Saturday, August 20, 2016

Communists in Name Only are Also Corporate Shills

I have to laugh as the Communist Party of the USA made as good a case as anyone why you shouldn't waste your vote on Jill Stein even if it's a swing state.

"The Democratic National Convention did what it needed to be in place for next 100 days, largely united and focused on Dump Trump, elect Hillary Clinton, and take control of the Senate and House. It was a huge and diverse gathering with much emotion and protest as part of the scene."

"Post convention, labor and people’s organizations are already full speed ahead. This is an election to defend our democratic rights and all our rights and for survival. It is an election to create conditions favorable to move forward the struggle for jobs, an end to racial profiling and economic inequality and continue the Political Revolution."

"A landslide voter turnout and rejection of Trump/ Republican hate and fear is necessary and possible."

This is the key: it's not enough to win, she must win a landslide. The CPUSA also talks about the historic nature of Hillary's candidacy, a point that a few Bernie or Busters lost sight of:

"Bernie Sanders was clear throughout on the necessity to defeat Trump as the next immediate step in the political revolution. He called upon his delegates to follow that lead. Most did, although some could not yet transition. While everything wasn’t smooth and treatment of individual Bernie delegates was not always good, throughout the caucus and council meetings, and from the podium during convention proceedings, recognition was made and space was given to allow a unity process to gel. A Bernie delegate from Missouri CBTU told me that at least 90% of the Bernie delegates were ready to follow their candidate’s approach as the convention proceeded. As Hillary Clinton said in her acceptance speech, “we created this progressive platform together, let’s make it happen together.” It won’t happen without a struggle including on issues like fracking and the TPP and foreign policy and reining in Wall St. But the door is open and the challenge is there."

"The point was made by Jesse Jackson that many of today’s established leaders got their start in politics working for his presidential campaigns. We can expect many more to emerge out of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Just yesterday, Washington state Sen. Pramila Jayapal won her primary for Congress in Seattle, joining Zephyr Teachout and Jamie Raskin all supported by Bernie Sanders and other progressive groups with the goal of adding to the strong fighters for peoples needs in Congress. During the convention, a meeting was held to establish the new organization formed from Bernie’s campaign, Our Revolution. Larry Cohen and Ben Jealous were among the presenters. The emphasis will be on down ballot elections. We should be in the mix and offer candidates in these local election."

"In 2008, at the stadium in Denver when Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Party nomination, Tim and I saw the embodiment of this broad front – multi-class, multi-Party, multi-racial and multi-generational – that elected the first African American president. In Philadelphia, we saw a maturing of the broad front to defeat a proto-fascist Republican candidate. While the Democratic Party, itself a multi-class formation and still largely controlled by a section of capital, is the electoral vehicle at this time for labor and progressive allies, the seeds for a party independent of corporate control are clearly being sown."

"Our emphasis within that broad front is the core forces for social change: the labor movement, African American, Latino, Native American, Asian Pacific, LGBTQ, women, youth voters. The Communist Party is a part of these core forces. We give expression to the theoretical necessity to defeat corporate right-wing extremists in this country. We embody unity in action. We should be self-critical that sometimes we emphasizes the broad front to the exclusion of our own role, which is a necessary one."

"We approached the Democratic convention in relation to Republican convention which was more than a whiff of fascism. In contrast, in Philadelphia there was a wonderful diverse composition of delegates, guests, and people on the streets."

Again, the key is not just to win but a landslide. They make a very key point as to why a Jill Stein vote is a mistake even in swing states.

"This is where we need to be in the next 100 days and ongoing. To win a landslide in this election, to defeat Trump and the Republicans is a giant task. We are setting the bar high. We can do it if we stick together."

"Some who are angry at the corporate forces in the Democratic Party want to vote for Jill Stein or just stay at home. But such an approach is self-defeating. It is not the way to win living wage jobs or stop police brutality or save the planet, because it gives an opening to the extremist right-wing. Some say that if they live in a blue or red state that is not a swing state, it is a safe state to vote for Jill Stein or just stay at home. But that is an argument that ignores the possibility of creating a landslide vote that can change the political climate in our country and give a huge boost to organizing for economic, racial and environmental justice. It also ignores the importance of a landslide vote to clearly reject Trump’s “dog whistle” politics of hate and racism. We should discuss this out in the Party and with our friends and allies, and reject the “safe state” argument."

"The most persuasive argument to convince many working-class and struggling people to register and to vote is a simple comparison of the positions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. At stake is the existence of a Department of Education, Environmental protection, voting rights, union rights, immigrant rights, health and safety, abortion rights, threat of nuclear war and the Supreme Court to name a few. The Voting Rights decisions that just took place in the lower courts are just one indication of how important the Supreme Court is."

I'm not a Communist but I have to give them credit. They make the case more comprehensively and as persuasively than I've seen.

Noam Chomsky is also a corporate shill.

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites."

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning."

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses."

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency."

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state."

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration."

Right. All that matters is the chance of one major candidate winning vs. the other: It's a binary choice between Hillary and Trump.

Full stop.

Note the one place the CPUSA goes further than Chomsky is on swing states. CPUSA rightly points out that even in swing states a Jill Stein vote is a mistake as we want as large a Democratic victory as possible both in Congress and also to full throatedly repudiate Trumpism.

A vote against Trump from all Americans, including GOPers and even 'neoconservatives'-is a vote to reject Trumpism which is to be celebrated by all Americans regardless of ideology.

Chomksy also isn't worried about the phony Berner complaint that 'There are all these neoconservatives supporting Hillary.'

As he said, they don't necessarily love Hillary but they are legitimately scared of Trump and rightly so.

No comments:

Post a Comment