutches.
Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who
seriously consider themselves socialists—have been active
partisans, if not enthusiastic advocates, of today’s
ruling-class-promoted Bernie Sanders brand of lesser-evilism.
Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders’
supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist
and against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed
Socialist Alternative’s Seattle campaigns, and the associated
Socialist Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis.
Socialist Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns,
contributed financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went
door-to-door, and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring
socialist effort.
This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist
Alternative originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these
campaigns as joint efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But
Green Party leaders rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist
Alternative with a critical decision as to how to proceed. To their
credit, they took the high road in working-class politics and ran
as socialists, but their penchant for the middle-class Green Party
was never far from their perspectives.
Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist
working-class politics against the Democratic Party, has been
abandoned, with Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually
campaigning for Sanders in all the Democratic Party primary contests.
In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant
gives an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She
writes:
“To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would
be the opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the
vital energy and momentum we have built over this historic past
year. We simply can’t afford to make this mistake. That’s why I
have launched a petition calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the
way to November as an independent, and to use his campaign as a
launch pad for a new political party of the 99%.”
Sawant immediately continues: “If Bernie’s only concern is that
running independently could open the door to a President Trump,
then why could he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where
it’s generally clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win?
Even in this way, while not putting his name on the ballot in the
5-10 closely contested ‘swing states,’ he could still run an
historic campaign if linked to building a new party” (emphasis in
original).
But Sawant’s “new party” in this case is, again, the middle-class,
pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its
supporters to vote Democrat in “swing states” or simply declined to
seek ballot status in these “contested states.” Sawant’s petition
calls on Sanders to run on the same ticket as the Green Party’s
presumptive presidential candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace
Stein on the ballot with Sanders.
Here it is important to remind readers that the terms “independent”
and “third party” are not always clear. There are several “third
parties”
today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to
liberal, reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the
Working Families Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green
Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in
six states via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan’s incipient
fascist Reform Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party’s ballot line
in return for making reactionary statements limiting the right of
women to abortion and restricting immigrants from entering the country.
(See Nader’s June 21, 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the
American Conservative.)
None of these “third parties” are independent of and against the
fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans.
Or, to be precise, none seek to organize the working class to
replace the capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the
private ownership and control of the nation’s banks, corporations,
and wealth is ended, and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to
reorganize society for the common good. None are based on,
financed, and controlled by working-class organizations like trade
unions or other democratic mass working-class organizations. None,
as a matter of class principle, reject voting for capitalist
parties. Indeed, in local elections, as well as national, Greens
routinely endorse “progressive” Democrats, and in races where the
Republican is a bit too overtly reactionary, “not so progressive
Democrats.”
Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported
for his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to
change its spots. Or better, it’s akin to yet again playing
politics in the ruling class’ institutional party ballpark.
Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like
the Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have
habitually supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today
supports Clinton, while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until
Sanders drops out.
Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on
Sanders to run for the presidency as an “independent” or as the
Green Party candidate. The Workers International League also speaks
favorably of an “independent” campaign by Sanders. Workers World
Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, both of which
have called for votes for left-sounding Democrats in the past,
including Jesse Jackson, are fielding their own presidential
candidates this time around, but nevertheless have called for
Democratic Party primary votes for Sanders.
Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
generated by capitalism’s deepening crises and sparked by the
Sanders campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have
sponsored a series of well-attended public debates where most of
the above socialist organizations, as well as representatives from
the Labor for Bennie campaign, shared the platform for fruitful exchanges.
While the “lesser evil” syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the
presentations of these socialist groups, we were heartened to see
that the Marxist-grounded revolutionary socialist ideas of
Socialist Action were well received and that our proud party, a
consistent participant and advocate of independent mass-action
united-front mobilizations against all aspects of capitalist racism
and plunder, won new members to the cause of socialist revolution.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 43Share on
Facebook (Opens in new window)43 Click to share on Google+ (Opens
in new
window)
May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
Sawant, Sanders
Related posts
Is Sanders campaign a ‘new movement’?
Socialist Action sponsors election debates
Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
Post navigation
← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12)
March
2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015
(11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10)
August 2015
(7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12)
March
2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014
(12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6)
August 2014
(10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014
(10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11)
December 2013
(10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13)
August
2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April
2013
(14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17)
December
2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19)
April
2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May
2011
(19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January
2011
(15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2)
May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October
2009
(16) September 2009
(3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7)
April
2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10)
December
2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008
(14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2)
April
2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006
(11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15)
August 2006
(11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6)
March
2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August
2005
(9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December
2004
(14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22)
August
2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001
(24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October
2000
(17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June
2000
(26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000
(18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26)
October 1999
(25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June
1999
(24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
(29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
Get Involved
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
