[lbo-talk] nader and his detractors...

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Oct 8 19:49:18 PDT 2004


Brad wrote:
>Well, I wouldn't counterpose local to national. I see them coupled
>together in a larger strategy for political independence.
>
>Local elections are an excellent training ground - however
>'nonpartisan' - for the organization of an independent progressive
>left. Once an experienced cadre comes into existence, it can then
>direct itself towards the more "partisan" arenas.

Deborah wrote:
>I agree that you don't want to *only* run candidates at local levels
>- too shortsighted - but I have to emphasize that having that strong
>local base, especially in metropolitan communities of any size is
>necessary for development and growth.

I agree with Brad and Deborah that combining local and national campaigns makes eminent sense. I'm only opposed to the idea that the Green Party (or any other third party on the left that may come into being in the future) should concentrate only on local elections, abstaining from national politics.

Justin wrote;
>I also think that third party activities are a waste of time

I never thought that third party activities are totally a waste of time, but I used to think that it wasn't worth much of my time in the USA, especially in that I am not a US citizen, hence lacking in the ability to assist any third party in ballot access efforts. Besides, I'm opposed to electoralism (i.e., focusing on elections to the exclusion of social movement building), to which some third-party activists, not just Democrats, gravitate. Over time, though, I've changed my mind, and I've begun to think that, despite my inability to be a petition circulator or voter until I become a US citizen, I should do what I am legally able to do in order to help grow the Green Party (or another party on the left in the future if the Green Party withers), while countering the tendency toward electoralism. That is because, without actions on the electoral front that complement them, social movements tend to become reduced to either interest-group or one-issue politics, which gets killed or stunted because they cannot go beyond the severe limits imposed by what's acceptable to the Democratic Party.


>real politics requires real compomise

"Compromise" means "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions." Unless social movements on the left are very militant, well organized, and independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties, neither party will make any real concessions to them. When social movements on the left make all concessions with little to nothing in return, that's not "real compromise." That's called surrender. -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list