« Home | Ninotchka Rosca » | Happy Birth Day Fred » | In the news » | Priceless artifacts stolen from Aztec ruins, avail... » | 10 Degrees to the Left of Center in Good Times, 10... » | Update: "But if Dan Rather got on the evening new... » | This day in movement history » | No Michael Moore for Cal State? » | Six Reasons why Paul Sturdivant should be strung u... » | Movie happenings » 

Friday, October 01, 2004 


The first of three debates between George Bush and John Kerry took place last night. Most folks I've spoken thought that Bush seemed flustered, caught off guard, and winded. He slumped over the podium, refused to face his Kerry while the senator spoke and whined like a young child demanding chances to respond to any rebuttal by Senator Kerry that was the slightest bit heavy handed.

The substance of the debate, which focused on foreign policy, was little more than high fluent elaboration of minuet differences. Last night we saw representatives of two segments of the imperial bourgeoisie waving their dicks around and explaining what they planed to do with them. No suprise, their plans are remarkably similar, regardless of the created caveats John and George think that we need to understand. That said, the left is once again forced to face a choice between the frying pan or the fire - voting for that segment of this imperialist ruling class who is going to allow us the most wiggle room or taking the path towards self-induced obsolescence, Bob Avakian style.

During this period, the "globalist" segments of the American ruling class are the equivalant of the national bourgeoisies across the global south during the national liberation struggles of a half-century ago. I don't want to be accused of drawing false comparisons or worse yet oversimplification on this point, I'm just saying that a dogmatist stance on the question of alliances with liberals and other pro-Kerry progressives denies the realities of the situation that we face. Sure, blindly riding the Kerry bandwagon is taking the road to neo-Clintonianism, but we need to give our ultra-leftist tendencies a swift kick in the ass and try to get in on the ground floor with this one. This ain't about what feels or sounds good, this is about strategic decision-making. A Bush win means the real beginning of American fascism; Kerry at least pays something like lip-service to the importance of mass movements. Another Bush term means an end to collective bargaining and an all-out attack on labor’s right to organize; Kerry is at least willing to broach the subject of raising the minimum wage. And as shown by the debates last night, US imperialism under Bush will be "more of the same," while Kerry is at least willing to promise that under his watch "the United States of America [will have] no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." This is most likely a crock-of-shit, but it is still a difference he's willing to draw between himself and Bush.

In the end, there may only be slivers of difference between the candidates' positions, but our choice is between the ability to organize openly or the early days of a neo-fascist police state. And in that context, a promise to not construct permanent military bases in Iraq must be seen as a concrete victory for anti-imperialist forces.

About Me

Recent Comments

Current Books // Articles

Previous posts

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates