dave lindork

Doesn’t bother me. I voted with eyes open. Like it or not, things would be much worse under McCain. I look at things the way I’d have looked at them in 1933 CGermany. Would we have been better off voting back then for the socialists, sell out and corrupt as they were at the time? Damned straight we would have been. Would they have posssibly joined in a Western European and American assault on the Soviet Union. Probably. Maybe not. But Hitler was clearly the worse alternative.
Under McCain, the march to American fascism would have continued. Now at least there’s some space.
I’m not one of those who believes that you progress forward by "making the contradictions worse."
As for third parties, I’ve written a piece on that. Just scroll down on my website. I think the answer is using the current crisis to build a mass movement and to strengthen and radicalize the labor movement. But third parties by themselves are a waste of time.



On 2/26/09 12:05 PM wrote:

So Dave Lindorff, how's that vote you casted for Obama working out for you?


maria pinko


first of all, let me congratulate pinko on calling lindorff on his vote. if i were him, i would have taken the opportunity to ask him why his name ends with two f's, but one can't have it all. silberg reminded me that i also challenged king david at one time in a blog ironically titled "dave vs dave." one could refer to that, as could two or three, but for now, i would like to respond to lin-dork's response to the pink man, who can then respond in kind, or in mean, or in whatever mode he prefers. or he can call two people, and they can call two people, and then someone can run up a big phone bill.

lindork starts off by telling us that his vote "doesn't bother him." well, he has sounded agitated in his recent articles. so, he voted with "eyes wide open." i would think so; otherwise, he might have circled the wrong box. here, lindork is basically saying "i know i voted for an asshole, but one who is not as much of an asshole as the guy i didn't vote for." sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't impress me. perhaps he knows it's weak, as he then mentions the german election of 1933. of course the reader sees that and is supposed to think "well, of course i would have voted in that election." funny, but i don't recall mccain drawing up plans to invade russia and to round up and kill millions of american citizens. yes, mccain was a stiff and he likely would have been worse than obama, but that doesn't mean that the 2008 election in the u.s was akin to the german election of 1933.

supposedly, we are always marching toward fascism, but we never actually reach it. we are a militaristic society controlled by corporate power. essentially, that's what fascism is. no, we are not a bunch of crazed nazis. no, fascism isn't the only element that dominates within our society. but elements of fascism certainly exist here. we see it in the warfare state. we see it in the prison system. we see it in corporate domination. we see it in institutionalized racism.

with obama, there is supposedly "some space." is there space for the pakistanis being blown up by pilotless drones? is there space for venezuela? is there space for afghanistan? is there space for the poor and homeless and uninsured and unemployed and imprisoned? they tell us that electing democrats give us "space," that they are not fascist, and the like. tell it the vietnamese. tell it to the japanese. tell it to the serbs.

the answer is always to build mass movements. if that is the case, then why did lindorff bother to vote at all, since voting is clearly "not the answer?" lindorff says that third parties have no significance compared to building social movements, but who says the two are mutually exclusive? eugene debs ran for president on a third party ticket, and was a leader of the labor and anti-war movements. does lindorff think it "meant nothing" for debs to run for president, and it "meant nothing" to vote for him? of course, there were lindorks then too, who argued that the democrats had to be supported, despite debs's presence in the election, as there were those in 1948 who said the same about truman, despite the exciting third party run of henry wallace. truman had already destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki, but no matter; it was still important to elect him in order to "hold back fascism" and to allow the american people "some space." a year later, he had us in korea, and a couple more million people would be killed.

in any case, we can have third parties and build mass movements. in fact, movements should run third party candidates. they should fund them, support them, and vote for them. then, maybe they won't be third parties anymore. wouldn't lindork rather vote for someone that represents his views? oh yeah, i forgot; his vote doesn't bother him. in any case, the way to build movements is to go out and build them. you don't do this by voting for candidates who will then go and work against the very movements you are attempting to build. you don't build a peace movement by voting for someone who pledged to bomb, and has since bombed, pakistan and afghanistan, threatens iran and venezuela, and blindly supports israel. you don't build a labor movement by voting for someone who endorses throwing billions of dollars at banks. you don't build a poor people's movement by voting for someone who never mentions the poor, and has nothing to offer them.

people like lindork tell us we are unreasonable, but how reasonable is it to vote for people who don't represent your views? so, if third parties, "by themselves," are a waste of time, let us get to work and build movements that will make third parties well worth the time. and one way to make them worth the time is by voting for them. lin-dork, don't you see that it's a self fulfilling prophecy? you say that third parties are a waste of time, then you don't vote for them, thereby proving that they are indeed a waste of time.

but they aren't a waste of time, dave.

you are.