Of the ten reasons Erik Mann listed in the link from Celtic Fire only reasons 7 and 8 were wrong (Obama's election was not a defeat for teh Clintons-- maybe a minor defeat. And it did not give rise to a tide of rising expectations). But the first 6 were legitimate reasons, I think.

I campaigned and voted for Obama primarily to deliver a blow to white supremacy (which it did).

In other words, I am not disappointed with Obama, he is as I expected. The healthcare reform is not nothing even though it is not very good either. Not getting thrown off insurance when you get sick, and being able to get insurance despite a "pre-existing" condition is not nothing. If the republicans really mount an attack on the "individual mandate" (which does suck, which is an attack on bourgeois freedom and bourgeois right, and should be ruled unconstitutional) then there may be another possibility to get a "public option." Without the individual mandate then there is no way to use the market to distribute healthcare to everyone.

The tea baggers are undoubtedly in the tradition of white supremacy and reaction stretching from the confederacy to the kkk, to the white citizens councils, to the militia movement. Will they be empowered if they win some seats in congress?

This debate gets a little tiresome because the anti-electoral side of the revolutionary left has not put forward any alternative around the question of seizing power. The idea of re-conceiving and regrouping makes sense enough but it seems that it also means sitting out the day to day class struggle for some period of time. The debate is kind of one-sided (and hence tedious) because the anti-electoral side just says no without putting forth any alternative.

It is easy enough to say "that is not revolutionary" when you dont have to say what is revolutionary.

Deceitfulness and trickery are de rigueur for liberal think-tankers like Fletcher. A nice rebuttal to this donkey flogging is to be found at Louis Proyect's blog:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/bill-fletcher-channels-gus-hall/

Louis Proyect's criticism is kind of funny. He starts out by saying Obama is no FDR. As if FDR were not just a bourgeois liberal. He also dismisses the idea that FDR was pressured by working class power in the U.S. (not to mention the existence of the Soviet Union). Proyect seems to be arguing that Obama was always and will always be essentially more like Herbert Hoover then FDR irregardless of what the working class is doing. In other words, Obama is essentially like Hoover not Roosevelt. So much for the idea that the mases make history....

Proyect then says it wasnt the new deal or Keynesian policy that ended the depression but World War 2. Interesting idea. How did the war end the economic crisis? It was massive state spending on the war effort-- a policy sometimes referred to as military Keynesianism.

Keynesianism is not revolutionary but it is an alternative policy to Monetarism. Which one the bourgeoisie opts for definitely is effected by the class struggle. Monetarism or neo-liberalism is certainly preferred if they can get away with it.

Proyect concludes his analysis with the assertion that the shortcomings of the left are due to the corruption of its would be leaders who receive trade union jobs or jobs in think tanks. Really? That is your analysis? Our problem is that some leaders got decent jobs?

Stay poor Mookie.

Sadly, we still want to look at the trees (he's better than McCain, or whomever), while missing the forest (he's the Commander in Chief of the imperium).

Regarding the "10 Reasons to Vote for Obama," important questions to ask ourselves are: do they still hold water for Dems in general (as the Party of the President) as we move towards Nov. 2nd; and would they hold water in the election of 2012?

Point One: First off, this is not a "white settler state" (for all advocates of scientific class analysis). I've argued with many that Obama's election was an objective blow to white supremacy, but after two years that seems to be only among the most troglyditic reactionaries. For frankly, the empire which has white supremacy as one if its foundations is now headed by a Black man!!! GO figger.
Point Two: If that's the plan then we might as well forsake revolution now, since there will be many people of color, in positions of power, that will be counterrevolutionary -- throwing our bodies on the line to protect them... well, this seems silly.

Point Three: How much more life did Obama's election breathe into our communities? How much death, especially in communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan and and Iraq? That this can be dismissed in the very first sentence of Mann's essay is a profound betrayal of internationalism.

Point Four: And now Obama, "King of the Drones" is one as well.

Point Five: No doubt Palin is a reactionary through and through. Still, vote Obama to stop her?? C'mon.

Point Six: Obama's campaign (and now administration) is also an attack on the left, from the "left." A most paralysing, disastorus, and ideologically reinforcing one at that.

Point Seven: Yeah, the Clintons sure look defeated. When Hillary runs in 2012 will we have 10 reasons why we should vote a woman into the Presidency?

Point Eight: Well, we can see how a combination of Obama's reactionary moves and the objective conditions of the econmy and war have really launched expectations off the charts, haven't we? This is not the 60s under JFK, sorry.

Point Nine: Misplaced faith is perehaps the greatest tragedy, especially when it is based on such a fantasy about Imperial America and who gets elected to be President.

Point Ten: Finally a point of agreement; it is time to act. Do not vote, continue to reorganize forces for revolution via faultine actions and ideological debate... wait for signs of spring.

"They also believed, for reasons that mystify me, that they could work out a compromise with so-called moderate Republicans."

They never believed that. "Compromise" with the Republicans was a cover for continuing to pursue the right-wing policies desired by their financial backers. They have never feared us. They fear Wall Street. Actually, they WOULD fear Wall Street if they had any actual desire for change. As it is, their interests are identical to Wall Street's. No amount of pressure, short of a fundamental threat to the system, could ever have gotten them to betray those interests. Even slightly.

The polls before this election are illuminating. Voters are not moving to the right. What's motivating them is anger. What's driving the anger is foreclosures. When asked if they support the Republican agenda, the overwhelming majority oppose it. The Republicans will find themselves unable to resolve this crisis. In two years the voters will turn against them, again. Moreover, structurally, the Republican base is vanishing. The party will shift left or disappear.

Denying that the U.S. is a white settler state is denying it's entire history. I wonder if Native Americans might see this differently.

I'd like to offer my political perspective on the "Obama phenomenon".

For some Latino-Chicano marxists living and organizing in the barrio, we have,for the longest time have had to fight a grueling ongoing struggle with the legions of Latino liberals,progressives and other democratic party affiliated organizations and leaders.The extent of influence and power of these opportunists,marketers and
careerist politicians on the Latino community is profound-an extremely difficult obstacle for Latino marxists to oppose and combat.
From my experiences I am all to painfully aware of neo-liberalism being just as pernicious and even in certain ways more dangerous to Latinos than neo-conservatism..
At this time Neo-liberal co-optation represents to the Latino community a clear and present danger…the "good cop"-neo-liberals in the Latino community no less dangerous than the "bad cops" -neo-conservatives..
I believe it is equally as important to expose neo-liberal treachery of the ruling class as well as neo-conservative.
More recently,Latinos have been used,manipulated,lied to and betrayed by the neo-lib/obama/dnc gang.Only a fool or a dupe would deny this.
A number of Marxist/progressive Latinos have dedicated much effort to exposing neo-liberal treachery,educating Latinos to see through the mist-the tyranny of two-party sham-the lies,fraud,deception-that is the existing two-party electoral system.
For Latinos it is critical we see through the fraud and scam-to develop a consciousness that advances us beyond the illusion of electoral politics towards higher political levels of awareness and motivation-to move the struggle forward towards greater unity and self-determination,higher levels of criticism and analysis of the ruling class which when understood empowers all of the working class.
It weakens and destabilizes ruling class control and domination thereby creating a potential fault-line and opening for revolution.
There is an old saying that I view as being appropriate to describe misguided left-progressive-liberal support for the obama neoliberal project...that saying goes.."The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...
As a Latino marxist I feel the the threat coming from the neo-liberal wing of the ruling class is in our community very palpable-an ever present trap of deadly ruling class co-optation.I see the tremendous damaging effect the democratic machine inflicts on Latino self-determination and unity.
From my perspective I see left-progressive-liberal support of the neo-liberal-obama-dnc project as a sign of weakness,confusion and disorientation- harmful and damaging to the Latino working class and in a larger sense to the revolution.
The rationale of fighting "white supremacy" by getting out the vote for the Obama's of the world is in my view a wrong one that is from my perspective patronizing and reflective of guilt and attempting some type of redemption and absolution.Sorry,I as a person of color do not buy into that bogus justification.Why should I,a person of color have to pay with my freedom and self-determination in order to placate,absolve whites allowing themselves to wash their hands of historical guilt at the expense of Latino people.
To me the correct strategy of fighting "white supremacy" is not by strengthening white ruling class supremacy -power and control...but rather by denouncing,opposing and exposing it from every angle.
The revolution at this stage calls for creating a strong alternative option,another distinctive and authentic marxist "pole" exisiting for the working class to turn to,to be there when the time of great crisis explodes,to bond to ideologically and organizationally.This is what we should be doing.
The revolution requires a defined separate marxist "pole" that is not confusing,deceitful and misleading to the working class.
We have to provide a well defined revolutionary "option"..straight-up,honest and direct.We communists should always "disdain to conceal our views"..not play "spy vs spy","secret agent man","james bond" working in presidential and other house/senate races with the ridiculous hope that we somehow will be able to "win over the workers to our side".Such actions play right into the hands of the ruling class.In the real world you are the tail that’s being wagged by the dog.
The wishful thinking of advancing the revolutionary cause by "joining up" in electoral campaigns,supporting the "lesser of two evils" is in my opinion a fantasy that only creates confusion-builds suspicion and doubt in the minds of the working class towards so-called revolutionary communists who they often perceive as distant,alienated from working class life and culture.The working class does not respect or appreciate arrogance or a lack of a sense of humor..
IMHO,being a genuine communist revolutionary is being straight-up with the working class.. creating a separate clearly defined pole where workers can turn to,can trust and feel comfortable with..
There are no shortcuts or "slick" short term solutions to building a revolutionary movement..
I'd also like to add-it that it is vital for a future revolutionary movement to break the negative historical legacy left by white leftists,communists,progressives exhibiting destructive racist,elitist and patronizing attitudes.To a significant extent because of this weakness the working class finds itself in the present situation heavily demoralized,disoriented ,discouraged and fatalistic.

Borrowing a phrase from a revolutionary of the past.I think it is correct to say..“You're either part of the solution or part of the problem.”

An honest question all should ask..
do I really want a revolution??
or do I want to keep the ruling class in power.. ?

Chicanofuturet said:

"The rationale of fighting “white supremacy” by getting out the vote for the Obama’s of the world is in my view a wrong one that is from my perspective patronizing and reflective of guilt and attempting some type of redemption and absolution.Sorry,I as a person of color do not buy into that bogus justification.Why should I,a person of color have to pay with my freedom and self-determination in order to placate,absolve whites allowing themselves to wash their hands of historical guilt at the expense of Latino people."

Electoral weather undergroundism... a very interesting point, I never thought of that before.

I'll be very clear here, and say that I have had principled differences with Fletcher on the question of Progressives for Obama. The bulk of those differences have been (and are) matters of degree rather than direction --i.e., to what degree should critical interventions be made into the election, not whether to acknowledge a phenomenon that about 130 million people participated in.

I will make the overarching criticism of the Left as a whole --from those who slavishly defend Obama (which Fletcher simply has not and does not) all the way to the bizarre overlapping section of vaguely leftish 9/11 Truthers who are convinced he is representative of the Lizard People-- that the analysis has centered almost entirely on the presidential cult of personality. Most simply put: the devolution of politics to the mere reading of Obama's personnel moves, verbal tics, and even his attire is the degeneration into the very superficial culture we profess to want to overthrow.

Is this even really about Obama? No, it's been going on far longer than that. In the years immediately after Bush was re-elected (from 2005 to roughly 2007), I think we all saw the precursor of this phenomenon. After being pumped full of Anybody But Bush talking points during the 2004 election and believing too much of its own hype, the movement settled into a comfortable pattern of Bush bashing: Bush commits some faux-pas, we make fun of it, and we call whoever giggles at our joke "the Left."

(In anticipation of the retort, that this is somehow just a revisionist disease, I'll note that the RCP was just as guilty as anyone of doing this, with the shift from Not In Our Name (the anti-war front) to World Can't Wait (the anti-Bush front) in 2005.)

If there is one thing that boggles my mind about this, it is that the Left which professes to believe in the power of people, stubbornly holds on to the Great Man theory of history to the detriment of its own stated agenda. Whether it is lionizing or vilifying a given president, it seems like <i>everything</i> is either their doing or their fault. Forget the whole rest of the government! Forget the whole rest of the State! Forget its ruling class! Forget the masses? One guy did it!

Or for a whole other ball of wax, let's talk about throwing the term "fascism" around so loosely, it has been warped of any meaning. On the one hand: I recall being told that we had to throw out the Bush regime before 2008 or Christian Fascists will take over the government (the infamous "2008 is Too Late!" slogan of WCW). On the other hand: today's message from the CP, telling us to vote for Democrats no matter how rancid, or Tea Party fascists will come into power (nevermind who, precisely, looks like they're going to stand a chance --mainly well financed non-Tea Party Republican stalwarts). Gee, with all this imminent fascism, why bother even saying anything bad about <i>capitalism</i>?

I understand that there is a need among us all to prove our Left bona fides by outdoing even ourselves at bombast. But neither general line nor mass line should be based on mere bluster; we need them to be materialist and objective, even in the realm of ideas. There are simply no shortcuts here, no ways of getting around contradictions through simplistic sloganeering. Where is our materialist analysis of how the class struggle has changed with markets and speculators involved in any number of transactions? Or our materialist analysis of the forces that pushed for SB1070, those which resisted, and what the hell we should be doing if we're not even in Arizona? Or any number of areas of struggle...

Or are we content to repeat slogans until we really believe in them?

Only a Democrat can implement Mitt Romney's health care plan on a national scale. Even Barker in Massachusetts realizes this and criticizes Romney, rather than Obama, for structuring the national health plan or at least being it's inspiration. An honest conservative, at least.

So, there were reasons that people voted for Obama. A blow against white supremacy, perhaps, although, I am not convinced. The Jacobins and Thermidor. Maybe this is a stretch, but, if we consider the Republicans nationalist free market jacobins and the Democrats a Thermidorian reaction, we can see some interesting points come to light. The Thermidorians, here, the Democratic Party, is instrumental in curbing the excesses of the Republican's radical reforms, but, also institutionalizes the basic premises of their particular movement. Only a Democratic president could expel more undocumented workers than Bush ever did, only a Black president could continue to oppress people of color across the world in a better, more sophisticated way, only a Democrat could institutionalize the Bailout. This is the situation we find ourselves in. The Neo-Liberal "Revolution" although losing steam ideologically is thoroughly integrated here and no amount of posturing can undo this dialectic- the Democratic Party as the party of good governance and the Republican Party as the bearers of 'democracy', in a perverted sense. The Republican Party is not afraid to "let the water overflow the dam" as Guzman once said, allowing it's base to engage in disruptive activities and the Democrats are willing to integrate some of these features into law.

It would be cliche of me to say something like it's time to break from the Democrats. Perhaps it runs deeper. Perhaps we should break with national elections and the inside-outside strategy entirely. Let the State sort it out, a complete withdrawl from the electoral realm which precludes dissensus. If anything, we have to learn from the Tea Party here and from the R.P., as I've stated above, they actually encourage dissensus in a perverted-Rancierean way.

There was an<a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2010/09/28/quick-notes-on-communist-participation-in-elections/" rel="nofollow"> article on here before</a> by Mike or someone that talked about the fact that our greatest hope was the destruction of the Democratic Party and the void that it produces. So, let them be totally overrun and thrown out, maybe that void which is created will actually serve to re-politicize aspects of life that have been privatized. If anything maybe I am endorsing a view of accelerationism here if nothing else that voting for the Democratic Party is always here a defensive measure rather than one of an actual offensive with any hope of penetrating the veins of power that run through D.P. decision making.

Whateverism. Let's do it.

Flethcher's main point remains. The main question for us is not so much Obama's weakness or inability (or both), but our own, our lack of any serious organizational capacity to organize both a militant minority (around socialism) and a progressive majority (in a popular front vs finance capital). That's what I've been arguing here for almost three years. It remains the task of the day. And if you want to watch the Dems get slashed by the GOP/Tea Party, don't worry. Just watch for a few weeks. You'll see it soon enough. But can YOU pick up any of the pieces?

Keith: Louis Proyect’s criticism is kind of funny. He starts out by saying Obama is no FDR. As if FDR were not just a bourgeois liberal.

Me: We need a lot more precision than calling someone a "bourgeois liberal". FDR's New Deal drew upon the talents of many Communists, or radicals, like Harry Magdoff. It also pushed through landmark legislation like Social Security. The Obama administration puts a reactionary like Alan Simpson in charge of a panel on "entitlements" who says that Social Security is like a cow with 310 million tits.

Keith: Proyect then says it wasnt the new deal or Keynesian policy that ended the depression but World War 2. Interesting idea. How did the war end the economic crisis? It was massive state spending on the war effort– a policy sometimes referred to as military Keynesianism.

Me: Actually the capitalist class relied on war as a kind of "creative destruction" long before John Maynard Keynes was a glint in his poppa's eyes.

Keith: Keynesianism is not revolutionary but it is an alternative policy to Monetarism. Which one the bourgeoisie opts for definitely is effected by the class struggle. Monetarism or neo-liberalism is certainly preferred if they can get away with it.

Me: For people who want to read an essential critique of Keynesianism, here's Harry Magdoff:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@sus.csuchico.edu/msg09035.html

Keith: Proyect concludes his analysis with the assertion that the shortcomings of the left are due to the corruption of its would be leaders who receive trade union jobs or jobs in think tanks. Really? That is your analysis? Our problem is that some leaders got decent jobs?

Me: There is nothing decent about shilling for a President who is carrying out Bush's 3rd term.

<cite>And if you want to watch the Dems get slashed by the GOP/Tea Party, don’t worry. Just watch for a few weeks. You’ll see it soon enough. But can YOU pick up any of the pieces?</cite>

No, in fact, I don't want to. It doesn't particularly matter to me of the GOP/Tea Party assumes power, even if they slash budgets and impose anti-worker and racist laws. For a Communist, at this point, enduring the "fightback" does not seem to produce any tangible results. Appealing to an electoral coalition in order to revitalize a non-existing base into creating independent mass organizations vis a vis the two major parties is a flawed strategy that does not appear to be working. Instead, "I prefer not to" and allowing the inevitable populist politics of the Tea Party to take over - secretly aided and abetted by the Democrats - can do more good for politics (and by that I mean, politics independent of the State and the parties) than not. Sure, it will be difficult and perhaps tumultuous, but, it will provide that void for us to organize. We shouldn't be afraid of the catastrophe.

We need to be able to focus on building on-the-ground politics at the moment, where none exist, rather than focusing on pushing-Left the Democratic Party in order to somehow mysteriously found that non-existent base. If anything, a win for the Tea Party populists and the destruction of the Democratic Party could finally draw the correct lines in the sense of "Who are our friends and who are our enemies?"

I want to add that there is a peculiar obsession among the Left, that of working "lower and deeper" and using that particular phrase to undermine what the mass line means and integrate themselves in the Democratic Party apparatus. It runs deeper than simply opportunism because I reject that any of the good comrades here, like Carl Davidson or Eric Mann, are real 'opportunists.' To be an opportunist, I think there actually needs to be a Communist movement to act opportunistically against. I think their understanding is that with the inside-outside strategy they are going to galvanize "the masses" and build independent organizations which can then challenge the bi-polar electoral realm. They are always "going lower and deeper", "looking for the masses", "integrating themselves with the masses" and so forth. And in fact, this is all true, but, that always leads to failure. The masses are originally lost, in fact, they are only defined negatively, they are not a positive social order (just like the proletariat.) The 'masses' as a political name are founded upon a political project, not through reverse engineering a bourgeois movement in order to engineer a Left-Right separation in the hope of building Left-pole institutions. Lacan would call this the drive. The proletariat is always a heroic creation of political processes, the masses are always both the subject of a political process and it's creation. You will never find the masses by going "lower and deeper" but by building a politics that is "local and singular" as Badiou says but fundamentally universal (for now.) I'm not a micropolitician. Lenin and Mao resorting to the peasants as their "proletariat" (because, what matters is infact the transformation that occurs during a political process rather than if someone is a 'worker' or a 'peasant' objectively) even if Lenin was reluctant to recognize it, inscribes this original loss into the process of Communist revolutions.

So let's stop looking for the masses who were never there in the first place and build some of our own.

We Know Tea Party Repubs Are Scary. But Are Democrats in Congress Worth Defending At All?

http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/we-know-tea-party-repubs-are-scary-are-democrats-congress-worth-defending-all

'The pieces' to be pick up from the Dem's wreckage are precisely many of the more politically progressive and active workers and residents of oppressed communities. To ignore them, or the importance of connections with them, is foolish. We do work with them in 'local and singular' ways and platforms, even as we raise wide connections. That's the whole point. It seems that some here can't find the actual masses and battlegrounds, simply because they're looking for other 'masses' and other battlegrounds, and missing the ones in front of their noses. As for looking forward to the Tea Par right's victory, watch what you wish for, especially if you're weak and unprepared, relatively speaking. You may get it. Reports and other items related to how we work are at http://beavercountyblue.org for any interested.

I was referring to 2MV, who says such a Tea Party victory 'doesn't particular matter' and in fact helps clarify 'friends and enemies' and may 'do more good for politics.' Perhaps I overstated, but not by much.

With Tooumy, the Tea Party/GOP rightist candidate for Senate where we live leading slightly over Sestak, (a Clintonist), we are not indifferent to the outcome. And we are not supporting our local Blue Dog Congressman, Altmire. So we go door-to-door with teams from the USW, mainly encouraging positive votes for local labor candidates, and a lesser evil vote for Sestak over the Tea Party. We may well lose, but our group is already gaining strength from taking part in the process.

The Bolsheviks were a minority until they weren't. The Chinese Communist Party started with how many people? What's the point of selling out your principles for the sake of growth? What are you growing?

Huh? Ajagbe? The point of growth, like the Bolsheviks, was to become a majority, and' like the CCP' to become larger than the 50 or so who started it. And we're not selling out a single principle. Our mass democratic platform, in this election and the last, is 'Out Now', HR 676, Green Jobs, EFCA, and Debt relief, especially for students and homeowners. In addition we argue votes for some over others as 'lesser evils,' ie, voting tactically. We also organize around socialism, but with a different organizational form in a different arena.

How's your approach, or non-approach, to the elections working out?

Fuck elections! And fuck tailing the Democrats! You are objectively positioning yourself as an apologist for one of the parties of imperialism. Period. There's no way around it. You're herding the working people into a burning house. The problem we've had isn't an inability to organize, or a lack of resources. The problem we've had, and have now, is this election fetish. It should be clear by now that it truly makes no difference who gets elected. It makes no difference who you support. They don't give a rat's ass what you or I think.

This morning I had to force myself to listen to an Iraqi's man account of the murder of his nine year old son by Blackwater mercenaries. The Democrats have as much blood on their hands as the Republicans. They are equally complicit in the murder of this boy. And now, Obama is murdering little boys and girls by remote control in Afghanistan.

The only change that will ever happen will come from the streets.

In the above refence to Eric Mann's column, it is worth noting his last paragraph:

"The candidate with whose views I most agree is former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney, a dynamic Black woman running on the Green Party ticket."

It seems to me, that if those who say they believe in both radical change and participating in the electoral process, would devote their energies to a third party such as the Greens (or before that Citizens Party, People's Party) and not the Dems, we would be much further along.

<cite>
The pieces’ to be pick up from the Dem’s wreckage are precisely many of the more politically progressive and active workers and residents of oppressed communities. To ignore them, or the importance of connections with them, is foolish. We do work with them in ‘local and singular’ ways and platforms, even as we raise wide connections. That’s the whole point. It seems that some here can’t find the actual masses and battlegrounds, simply because they’re looking for other ‘masses’ and other battlegrounds, and missing the ones in front of their noses. As for looking forward to the Tea Par right’s victory, watch what you wish for, especially if you’re weak and unprepared, relatively speaking. You may get it. Reports and other items related to how we work are at http://beavercountyblue.org for any interested.
</cite>

I thought you were referring to other pieces, like, a shattered welfare system or the dispersed public school aparatus, but, of course, picking up the disgruntled Democrats is a part of the process, but, I think that is only possible once the Democratic Party implodes from it's internal contradictions and the fact that the Tea Party is more democratic in the sense of "Letting the river overflow the dam" than the Democratic Party, which, often always views itself as a brake on this kind of populist activity but an accelerator of their problem. That's the uniqueness of the situation here- the Democrats complete the Tea Party in the moderate application of their programme over time and without the mass outpouring of middle class dissent that the Tea Party has made it's staple.

No, you are right, many of the 'masses' are part of the Democratic Party. I am not arguing against that obvious fact, but, the fact that many, including yourself, have this idea of the 'masses' that is perhaps almost a fetish- "what if we can push the Democrats left, then _the masses_ will awaken and so on and so on", "if we meet the masses where they're at, in the DP, and draw connections, then the masses will so on and so forth." I don't think it works that way. Steering the masses "inside and outside" of the Democratic Party only serves to depoliticize. What we should be doing perhaps is "Vote if you want, but, remember to engage in politics." which is something that can only be extra-statal. I am perhaps more radical here and would agitate for not voting at all, but, I'm not convinced in that strategy. Maybe you are right Carl and time will tell, but, I am not totally afraid of the Tea Party and look forward to the dissolusion of the Democratic Party over time to provide that opening whereby resorting to electoral jockeying will not be viewed as a solution.

The masses will never be transformed by an electoral campaign or by drawing connections inside a electoral campaign that you give critical support. Chavez and Morale's electoral campaigns already had years of social movement organizing to draw on. So, when Leftists here take Harnecker's "Unite the Party Left and the Social Movement Left" without understanding that the Social Movement left precedes the Party Left in the Chavist-Peronist stream of Revolution in South America.

We should be focusing on building these movements that are independent of the State right now. I am not saying that electoral politics are not important, but, they are distracting now and overall don't really grasp the contradiction between the DP and the RP.

"They don’t give a rat’s ass what you or I think."

While this is true, they DO care about what we're willing to be silent/passive about. I view elections more and more as the system's poll of what they can push, among who, at what price, how far, and how quickly.

Obama's elections was not insignificant in terms of change. It reiterated to the rulers that the disenfranchised in amerika have a lot more allies than expected. Of course that doesn't amount to anything, because the majority of these "allies" are willing to go as far as pressing a lever every two years and being "hopeful."

The system learns a lot from these elections -- more than WE do. I shudder at where we'd be if they'd "learned" in 2008 that most white and working class people will vote for open racism and an open call for endless war. The fact that we still got those things with a Black salesperson is beside the point. The system learned that for the moment, they still have to "keep up appearances" about civil rights and freedoms; they still have to sell and market their moves as being beneficial for us and for those values. Without that, we would have outright fascism instead of the current slow entrenching of it.

And it's plain stupid that folks are still thinking that if it gets "bad enough" or "goes that far" that people will wake up. This country is Number 1 -- as a sleeping aid. It's no joke they call it The American Dream. It ain't real, it never was, and those who think it is are fast asleep. Because they are on a FOX news IV drip. And they are systematically told there is no such thing as a better world than this.

&gt; I shudder at where we’d be if they’d “learned” in 2008 that most white and working class people will vote for open racism and an open call for endless war.

Now what Leftists-for-Obama pamphlet does this come from? While I normally don't spend my time defending John McCain, this kind of hyperbolic nonsense doesn't help anything. Did you mean the whole "birth certificate" hoopala? Here was the McCain response:

-----
http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

McCain Campaign Investigated, Dismissed Obama Citizenship Rumors
Frivolous 'Birther' Lawsuits Fuel Conspiracy Theories, Media Coverage
-----

Whatever else one may dislike about McCain, his campaign did not remotely resemble your description. Now, for the record, I did have the impression at the time of the election that there might have been a higher chance of an attack on Iran under McCain. Although I don't really see anything like that unfolding within the next several years (especially now that Russia has helped Iran to start up nuclear facilities which could be dangerous to simply bomb), I was considering the possibility before the events in Georgia in 2008.

That little scuffle with Russia motivated Putin to establish closer ties with Iran, which essentially put the kibosh on any possible plans by the Bush administration to light up a war with Iran shortly before going out. Although Washington does seek a change of government in Iran, this is more likely to be sought after on the model of containing Iran and waiting for the Iranian equivalent of Gorbachev to emerge from within the Iranian hierarchy, rather than by a military invasion. But I had considered an invasion of Iran as a possibility in early 2008, and McCain sounded like the type who would be an advocate for that.

But otherwise, what precisely do you have from McCain's campaign to justify your description? As best as I can tell, George Wallace was the last candidate to run on anything like "open racism" and just because Leftists-for-Obama say otherwise doesn't make it so.

2mv, the idea is to build organization on the working class side of the fault line among voters who self-identify as Dems, around a progressive mass democratic platform, and then to work with local candidates around it. It may or may not 'move the Dems to the left', but that's not the point. The point is building a 'party within a party' that, together with others outside of it, will replace it, or its reactionary core once it implodes. Without organizations at the grassroots on their own, the workers have no voice.

As for the Tea Party, the glue holding it together is white nationalism and anti-government Ron Paulism. It can be divided, but you're not going to win too many of its folks over to anything very progressive. Maybe a handful. But not much more.

I think 'organization building' trumps 'movement building.' The two are connected, but I give priority to the first. That's my 'anti-economism', if you will. I'm not into simply fanning the flames of spontaneity, and then tailing it.

<i>Mars said

“They don’t give a rat’s ass what you or I think.”

While this is true, they DO care about what we’re willing to be silent/passive about. I view elections more and more as the system’s poll of what they can push, among who, at what price, how far, and how quickly.</i>

Of course,the ruling class always tries to keep their finger on the pulse of the people.They have tremendous resources dedicated just to collecting and compiling this information.

Yes,in many if not most situations they will form policy around public opinion,twist it,turn it around-channel it into a direction that best serves their interests.They have this down to a science.

The MSM is just one of their more useful tools.

Your point brings to mind a speech I once heard online by Bob Avakian where he touched and commented upon this theme.

I recall he made an interesting point when he brought up the question of whether the ruling class gives a shit about what the american people,let alone the entire world thinks about them.

In this particular case he used the example of the period leading up to the gulf war,of significant wide spread domestic protest as well as overwhelming world condemnation of such war mongering and provocation.

When the chips are down and whenever a great opportunity for the ruling class,the corporations and the miltary-industrial complex comes,Zionist Isreal along they will throw caution and care to the wind, american people and the world be damned they as Bob Avakian so colorfly describes-show their true gangster colors.

My view is that the ruling class,understanding the crisis they currently find themselves in,the very real possibility of things spinning out of control,as far as the american people revolting and destabilizing their rule,are open to experimentation,trying out novel approaches to avoiding unrest and protest.That's why they became <i>patrons</i> of Obama and sponsored him..(just an aside here, I find it ironic that <i>patronizing</i> came from both the high and low ends of the political spectrum..<i>patronizing</i> from the ruling class as well as patronizing from the left.)

Obama represented a great tool for co-optation,therefore,this time around the ruling class has handed over the reins of power to the neo-liberal wing of the ruling class.
Team B this time instead of team B.