Liberation News: Kerry Another Bush And Democrats Are The Same As Republicans

The following article is a very good look at the choice between Bush=20
and Kerry, so I am posting it.  The article does, however, fail to=20
mention the socialist alternatives beyond the Communist Party when=20
Stephen Gowens correctly states, "They're voting Democrat too".=20=20

I must take exception.  The Peace and Freedom Party is a socialist=20
party that is not supporting the Democrats. Our presidential=20
candidate (when ratified at our August convention) is Leonard=20
Peltier.=20

Gowens then points out some very general things about how the system=20
cannot be changed by who is in power whether they are "Socialist or=20
conservative".

What Stephen Gowens says about how a socialist president in power=20
will fail is true only if they maintain the capitalist system.=20
Socialists, however, should be aware that the obstacles that will be=20
placed in our way will have to be smashed through mass mobilizations,=20
the arming of the working class, the abolition of old military and=20
police forces, and the nationalization of the economy to meet human=20
and environmental needs and destroy the power base of the capitalist=20
class.

These are future concerns that are not right around the corner in the=20
United States.  The most immediate concern with running socialist=20
candidates is making clear to the labor movement, anti-war movement,=20
and others involved in social struggles that we gain nothing by=20
supporting our class enemies in the Democrat Party.

-Steve Argue



Kerry vs. Kerry-lite=20
by Stephen Gowans
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/
March 25, 2004

Some advice to politically Left Americans. Most of you will cast a=20
vote for John Kerry in November. There's not much doubt about it. And=20
the reason you'll be backing Kerry is (a) you assume nothing could be=20
worse than Bush, (b) the Democrats must be marginally better, because=85
well, because they're Democrats, (c) pressuring elites doesn't seem=20
to be working and you can't think of anything else to do to=20
stop "Bush's" drive to war, and (d) all those people who keep warning=20
you about lesser evilism, can't seem to come up with anything better.=20
So Kerry's your man. Oh sure, some of you admire Kucinich. Others=20
even think well of Nader. But you know Kerry's going to be your go-to-
guy come November.=20

Okay, fine. Leave it at that. When the time comes, head down to the=20
polling station, and cast your vote. But in the meantime, shut up=20
about it, because, just between you and me, you're starting to look a=20
little silly, twisting yourself into knots to explain why it is that=20
all the things you used to say about the Democrats being the same as=20
the Republicans, no longer apply.=20

Of course, you're not going to give up talking the talk, even if=20
you'll be miles away walking smack dab in the middle of your comfort=20
zone. There will be no going cold turkey on all the leftist=20
shibboleths you've been spouting for decades. Like Noam Chomsky,=20
you'll still point to the Democrats as nothing more than the second=20
business party [1], kind of like Thing Two to the Republican's Thing=20
One. And you'll dismiss your go-to-guy as nothing more than Bush-
lite, but hey, a lite beer's still better than the real thing when=20
you're trying to get rid of those love handles, right?=20

Except I'm trying to figure out why everyone keeps saying Kerry is=20
Bush-lite [2], rather than Bush in a different suit, or that Bush is=20
Kerry-lite. Look at Kerry's record.=20

For one thing, as much as Bush, Kerry's part of the ruling class =96=20
that privileged, hyper-rich stratum of the population that organizes=20
the domestic and foreign policy of the United States in its own=20
interests. Not only have corporations showered more contributions on=20
Kerry than on any other member of the millionaires' club that doubles=20
as the Senate, he's also the richest millionaire in the club. He and=20
his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, boast a net worth of between $200 and=20
$840 million. [3]

But Kerry's wealth and his fitting into corporate circles like a CEO=20
into an oversize corner office, isn't all that makes him, at best, a=20
dead ringer for Bush. His policies do, too. Kerry proposes "a bold=20
vision of progressive internationalism," a "tough-minded strategy of=20
international engagement and leadership" in the tradition of such=20
renowned peaceniks as Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Harry Truman (Hiroshima)=20
and John F. Kennedy (Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs). [4]=20

Which may be why "Bush's" drive to war, which we're told, must be=20
stopped by voting for Kerry, seems to be Kerry's drive to war, too.=20
[5] After all, he voted for the war on Afghanistan, and supports the=20
occupation. [6] He voted for the war on Iraq, and says "we now have a=20
solemn obligation to complete the mission." [7] He promises to add=20
40,000 troops to the Army and to spend more on defense than the=20
Republicans, and more on homeland security. [8] Yeah, he sure sounds=20
different from Bush, though not in any better way.=20

What's more, not only is he prepared to use military force=20
unilaterally, ("People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do=20
what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that=20
includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary," [9] he's=20
prepared "to target and capture terrorists even before they act" and=20
says he "will not hesitate to order direct military action when=20
needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders"=20
[10] -- his own doctrine of preventive war.=20

Plus he says he will spend more on the National Endowment for=20
Democracy [11], an organization that does openly what the CIA used to=20
do covertly -- meddle in the affairs of countries like Haiti,=20
Venezuela, Serbia and Cuba, that put the interests of the domestic=20
population ahead of those of corporate America and investors who can=20
boast net worths of hundreds of millions of dollars, like, let's=20
see...well, like Kerry.=20

And in case you thought Kerry draws his advisors from a different=20
stratum of the population than Bush does, you should know that his=20
national finance chair, Louis Susman, is vice-chairperson of=20
investment banking for Citigroup [12], and that his foreign policy=20
adviser, Rand Beers, worked for Bush's National Security Council=20
until about a year ago. [13]=20

So explain to me how there's anything lite about Kerry?=20

My favorite Kerry quote is, "I could never agree with those in the=20
antiwar movement who dismissed our troops [in Vietnam] as war=20
criminals or our country as the villain in the drama." [14]

As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he didn't=20
drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring to strike a=20
grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's divide up the=20
loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a gang rape is better=20
than a rape carried out by a lone assailant, which, I gather, would=20
make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and therefore more worthy of our=20
backing than a rapist who goes it alone.=20

But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq,=20
managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking France,=20
Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted twist of=20
reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of Iraq with=20
legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned rapists into a=20
gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral weight.=20

So, you'll have to excuse me, but I don't see any redeeming=20
difference between Kerry and the current Kerry-lite occupant of the=20
White House, not even a razor-thin one, at least not one that would=20
lead me to conclude that Kerry's better, if only marginally. And if=20
there's any logic in the Chomsky claim -- which he's been making for=20
a while now -- that a minuscule difference can make a big difference=20
(because the president has so much power, Kerry being even a little=20
better than Bush can have fairly substantial implications), I'm=20
afraid it has eluded me, as well. Is it just me, or is Chomsky=20
staring to sound like those corporate PR flaks, who rather than not=20
even trying to claim black is white, figure their forensic skills are=20
so finely honed, that they can pull it off?=20

And has Michael Parenti, another high-profile American leftist,=20
joined the club? Of course, he has. He, along with Chomksy and a=20
gaggle of other left luminaries, wrote a "letter to the left"=20
sometime late last year, that attributed the drive to war to Bush=20
[15], as if wars of aggression haven't been a fixture of US foreign=20
policy, and have suddenly sprung to life fully formed under the Bush=20
administration's careful nurturing. They coyly avoided saying that=20
the Left should vote Democrat in the next election, but the message=20
was plain, and odd, coming from a number of people who say they're=20
radicals, but then, maybe the meaning of radical changes in "times=20
when you have to pursue coalition politics against the forces like=20
the kind we're facing in the White House today." [16]=20

Not so many years ago -- four to be exact -- pursuing coalition=20
politics wasn't deemed to be so important. Back then Michael Moore=20
was directing a Rage Against the Machine video that depicted Al Gore=20
as a clone of George Bush, and he, and a whole bunch of other US Left=20
luminaries, were exhorting people to vote for the anti-clone, Nader,=20
none more zealously than Moore himself. But what made impeccable=20
sense back then, now seems to make no sense at all. Nader's been=20
dumped faster than a date with active genital herpes, and Moore slunk=20
back to the Democrats soon after the election, his self-imposed=20
estrangement from his political home passed off as temporary=20
insanity. Eventually, he decided to back the real Butcher of=20
Belgrade, Wesley Clark, for a run at the Democratic nomination,=20
touting a war criminal, on record as supporting the rape of Iraq, as=20
the peace candidate the anti-war Left could really get behind.=20

My logic isn't infallible, but it seems to me if we accept Moore's=20
claim that Al Gore is a clone of George W. Bush, then Gore as=20
president would have been like Bush as president. In other words,=20
there would have been a war on Afghanistan, which seems pretty likely=20
given that 99 percent of the establishment, plus a fair number of=20
liberals, think the whole affair was a pretty good thing. And we can=20
be sure Gore would have carried out some kind of hostility against=20
Iraq aimed at regime change, since, after all, this had been the=20
policy of two administrations, one of which Gore belonged to. All of=20
which makes one wonder why Moore has decided, along with Chomsky and=20
Parenti, that coalition politics - - that is a vote for the=20
Democrats -- has suddenly become vitally important. It's as if=20
they're all kicking themselves for not voting for Gore when they had=20
the chance -- even if he is a clone of Bush. Figure that one out.=20
Maybe it's a poor grasp of logic. All of them talk about the=20
necessity of voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the=20
dangerous and repellent Bush, assuming quite unjustifiably that his=20
successor won't be equally or more dangerous and repellent.=20

Radical, if it means anything, should refer to the root of a problem,=20
and given that aggressive foreign policies have been pursued by every=20
administration, and elsewhere in the world, by governments of various=20
political hues, it seems highly unlikely that the drive to war is an=20
anomaly of a group of people in power. It seems far more likely to be=20
systemic, and therefore, the means to stop the drive to war must be=20
systemic, as well. And yet the word, radical, it would seem, now=20
means acting to replace one group of people drawn from the ruling=20
class, who seek to shape the international security order in line=20
with US export and investment interests, with another group of people=20
drawn from the same ruling class, who aim to exercise US power boldly=20
in the tradition of Wilson, Truman and Kennedy, to do the same.=20

Parenti, who talks a militant leftist line, says elections matter,=20
but boasts that he coined the phrase "two-party monopolies" when he=20
wrote, "Democracy For the Few," [17] which would kind of suggest=20
Parenti was thinking that elections don't matter and a vote for the=20
Democrats equals a vote for the Republicans, or if you extend the=20
logic, that the drive to war does not belong uniquely to the=20
Republicans but is owned by the monopoly. So you see elections don't=20
matter, but they do matter. Figure that one out. I can't decide=20
whether Parenti's starting to remind me of a guy who writes cryptic=20
fortune cookie fortunes, or a retired Sprite salesman who's been=20
claiming for the last four decades that Coke and Pepsi are the same,=20
but has just put in a call to the regional Pepsi sales office=20
demanding a Pepsi machine be installed outside his local public gym,=20
because all that's there now is a Coke machine, and he can't stand=20
the taste of Coke.=20

If the US, in Parenti's words, is a democracy for the few, dominated=20
by the super rich like Kerry and Kerry-lite, what difference do=20
elections make? At this point the exponents of the view that=20
elections matter (well, at least this election matters) step forward=20
and say, "Yes, but the Bush Republicans are a particularly vicious=20
wing of the ruling class, and while the Democrats are only marginally=20
better, they are better all the same, and therefore any project that=20
seeks to put a Democrat in the White House is ameliorative."=20

Let's ignore the reality that this is like saying death by guillotine=20
is better than death by hanging, because a hanging death can be long,=20
drawn out, and gruesome, whereas the guillotine is swift and certain=20
and marginally more humane. By this reasoning we're supposed to=20
support death by guillotine and believe we've accomplished something=20
if we thereby avoid the hangman's noose. Either way, you end up with=20
a nasty neck-ache, though on the bright side, it only lasts for a=20
fraction of a second. But I'm not at all sure that the premise --=20
that the Democrats are marginally better -- is sound.=20

It's a canard, really -- part of the mythology of the Democrats. It=20
may have been true seventy years ago, but you'd be hard pressed to=20
show how any Democrat in power has differed from Republicans in power=20
on economic or foreign policy since, and certainly now. And yet the=20
fairy tale lives on, invulnerable to the facts. But then it serves a=20
useful intellectual function - keeping Americans of the political=20
left from wrestling with a vexing and troubling question: What the=20
hell can we do, if we can't vote Democrat? Join the Communist Party?=20
No, they're voting Democrat too.=20

What can be done, is to start to ask why it is that no matter who's=20
in power, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and=20
overseas, conservative or Socialist, foreign and economic policy=20
always seems to head in the same direction: foreign policy is=20
aggressive, and economic policy abets profit-making at the expense of=20
wages, working conditions and social security, as it must. It doesn't=20
seem to be the greed or ignorance or viciousness of a group of people=20
in power that accounts for this uniformity of direction, any more=20
than the greed or ignorance or viciousness of CEOs account for=20
layoffs, which isn't to say that some CEO's aren't greedy or ignorant=20
or vicious, only that it doesn't matter whether they are.=20

It's like baseball. It doesn't matter what the players think of the=20
game, what their aims are, how they feel. All the matters is how many=20
runs are scored. If they underperform, they're benched, sent down to=20
the minors, or sent packing. [18] Imagine a CEO who decides to keep=20
workers on, at the expense of his company's profits. He won't last=20
long, suffering the corporate equivalent of being pulled from the=20
game, banished to the minors, or cut loose from the team.=20

The same applies to leaders of governments in societies integrated=20
into the global capitalist system, dominated materially and=20
ideologically by the business community. If they lean to the Left,=20
chances are they rose to power by progressively bartering away their=20
principles for respectability and votes. [19] They can be counted on=20
to pursue corporate interests at home and abroad. If by some unlikely=20
confluence of events, they have risen to power without first arriving=20
at a modus vivendi with the corporate class, their tenure is likely=20
to be short-lived, and unquestionably rocky. Which means they too=20
will end up like the baseball player who fails to add to the tally of=20
runs -- given a one-way ticket to the bush leagues, or worst.=20

The news, in recent days, offers three examples of leaders who have=20
been sent, or may soon be sent, to the showers.=20

South Korea's President Roh Moo Hyun has been impeached for a minor=20
transgression, tantamount to being shot, according to Kim Dong Yune,=20
a Seoul-based political analyst, for a minor theft. [20] Roh's real=20
crime: He "came to power promising to be South Korea's Robin Hood"=20
and "has embraced a left-leaning agenda over his year in office,=20
including carving out a path more independent of Washington,=20
establishing warmer ties with North Korea and China, and enacting new=20
policies to empower the poor and rein in the rich." Roh "levied more=20
taxes on the rich while spending billions of dollars on new=20
government housing for the poor," [21] something that will never=20
secure him a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.=20

Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power by what was=20
almost certainly a US-engineered coup. He angered the business=20
community by raising the minimum daily wage beyond $1.30, and failed=20
to privatize state-owned enterprises, a definite no-no if you expect=20
to keep your place on the team roster.=20

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, once ousted in a short-lived US-backed coup,=20
hangs on to office despite the fierce opposition of Washington and a=20
domestic business class backed by contributions from the National=20
Endowment for Democracy. John Kerry questions Chavez's commitment to=20
democracy, noting that Chavez is a friend of Fidel Castro. [22] By=20
this reasoning, George Bush must be a military dictator because the=20
US government counts Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf as an ally.=20

Chavez has implemented a program of land reform, imposed a ban on oil=20
privatization, invited Cuban doctors into Venezuela's slums, and is=20
using the state-owned oil firm, Pdvsa, to pursue a social spending=20
program. That's why Washington, and Venezuela's wealthy, are trying=20
to cut him loose from the team.=20

In a word, the problem -- and you had better send the kids out of the=20
room before I say this -- is capitalism. Yeah capitalism, the C-word.=20
Not neo-liberalism, or globalization, or the Washington Consensus, or=20
corporate rule, or any of the other synonyms dreamed up to protect=20
anyone from really striking at the heart of the problem.=20

Radical Left groups say they're opposed to neo-liberalism and against=20
globalization. So are social democrats and a whole lot of liberals,=20
even if social democratic and liberal governments have implemented=20
neo-liberal policies. Like baseball players, it doesn't mater what=20
they think of the game, only whether they play it. So, are some=20
radical Leftists social democrats, or nothing but liberals in=20
disguise? Based on Chomsky's and Parenti's support of Kerry, it's=20
difficult to think they're not.=20

But if capitalism is the problem, rather than the policy choices of=20
Kerry versus those of Kerry-lite -- which are indistinguishable in=20
any important way, anyway -- what can be done? There's nothing that=20
can be done now, but much that can be done on an ongoing basis, most=20
particularly political organization under the direction of a party=20
that has the energy, pluck and resolve to replace the existing system=20
with one that doesn't depend on foreign expansion to resolve its=20
dilemmas and sets the fulfillment of human requirements, not capital=20
accumulation, as the primary purpose of economic activity=20

In the meantime, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to back a=20
candidate who must, and will, carry on in the tradition of the=20
monopoly (to use Parenti's words), with policies as grim, reactionary=20
and aggressive, or more so, than those of the current occupant of the=20
White House. At best, voting for Kerry is a pointless act, and at=20
worst, a backward act, to the extent it fosters the illusion that=20
change can be achieved by changing the name plate on the Oval Office=20
desk. Contrary to the reigning mythology, doing something pointless=20
is not better than doing nothing, where nothing means refusing to=20
cast a ballot for either Thing One or Thing Two. And calling Emperor=20
Moore's, Parenti's and Chomsky's strutting about without their=20
clothes on, what it is, can't hurt either.=20


REFERENCES

1. "Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry," The Guardian, March 20, 2004.=20

2. Ibid.=20

3. Center for Responsive Politics, cited in "The fallacy of=20
the 'anybody but Bush' movement," Workers World, March 25, 2004.=20

4. Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry Tells Anti-War=20
Movement to Move On," CounterPunch, February 18, 2004.=20

5. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left".=20=20

6. John Pilger, "Bush Or Kerry? Look Closely And The Danger Is The=20
Same," New Statesman, March 04, 2004; "The fallacy of the 'anybody=20
but Bush' movement," Workers World, March 25, 2004.=20

7. From Kerry's Web site, as cited in "The fallacy of the 'anybody=20
but Bush' movement," Workers World, March 25, 2004.=20

8. "On foreign policy, Kerry is not far from Bush," The Globe and=20
Mail, March 3, 2004.=20

9. "Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide," The New York=20
Times, March 7, 2004.=20

10. Willian Blum, "If Kerry's the answer, what's the question?"=20
Dissident Voice, March 4, 2004.=20

11. Ibid.=20

12. "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement," Workers World,=20
March 25, 2004.=20

13. Gabriel Kolko, "The US must be isolated and constrained,"=20
CounterPunch, March 12-14, 2004.=20

14. See Note #4.=20

15. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left".

16. Michael Parenti, interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!,=20
February 23, 2004, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?
sid=3D04/02/23/1528222=20

17. Ibid.=20

18. The analogy was originally used by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in=20
Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order,=20
(Monthly Review Press, 1966), p. 41.=20

19. This is paraphrasing Paul Sweezy in The Theory of Capitalist=20
Development (Monthly Review Press, 1970), p. 352.=20

20. "Jubilation, Rage in S. Korea Impeachment of President Exposes=20
Deep Ideological Rift," The Washington Post, March 13, 2004.=20

21. Ibid.=20

22. "Senator John Kerry's Statement on Venezuela," The Miami Herald,=20
March 23, 2004.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Liberation_News/
=20=20
=20=20=20
=20
=20
=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20
=20=20





DAMN THE CROSS!!!=20
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChurchOfTheAntichrist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=20