I will not vote for either Bernard Sanders or Jill Stein. And I can just
about guarantee that whoever the Democrat nominee is I will completely
disapprove of that nominee. Declining to vote for Sanders or other
bourgeois candidates is not a matter of purism. I noticed that the first
time you made that purist charge was in reply to an article I posted
from Socialist Action in which the charge of purism was addressed and
refuted. You went ahead and called it purism, but you did not address
the answer the article had to that charge. I will briefly address it
again. When you herd workers to support a bourgeois party you are just
asking for them to be co-opted. When they support a bourgeois party they
are supporting a party of their own enemies and their own struggles
become subordinated to the goals of that bourgeois party which are not
the interests of the workers. If you are going to talk about what has
been accomplished over the past fifty years, or the past hundred years,
or even longer, you will see that process repeated over and over. The
labor bureaucracy has long led the working class into support of the
Democrat party and what has happened. The workers struggles have been
constantly sidelined. What we should be doing is to encourage the
working people to act independently in their own interests. This is not
just purism. This is rejecting one of the main ways in which the bosses
maintain control over the working people.
On 9/22/2015 5:03 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bob,
I must admit that my main concern is that everyone has a decent place to
live, enough nutritious food to eat, and people to love and be loved by. I
want peace in the world. If those goals can be achieved, I don't care if
some folks have more money or power than others. The problem is that if
people do have more money and power, their power needs to be regulated. I
believe that real socialism would be more conducive to the welfare of people
than capitalism, even regulated capitalism. However, my focus isn't on
changing the system so much as it is on making life better for everyone.
That's why Roger doesn't approve of my political views. As for voting for
Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. if I vote for Jill stein it will be because I
completely disapprove of the Democratic candidate and my vote willl be a
protest vote. If Sanders is the candidate, I'll vote for him. But I'll do it
knowing that whatever good intentions he may have, it is unlikely that he
can accomplish much unless there is a very big change in the political
consciousness and activity of the American public at the point at which he
takes office. Given what I've seen and heard, I don't think there's much
hope for that.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Hi Miriam,
All good points. I do wonder though if folks like Sanders and FDR make it
easier for the ruling class to remain in control as Hedges suggests. No
doubt, they've both made life better for lots of low income folks. If,
somehow, sanders is on the final ballot for president, I still may be
tempted to vote for Jill Stein. That may be a decision made in the voting
booth. Let's hope I get to make such a decision.
Bob
