International Socialist Organization proved their irrelevance this weekend

[IrateCitizen]

This past weekend, I attended the NE Socialist Conference in NYC. I attended primarily because Howard Zinn was going to be there (I got him to sign my copy of his new book, Voices of a People's History of the United States), but also because I've come to consider myself to be pretty much a democratic socialist over time.

When I arrived, I was greeted by a young woman giving out copies of Socialist Worker and wearing a Nader/Camejo button. I proceeded to engage her in a debate as to why voting for Nader in 2004 was a lost cause. I even invoked Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue -- but she was a lost cause.

Then, I began to notice that there were Nader/Camejo signs EVERYWHERE. I attended a workshop on exploring economic alternatives to capitalism that were little more than rehashings of Marxism. I did get to participate in a workshop put on by VFP and IVAW about veterans speaking out against the war. But by that time, I had had enough, and went home.

It isn't very damned often that I'm in an audience in which I find myself feeling like I'm one of the most far-right people there. This was one of those times. The gathering was such a collection of rigid ideologues, it almost made me rethink my preference for democratic socialism just out of pure disgust. These people like to bemoan the status of "the left" in this country. I'd say that their blind adherence to their ideology over everything else is a prime cause for their disaffection.

I'm all for building alternatives on the left in this country. But to pretend that Presidential elections have a great deal to do with this building of leftist alternatives is the height of folly, IMHO. All that many of these people did on this Saturday afternoon was to prove their irrelevance, and the possibilities of building viable leftist alternatives is worse off for their rigid demagoguery.

Just had to get that off my chest. It was a thrill meeting Howard, though!

[dogtag]

1. The poor dears are rather missing the point of

toppling the rigid two party system in this country. The times will often call for alliances among the left leaning parties of every stripe. This is one of those times. They would resent it, but they are being rather Bushist in their behavior. Unilateralism Forever! Not much of a slogan.

[IrateCitizen]

2. They're largely ignorant of electoral political realities

They seem to be under the impression that voting for Nader will actually do something positive. They waste their time supporting him while complaining that too many others on the left are wasting their time supporting a pro-war candidate (Kerry).

I told the Nader supporter I spoke with that Noam Chomsky described it perfectly when he talked about how those voting for Nader are essentially telling the people on the fringes of society, barely scraping by, that they effectively don't matter. She didn't really have a response, except to say, "I'm voting for Nader to show that they DO matter!" I produced facts to back up my argument, she had nothing but emotion.

Yeah, it's sad -- because everyone on the left should be working toward developing alternatives to the status quo even while voting for Kerry, with the understanding that elections are really just a sidebar to the greater objective.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. I think the idea is to freak so many people out over the two party system

when it fails X times in a row that we finally get around to reforming it.
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. What we need is a Front Populaire for this election.

There are always factions on the left. Seldom can they be welded together for even a short time. The French did it in the '30s with the Front Populaire.

It took some heavy duty nose holding for me to vote for Kerry this time, but loathing for Bush overrode my reluctance.

After the election, whichever way it goes, I have hopes that a new "New Left" is being born that will drop the 2 party stranglehold that exists and finally form a leftist coalition with some punch.

Of course, I've been hoping for that since about 1965. (sigh)

[sangh0]

4. Welcome to my world, IC!!

It isn't very damned often that I'm in an audience in which I find myself feeling like I'm one of the most far-right people there. This was one of those times.

It's not that their POLICY is totally wrong. It's just they don't seem to have a clue about POLITICS.

And when one raises the issue, one is often branded a republican.

[donco6]

5. sangh0 is right on this one.

Nothing is more irritating to me than people who purposely ignore political reality, all the while crowing about "principle." Bah. Principles that do not get to see the light of day are less than worthless.

[sangh0]

6. Well, there's nothing wrong with principles

However, I think wanting to actually help people and actually do some good (as opposed to being right and pure) is a worthwhile principle that can sometimes take precedence over other principles, like a reluctance to compromise

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Politics without principles are worthless.

"Principles that do not get to see the light of day are less than worthless."

The Civil Rights movement was opposed by both parties when it started and split the Democratic Party. It took Brown vs Board of Education to get equal rights started.

The Women's movement was unsuccessful in getting "Choice" passed into law. It took the Supreme Court to do it.

The Labor movement was opposed and repressed by both parties and labeled "Red". Only when the labor vote became valuable did the Democrats go after it and start passing Labor laws.

The anti-Vietnam War movement never ended the war, the Democratic Party supported it by running a pro-war candidate - Hubert Humphrey. The Vietnamese ended the war by winning it.

Sometimes you have to do the right thing because it's the right thing and to hell with politics.

I voted for Kerry only because of the threat of Bush and fascism, and I won't attack those whose ability to hold their noses isn't as strong as mine.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Don't confuse movements with electoral politics, bandera...

Largely, you and I agree on these matters. However, all of the instances, you cited are examples of MOVEMENTS, not electoral politics.

I am all for movements. I fully support (and am engaged in) efforts to create leftist alternatives to the status quo in America.

You stated that these movements largely failed, and their aims were only accomplished by politicians. What a pessimistic view! I tend to think more along the lines that these movements forced political forces to cede to their demands, because they were relentless and grew in power over time.

You said, "I voted for Kerry only because of the threat of Bush and fascism, and I won't attack those whose ability to hold their noses isn't as strong as mine."

Fair enough. However, I will direct my ire to those who won't hold their nose out of "conscience" when that act can have very real and negative consequences for those existing on the margins of society. For example, Kerry has said he will raise the minimum wage to $7.00 per hour. For a single mother working in a diner (like the woman in NV profiled on NOW with Bill Moyers 2 weeks ago), that pay raise will mean an extra $3500 per year, which is HUGE for someone in that circumstance.

Is it what I would want to see as a final result? No. But it is a start, and it has real consequences -- especially when compared to what Bush would do.

Noam Chomsky summed it up best....

There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The "movements" are usually shunned by the parties.

Kerry has become (slightly) more antiwar because of the fear of losing the anti-war vote and the fact that the war has become more unpopular because of the "movement".

I agree with you on the necessity of making compromises to move the nation to (however slowly) to the left throught the electoral process.

Undoubtedly, Kerry will be more vulnerable to pressure from the left than BushCorp but the outliers, the immovable ideologues, are valuable to us. They remind us that "principles" do matter and that politics is simply a vehicle for moving the nation one way or another. That politicians, as a breed, generally don't lead - they follow the people and the course of events.

And, just as Kerry can point to us on the left and say, "See, those are the leftists - I'm a moderate." We have the luxury to point at the unreconcilables and say, "See, I'm practical, I compromise by holding my nose and voting for the status quo."

The Democratic Party turns left when they want to ensure leftist votes. They became the party of "Choice", Civil Rights, Anti-war (sort of), Labor, the Enviorment, etc, only because that's where the votes were.

The point of the "movements" withholding their votes is to move the politics to the left by making them valuable.

Much to the dismay of the "practical" politicians and apologists for the DLC type of politics, that is the "practical" way of transforming the Democratic Party or providing a viable leftist alternative.

[sangh0]

15. I saw Kerry embracing the women rights, civil rights, labor, and anti-war

movements at his convention.

The Democratic Party turns left when they want to ensure leftist votes. They became the party of "Choice", Civil Rights, Anti-war (sort of), Labor, the Enviorment, etc, only because that's where the votes were.

I think this is emblematic of the lack of reasonableness we see on the left. There's this idea that the pressure of voters is a Bad Thing, when it's really by design. Politicians are SUPPOSED to be subject to pressure from voters.

The point of the "movements" withholding their votes is to move the politics to the left by making them valuable.

Much to the dismay of the "practical" politicians and apologists for the DLC type of politics, that is the "practical" way of transforming the Democratic Party or providing a viable leftist alternative.

Our dismay results from the way some think a relatively small group can exert more influence than the majority. If thousands of votes on the left can influence a politician, what do you think happens with the millions of votes in the middle? Forgotten?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The "middle" is what were supposed to be what we're trying to move.

The "women's rights", "civil rights", "labor" and anti-war movements that Kerry embraced came into being despite the opposition of the parties. They became respectable and the "middle" only because they gathered enough support to move the Democratic Party to the left.

"I think this is emblematic of the lack of reasonableness we see on the left. There's this idea that the pressure of voters is a Bad Thing, when it's really by design. Politicians are SUPPOSED to be subject to pressure from voters."

That's what I just said. The politicians will only respond to pressure from the voters. When the voters move left the politicians will chase their votes. That's where the "movements" come in. Either get with the principles or kiss my vote good-bye.

"Our dismay results from the way some think a relatively small group can exert more influence than the majority. If thousands of votes on the left can influence a politician, what do you think happens with the millions of votes in the middle? Forgotten?"

The amorphous "middle" is exactly what we are trying to move. That's what "movements" are about. Bush, successfully, moved the "middle" to the right by talking about "compassionate conservatism" and other such drivel. The Democrats foolishly tried to capture the right by trying to sound like "moderates" and compromising their principles and moving to the right. The "moderates" are not a monolithic bloc, they are swayable left or right.

Again, politicians follow, they don't lead.

[sangh0]

19. History suggests otherwise

Before and after the Civil War, the Republican Party embraced civil rights for blacks. TO say that "the parties" opposed the civil rights movement (which IC points out did not begin in the 1960's) when one of the two major parties was promoting civil rights, is contrary to historical fact.

That's what I just said. The politicians will only respond to pressure from the voters. When the voters move left the politicians will chase their votes. That's where the "movements" come in. Either get with the principles or kiss my vote good-bye.

So few words. SO many mistakes

1) You didn't merely say that politicians will only respond to pressure from the voters, which itself is just not true. Politicians have responded to more than ONLY pressure from voters. There are dozens of examples of politicians voting for bills their constituents opposed and having that result in their defeat on the next election.

In addition, your tone makes it clear that you think politicians should be guided by principles and not by the pressure exerted by voters. Your "Either get with the principles..." remark undescores that tone, so why deny it?

2) When voters gave their support to the Civil Rights movement in the 50's, it wasn't because they "moved left". It was because they agreed that it was a good cause. Many civil rights supporters were conservatives. They didn't "move left"

3) "That's where the "movements" come in." - No, actually that's the point when the movements most important work has been completed - comvincing the center to support their cause.

4) "Either get with the principles or kiss my vote good-bye."

That's not it. A politician need not "get with the principles" of a movement in order to win the votes of its supporters. A politician can merely vote the right way on the right bills, and they will get the votes of many supporters.

on edit: You say you want to "move the middle" but just a short while ago, you said something different.

Much to the dismay of the "practical" politicians and apologists for the DLC type of politics, that is the "practical" way of transforming the Democratic Party or providing a viable leftist alternative.

You are clearly speaking about "transforming the Democratic Party"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The "Radical" Republicans embraced civil rights for Blacks.

Not the "moderates". In fact, it was only due to pressure from "radicals" that Lincoln finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation which only gave partial manumission to Blacks. After the war, the Radical Republican congress was able to sieze control of congress, but Andrew Johnson the "moderate" made every attempt to prevent them from carrying out reconstruction. Later the "moderates" again came to power and "compromised" with the south, which led to all the Jim Crow laws and disenfranchisment of the Blacks until the 1960's.

The civil rights movement was hardly "conservative", whether there were a few conservatives involved in it or not. J. Edgar Hoover and his thugs weren't calling civil rights leaders commies because they were conservative. Kennedy was forced into action because of the movement, not because the "moderates" were putting pressure on him.

Sure there are some brave politicians who put principle before politics.

Wayne Morse
William Fullbright
The 23 senators who voted against the war.

Usually, castigated by the moderates. Remember Joe Lieberman's attacks on the left?

We've been around this many times Sangh0. We come from different places and obviously have different goals.

I'm of the left and wish to help move the country to the left. I'm not a knee-jerk Democrat (though I've been one since '65) and will do what I can to move the party to the left. I have no compunction about voting 3rd party if it will help do that, or even better, move the country to the left.

[IrateCitizen]

17. I'd like to seize on one point you made, bandera...

The Democratic Party turns left when they want to ensure leftist votes. They became the party of "Choice", Civil Rights, Anti-war (sort of), Labor, the Enviorment, etc, only because that's where the votes were.

The point of the "movements" withholding their votes is to move the politics to the left by making them valuable.

I'd disagree with you on this somewhat. The Democratic Party has turned left when "leftist" or "fringe" movements have evolved to the point that they have captured a significant portion of the mainstream.

The Civil Rights movement didn't start in 1964. It began as soon as the Civil War was over and Jim Crow was institutionalized in the South. It was made up of decades of struggle, blood, sweat and tears -- and it finally prevailed when it began to capture the support of the "mainstream" of America.

My point is this. Movements, so long as they remain the domain of leftists exclusively, do not have much political power. In this scenario, it really makes little difference whether those in the movement withhold their votes or not -- the politicians are still going to be much more concerned with capturing the votes of the mainstream. However, as soon as the "movement" is able to capture the attention and involvement of the "mainstream", politicians can no longer ignore them. The politicians realize that the withholding of votes would be disastrous -- so, they embrace the movement's cause.

For those idealists at the NESC, whether they want to vote Nader is up to them. However, they should be first and foremost concerned with doing things that attempt to engage the mainstream of America. There are hopeful signs out there. For instance, the antiwar movement has become decidedly mainstream. Hell, my retired parents attended demos in FL, and they're hardly radicals! Secondly, people are increasingly feeling the pinch as the US economy sputters -- and some are even open to the possibility of other ideas besides continuing growth and cutthroat competition. But the left will not be a force until it can tap into these issues and find common cause with the mainstream -- and that will NOT be accomplished by telling them how voting for Kerry is an utterly lost cause and their only choice this election is to vote for Ralph Nader. Rather, they will find common cause when they focus on these issues outside of being tied to a particular third-party candidate who isn't even on the ballot in many states.

[eridani]

27. A good point of contrasting movements with electoral politics

The left has been all about the former, and has totally disdained the latter. That's why they were at this convention talking to themselves instead of their neighbors.

So many lefties are like groundhogs--they pop their heads aboveground every 4 years and observe that, yep, the corporadoes are still casting a dark shadow over the electoral process, so they just aren't going to participate. Voting for a no-name splinter party functionary or even someone more well known like Nader changes nothing and doesn't count as participating. Hint--even if the organization calls itself a party, if it doesn't have any precinct captains, it sure the hell isn't in the business of electing anybody to anything. I realized this when I compared what Nader asked of me in 2000 vs what Kucinich asked of me in 2003. Nader wanted me to go to a superrally and agitate to get him into the debates. Kucinich wanted me to become a PCO and canvass my neighbors. I found that none of them are where I am at, but if I had continued to ignore them, I would have unequivocally written off the possibility of ever changing their minds.

Movement work can influence elections, but it is done on issues, and between elections.

[sangh0]

11. Breaking News

The Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and Labor Rights movement DID see "the light of day" so they don't qualify as examples of "Principles that do not get to see the light of day"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Quite right..but not because of the Democratic Party's backing.

As I pointed out, the advances were made through the courts, not because the Democratic Party was backing them.

Without the movements labeled as "radical", "unrealistic", "extreme", at the time by both parties, they would never have seen the light of day.

The parties follow the principles of the movements only when they want the votes.

That's "practical" politics. Parties and politicians don't lead, they follow.

[sangh0]

16. You are, once again, wrong

The women's movement saw the light of day because it's proponents recognized what could reasonably be achieved through the political process, and their judgement was proven correct by the successes they had in winning the right to vote for women. This had nothing to do with the courts. It's the result of their building coalitions and persuading people of the rightness of their cause.

The Greens have abandoned Nader, and his "coalition" building seems dependent on republican donations.

The parties follow the principles of the movements only when they want the votes.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. We now have a group that runs this country on the basis of it's principles, without regard for the people's views or the facts, and look at what that has led us into.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The women's movement made some pretty untenable compromises.

Including collaborating with southern "feminists" (moderates in today's jargon) who forced them to advocate denying voting rights of Black men.

I applaud the Greens (who got a few of my votes in this election) for abandoning Nader and his egomania. But, you will notice that they are running their own candidate for president - who damn near got my vote.

Indeed, the Bush administrations is following it's own "principles" (repugnant though they are) because the people led them. The people wanted revenge for 9/11 and, beyond any rational thought, they got it with Bush and little group of rightist/militarist ideologues. Not without the aid of Democratic Party politicians who abandoned their principles and signed on with an eye to the polls. 90% of the American people approved of the war with Iraq and the politicians followed....until it has become unpopular due to the work of the "unrealistic" left.

Politics are a means, not an end.

[sangh0]

32. "Untenable compromises"??? But, but, but

you just cited the women's movement as an example of a movement that stuck to principle.

Indeed, the Bush administrations is following it's own "principles" (repugnant though they are) because the people led them.

The "people" led bush* into Iraq? Into deficits?

When did the world turn upside down?

[Right Makes Might]

26. I totally agree - it's not only worthless, it's counterproductive

While there are some things we can and should compromise on, some things we can't compromise on - like sending our children to kill civilians to secure oil. Do we need to take the time to figure out if it's right or wrong? Absolutely. Do we need to listen to all voices to figure this out. Of course. But once we do, we can't compromise on what's right.

We're told ad nauseum that we only have two choices - a reactionary fascist religious nut and a self-serving political scumbag... I mean, politician. So what happens if he gets elected (which in itself is highly unlikely, considering the religious fascist right has no problems playing fast and loose with the "laws of the land"). Well, since Kerry is for the war, if he's (miraculously) elected, the war itself will have the "mandate of the people". Since he's in a precarious position, many progressives will feel compelled to support him in order not to give the opposition a toehold in discrediting him.

Something important to remember is that whoever you "choose", the choices have been made for you already - who's a "legitimate" candidate, what are "legitimate" issues, etc. Either choice we make won't be to our benefit but those represented by the Council on Foreign Relations.

The choice we're being given is totally unacceptable - it's time to make our own.

[American Tragedy]

35. Principles with politics is powerless.

Sometimes you have to act pragmatically.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. That drives me crazy, too

A few of the people I worked with on the Kucinich campaign refused to support Kerry, despite fervent pleas from everyone else. In the end, they appeared to be ego tripping and lost in their own world of impossible righteousness rather than facing reality.

Sometimes the left (the real left, not anyone in the Democratic Party) reminds me of the Judaean People's Liberation Front versus the People's Front for the Liberation of Judaea.

Note that the fundamentalists work together with Catholics (whom they don't even consider Christian) on the abortion issue. There should be a lesson there.

[JHB]

24. On the other hand...

...the Christian Coalition's attempt to woo Catholics into the Coalition itself failed because they couldn't tolerate the different culture/habits of Northern/Midwestern Catholics (as opposed to "Bible Belt Protestants").

That, too, is a lesson.

[pschoeb]

10. No offense, but it seems hypocritical to be upset by Nader/Camejo stuff

When your attending an event where Camejo is one of the main speakers. This would be like someone complaining about the number of Kerry/Edwards signs and supporters at an event where Edwards was one of the main speakers.

http://www.nesocialistconference.net/

You said
"I'm all for building alternatives on the left in this country. But to pretend that Presidential elections have a great deal to do with this building of leftist alternatives is the height of folly, IMHO. All that many of these people did on this Saturday afternoon was to prove their irrelevance, and the possibilities of building viable leftist alternatives is worse off for their rigid demagoguery."

but in your previous paragraph you felt it necessary to engage in debate with someone, saying that voting for Nader is a lost cause. If you really feel that Presidential elections have little to do with leftist alternatives, why bother engaging in this debate.

[sangh0]

12. IC didn't complain about the numbers of Nader supporters

He complained about how they debated the issue.

If you really feel that Presidential elections have little to do with leftist alternatives, why bother engaging in this debate.

He didn't say Presidential elections have little to do with leftist alternatives. He said they have little to do with BUILDING a leftist alternatives, which is why many say they are supporting Nader - to build an alternative party on the left.

[CWebster]

20. If you were a religious man

would other's, sometimes objectionable, expressions of their faith shatter your own? If someone finds pierced and tatooed drum banging kids offensive at an anti-war demonstration, is it cause to shift views on unjust war? There is room for diversity of opinion, and there is a place for those who maintain the flame. You could accuse Christ of being a "purist".

Was it really so necessary to contribute to the marginalization with use of charged terminology? The enthusiastic endorsement of centrists who habitually prey on progressives would be a clue...

[sangh0]

21. "Was it really so necessary...

to contribute to the marginalization with use of charged terminology? The enthusiastic endorsement of centrists who habitually prey on progressives would be a clue

I guess the charged language wasn't necessary because you have supplied more than enough to fulfill the quota.

[IrateCitizen]

31. What?

Christ may have been a "purist", but he also wasn't overly interested in building a political movement, either. Furthermore, Christ was interested in challenging the basic values that underpinned human civilization, not in imposing one economic/political system for another.

I don't need to contribute to the marginalization of the ISO -- they're doing a fine job of it themselves. Nor am I talking about the "enthusiastic endorsement of centrists who habitually prey on progressives". I would suggest you look at my post below regarding the difference between ISO and DSA to see more clearly what I'm talking about.

[JHB]

23. Been there, seen that, agree with you...

...although I will point out that that particular event, especially with that speaker, is something of a magnet for the "unwilling to coalition".

What's needed on the left is a strong dose of "go out there, get your foot in the door, and SELL SELL SELL" traveling salesman tactics.

[69KV]

28. ISO has been irrelevant

...since the beginning. I don't even remember their history - yet another of the dozens of tiny Trotskyite splinter groups from the SWP, I think? Somebody fill me in here.

[NoPasaran]

29. I think ISO was a split off IS

But yeah, another irrelevant Trot sect.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Constrast the ISO's stance with that of DSA

ISO blurs the lines between Bush and Kerry, and urges people to vote for Nader. Democratic Socialists of America, OTOH, issued the following statement:

http://www.dsausa.org/LatestNews/election04c.html
Socialists Urge Support for Kerry
July 23, 2004

The Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee (DSAPAC) released a statement today urging its members to work for the election of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

"Kerry was hardly the first choice of our members. Most supported Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean in the Democratic primary elections and would be very critical of Senator Kerry's voting record on trade issues, as well as his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; but the most important concern of our members now is to defeat Bush," said Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

The DSAPAC statement was very critical of the current direction of the Democratic Party, lamenting the strength of the Democratic Leadership Council as compared to the Congressional Progressive Caucus in Party circles. But the statement condemned the much greater threat to the interests of the average American posed by Republican control of all three branches of government.

The statement urged DSA members to participate in get-out-the-vote and voter education projects with other progressive organizations. "It is very important that progressive movements keep organizing and mobilizing so that we will be in a position to make demands on a new administration," Llewellyn continued.

The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with 5500 members and local organizations in most large cities. It is affiliated to the Socialist International, a federation of the world’s socialist, social democratic and labor parties.

The complete text of the DSAPAC statement can be viewed at: http://dsausa.org/dsapac/july2004.html .


Of course, the DSA doesn't equate working for Kerry's election as unconditional support without criticism, as evidenced by the following statement:
http://www.dsausa.org/LatestNews/election04d.html
Democratic Socialists Urge Kerry to Challenge Bush on the War and the Economy
October 19, 2004

The Democratic Socialists of America PAC (DSA PAC) has urged Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, to challenge President Bush on the War in Iraq as well as the direction of the economy during the final two weeks of the campaign.

The statement, released on October 19, says (in part) "Kerry should take a distinct stand against the very idea of unilateral US military strikes, promoting instead multi-lateral action in favor of human rights as the only justifiable form of action against unjust regimes. In addition, Kerry cannot win solely by arguing that he would be a superior commander-in-chief; he must also convince the public that as president he would increase social and economic justice at home and abroad. Thus, the Kerry campaign must frontally attack plutocratic Republicans and advance a coherent vision of economic justice."

The statement compliments a July statement urging DSA members to vote for Kerry. "Our leadership believes that Kerry must take these steps to guarantee the large turnout that the progressive community has been working to achieve. They would have the additional benefit of countering the threat from his left posed by Nader and other candidates in several of the battle ground states," said Frank Llewellyn, DSA's National Director. "This election may be even closer than the 2000 election," Llewellyn continued, "and it is still possible that even the small vote the polls project for independent candidates could swing a critical state to Bush. That is much less likely to happen if Kerry speaks to these issues."

The full text of DSA PAC's statement on the election is available on the web site at: http://dsausa.org/dsapac/october2004.pdf

The statement appears in the Fall 2004 issue of Democratic Left that should reach most DSA members before the election.


So, in summary, the stance of DSA seems to be to work for Kerry's election, while not being afraid of criticizing the stances he takes that they disagree with, in order to gain a larger audience and greater participation in a movement built around producing leftist alternatives to the status quo. The stance of ISO seems to be to tell people to vote Nader/Camejo, a strategy that will result in them reaching the smallest audience outside of their views as possible, which will do very little to further the development of viable leftist alternatives to the status quo.

[hiphopnation]

33. ...

I'd say that their blind adherence to their ideology over everything else is a prime cause for their disaffection.

And so it goes for ideologues of all stripes. Sorry about the experience. What was Mr. Zinn like and, more importantly, what was he doing there?

[IrateCitizen]

34. Re: Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn was there to deliver a lunchtime talk to promote his new book, Voices from a People's History of the United States, a companion guide to the original People's History of the United States, which he co-wrote with Anthony Arnove. Both were at the conference giving a quick talk and signing books.

I love Howard Zinn's writings -- People's History may possibly have been the single biggest influence on the way I now live my life and view the world -- but as a speaker he is, to put it bluntly, pretty terrible. He is a very gentle and modest man who honestly seems somewhat surprised at all the hoopla surrounding him in progressive circles.

[eridani]

40. Expecting a good writer to be a good public speaker--

--is like expecting a good musician to be a good painter. Sometimes it happens, but you shouldn't expect it.

[bpilgrim]

36. who's the ISO

yawn ;->

peace

[Nederland]

38. Hey IC

Glad to hear something from you.

I was thinking of a few comments to respond with, but I'll have to wait till later. For now I'll just mention that everytime someone talks about going to any type of Socialist party function I'm reminded of that scene from 'Life of Brian'. You know the one with The People's Front, The Popular People's Front, The Front of People's Judea, The Judean People's Front, etc?

Glad to see things haven't changed...

[nodehopper]

39. I got flyered by both ISO and RCP at the Boston Social Forum in the summer

I tried arguing about Nader, but while they would concede that it's bad that he was taking $ from the GOP, he was still the best option. I was like, it's not just BAD that he took money from the GOP, that's him in a nutlshell! Are you people blind? And then I remembered that, in fact, they are.