Ralph Nader (like Michael Moore, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and so on) is a leftist, though he is not a socialist, much less a Marxist -- which shouldn't be hard to comprehend unless you think that the only variety of leftists that exist in the United States are socialists or Marxists.
You are mistaken to believe that Marxists who support the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo campaign, including Anthony Arnove and yours truly, are supporting him because we fail to recognize that Nader is neither a socialist nor a Marxist -- if you actually believe what you are saying, that is.
If you knew anything about the politics of Anthony Arnove in particular or the ISO in general (or other socialists and socialist organizations such as Solidarity that support Nader/Camejo), you would know that socialists who support Nader/Camejo do so because Nader/Camejo's platform <http://votenader.org/issues/index_home.php> mostly consists of timely transitional demands such as demands for universal health care and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq that are supported by broad sectors of the working class and our allies, therefore serving as a vehicle for mobilization; because the Democratic Party finds it easier to demobilize and depoliticize activists in election years if we present no alternative (which expresses the demands of social movements in the electoral arena) to it; and because we find ourselves largely in agreement with Peter Camejo about what the Green Party is not yet and what it should become, working with Camejo on the Avocado Education Project even before Nader formally announced his candidacy.
The national Green Party, as well as many (perhaps all) of the state Green Parties, has yet to become committed to a perspective that the Green Party has to grow out of, and in turn help grow, social movements; nor has it acquired capacity to do so yet. That's what Camejo and his Green allies want to change. At the same time, they are trying to bring together various political currents (not just Green Party members) committed to independent political action that is not circumscribed by what the Democratic Party elite (who express ruling-class interests) allow.
Here's what Camejo has to say about the above two points in his interview with Ernest Tate:
<blockquote>The Green Party has a membership in the order about half a million people. It is increasingly becoming a big centre of progressive activity, but only electorally. The Green Party is not very active at other levels.
The anti-war demonstrations are organized by people who are mainly outside our organization. The Green's support the demonstrations, but doesn't take the leadership of them. The Green Party is a rainbow of opinions about of a lot of issues that have come together within a single organization. There's been a recent shift in the approach of other progressive and left organizations, but until now they have not become members of the Green Party. That's now beginning to happen. They're following what Solidarity did in joining us. I think others will too. But I think there's some feeling among progressives that the Green Party has too many internal problems and difficulties and that it may not be the instrument that they think can be most effective in making social change.
At this stage I'm urging everyone to join the Green Party and help us fight to keep it independent of the Democrats and to democratize its internal structure and deepen its involvement in the community, for example, in the unions. We have tens of thousands of members in California's unions, but we have yet to organize them. We have been trying to organize caucuses in the unions and this, I think, is how the next period could go if more forces keep joining.
We are making headway among Latinos, especially in California. We feel it's possible we could become an arena in which different progressive groups begin to work together to build an alternative force against those who favour the government's policies towards labour.
Ninety percent of our people, in the last few years, have made no financial gain when you make adjustments for inflation, in a period in which the GDP of the United States has risen more than ever in its history. At this moment, profit margins are now the largest ever in the history of the United States. Corporations are now paying the lowest tax rate they've ever paid. They once paid 33% of all our taxes; now they're only paying 7.8%. Meanwhile the minimum wage has dropped from $8.15 to $5.15, adjusted for inflation.
But there are changes happening where the Green Party has had influence. In one city, because we elected a person to one position, we were able to have the minimum wage raised to $10.50, and in another to $8.50.
We have also succeeded in giving the right to undocumented workers to vote, a democratic right that's now on the ballot because of the influence of the Green Party in San Francisco. We can see the beginnings of an alternative political force emerging, and it would be good to have all those who are doing work in other areas to come into the Green Party and work together.
But there is no unanimity on this. For example, we have a party in California called the Peace and Freedom Party which has about 70,000 registered members. While we're starting to work together -- in my campaign I'm welcoming one of their candidates to speak with me at all my meetings -- we have yet to bring our two forces together.
The Green Party has 160,000 members in California and the Peace and Freedom Party has 70,000. Therefore, there are about a quarter of a million people in California who have clearly broken from the Democratic and Republican Parties. That lays the basis for the beginning of a movement that will fight for social justice. ("Ernest Tate interviews Peter Camejo," September 8th, 2004, <http://www.marxsite.com/Camejo%20Interview.htm>)</blockquote>
That's roughly the political direction that we support, recognizing that it will continue to be an uphill struggle to move the Greens and others in that direction together.
Postscript:
After many impassioned debates, Solidarity members (having voted down two alternative motions) settled on the following position: "Motion on the 2004 Elections, Passed by the Tenth Solidarity National Convention, held July 30-August 1 in Atlanta, Georgia," <http://www.solidarity-us.org/2004Elections.html>. I'm sure such discussions went on among other socialists. The ISO's position -- "We Deserve Better than Bush vs. Kerry: We're Voting for Nader-Camejo," <http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/518/518_01_NaderCamejo.shtml> -- is roughly in the same camp as Solidarity's. The main socialist organizations that, as organizations, came out for Nader/Camejo appear to be the ISO and Solidarity.
Freedom Road Socialist Organization's emphasis on the importance of maintaining "the independence of the anti-war, anti-occupation movement from the elections" (" Building the Anti-War/Anti-Occupation Movement in 2004," <http://www.freedomroad.org/antiwar_statement_2004mar.html>) is very welcome; even though FRSO (not unexpectedly) is calling for voting for Kerry, it does include the following thought: "The U.S. electoral system gives the people limited choices. It's a given that the Democrat Party - the other party of the rich - typically does the bidding of whoever gives them the most money. It is a political party of the corporate elite. In the final analysis, all really important political issues are decided by struggle. No one elected in the next presidential elections is going to bring the American people, or any one else for that matter, peace and prosperity. Over the long run we need independent political action that is hostile to the parties of the rich" ("Dump Bush! Stop the War at Home and Abroad!" <http://www.frso.org/docs/dumpbush.htm>). How long a run will FRSO's "long run" be? Stan Goff, whose column "Military Matters" FRSO publishes, says, "I have a bumper sticker that says 'Nader-Camejo 2004,' and I wouldn't vote for John Kerry right now if you offered to pay my mortgage off and send my kids through college" ("Wake Up and Smell the Jungle Rot," <http://www.counterpunch.org/goff09142004.html>), though. Will FRSO be moving into Stan's direction in the near future?
The Workers World Party, alas, is running its own socialist candidate, but it has been critical of liberals' subservience to the Democratic Party ("The scurrilous attacks on Nader, regardless of how his campaign ultimately plays out, reveal the subservient nature of the liberals. They agree with him on the war, the Patriot Act, monopoly domination and so on, but they demand that he and everybody else remain within the confines of the two imperialist parties that have brought such devastation to the workers and oppressed over the last century," <http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/elections0304.php>). Its support of the Million Worker March -- the first serious mobilization which it did what it could to support the action initiated and controlled by the Black labor left, rather than by the Workers World Party or its allied organization created and led by its members -- is a novel and promising development.
Socialists in the aforementioned organizations, as well as other socialists and non-socialists who find one or more of the above perspectives congenial, should be getting together and developing shared understanding. -- 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/>