<html> (Sigh) What a mass of (typically American leftist) confusion.  Pure pragmatism. It rather nicely encapsulates several key points of confusion (let there be 1000 points of confusion!) and is therefore worth a reply. But not now, I have work to do.  Suffice to say that the failure to understand the singular importance of electoral politics in the US today is to not realize that,  for a large mass of americans, the formal electoral system is the extant of their own political life, and the Presidental election is the SuperBowl of that life.  Under these conditions, the extent that this mass perceives the simple existence of an independent left (they don't have to love us, at least not yet) is the measure of our actual independent existance.  If we aren't willing to appear before the masses (now there is an olde but goodie!) in a form closer to our own beliefs - which requires that we clearly demarcate ourselves form conservative capitalist political forms (Dems & Repubs), then what the hell are we in this for?  And the form is important when it comes to practice. And the q. of political organization IS that form.  It doesn't take a biblical reading from a Trotsky playbook to figure this out.  These are basic "pre-Marxist" political concepts, just as the current WTO/Nader/Green/ect. is pre-socialist. Electoral politics is not being discussed as some magical cure-all for Left independence.  And if the political situation were to drastically change such that millions of americans actually had an interesting political life - like if tens of millions of american workers suddenly took to the streets in political demonstrations - then I'd drastically demote the importance of electoral politics and change course. Hell, it only took 40,000 in Seattle and 4% for Nader to send people into a tizzy! -Brad Mayer Oakland, CA   At 02:08 PM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite cite>----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Mage" <shmage@pipeline.com> Nathan wrote: "...I'm not making a big case for the revolutionary gains from voting Democratic.  All I'm arguing is there is no revolutionary gain from voting alternatives and there are non-revolutionary losses in the marginal reforms progressive Dems are able to pass on occasion..." -The point you consistently miss is that "revolutionary gains," if the -phrase has any meaning, has  a *historical* meaning.  The historical -prerequisite for a proletarian revolutionary movement anywhere -is the emergence of an independent -workingclass political movement. Yep, no argument - what does that has to do with the ballot box?  As Charles notes, no revolutionary movement of any kind built itself up primarily around leadership primarily aimed at electoral action.  In fact, such an electorally-based movement is inherently dangerous since such leadership has the opportunity to assume political office and gain prestige and power independent of the financial and political support of its members. Yes, there has to be an independent political organization dedicated to socialism, feminism, antiracism, antihomophobia, global justice, and radical democracy etc. etc.  Again, what does that have to do with pulling a lever or punching a chad every two years?  If there is such a broadbased powerful movement, it could run its own candidates in the Democratic, Republican or any party it felt like and whatever made sense tactically. That's the advantage of real movements- they don't hold their breath and demand particular symbolic actions.  They evaluate the movement day-to-day and like any good guerilla army, adjust their tactics to seize power whereever they see a breech in the defenses of the opposition.  Any time I hear someone say there is a particular tactic that a revolutionary movement "must" follow, I know that ain't any leader I want to follow into battle. And if we don't already have a strong organization of leftists (which we don't have yet), it won't emerge out of electoral struggles.  Never has and never will given the structure of the US electoral system.  That's not an accident- our electoral system was designed to frustrate such issue-based movements; it's right there in the propertied owners manual known as FEDERALIST PAPERS 10.  I know Trotsky or whoever made it verbotem to ever have intimate contact with a Democratic voting line, but I prefer Marx's much more flexible political opinions on adjusting electoral tactics to the realities of particular countries. And I prefer separating the overall socialist organizations from purely electoral tactics.   Since any candidate has to win 50% of the vote in a geographic area, to tie socialist organizing to the ballot is to have no effective political options until we already have organized  a majority of the population.   It's stupid to limit your political effectiveness with such a high bar of initial success. A socialist organization can win many battles without an initial majority support - from unions to community struggles to building alternative media. What it can't do is win elections, so why tie such an organization to a particular ballot line that is doomed to failure and thereby frustration of its supporters? -- Nathan Newman </blockquote></html>