On Sep 17, 2000 David Barsamian of Alternative Radio posted on the Global Indymedia website, http://indymedia.org, his interview of Sep 10 with Ralph Nader. I posted two comments following the interview, the first on Sep 20, titled, 'An anarchist, but I'll vote "for"Nader', and the second on Sep 25, titled 'Vote the Nader/LaDuke ticket with open eyes'. I am posting the comments independently on this site because I think they may be of general interest.

First comment (Sep 20): An Anarchist, but I'll vote "for" Nader.

      During the VietNam War, when I saw Lyndon Johnson "debating" Barry Goldwater, I decided not to vote. Goldwater, an "honest" reactionary, said he'd "bomb them back to the Stone Age", and Johnson was obviously a damn liar. Since then, when I didn't vote only because I was disgusted, I've become a principled non-believer in so-called representative democracy. I usually express my belief in the illegitimacy of this once-every-four-years farce by not voting. And I generally believe the anarchist slogan, "If you could change things by voting, it would have been made illegal."

      So why is the Nader campaign different? Nader is an unregenerate, committed capitalist ideologue. He is honest, smart, incisive, and principled. He truly believes it is possible to have a decent social order within the framework of global capitalism. He is wrong, but wants to try to move the U.S. in that direction. Down with transnational corporate control! Down with corruption! Down with corporate subsidies! Down with discrimination! With racism! And so on, the whole wonderful liberal litany.

      We easily recall that Nelson Mandela also was a dedicated and honest believer, as were Manley in Jamaica, Arbenz in Guatemala, Salvador Allende in Chile, Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, and others, the intent of each to better the lot of the poor in his society, a goal thwarted in each country by the forces of global capitalism.

      Voting, at this historical moment, is, I believe, important because it can help to further galvanize in our country what the Mexicans call The Civil Society, that is, the non-governmental, non-corporate sector of society. We can make the world a better place, but only from the bottom up, not from the top down. Even if the Green Party could be elected to national leadership, wedded, as it appears to be, to the ideology of the economic/social system of capitalism, it could seek only reforms, not fundamental changes. Desirable, small but temporary gains, yes, but throttled at almost every turn by what Emanuel Wallerstein calls Historical Capitalism. Instead of taking the bull by the horns, the Greens, with Nader out front, are seeking to grab it by the ass.

      I was moved to give up my "principled" position of refusing to vote because of the dramatic results of the Mexican election(s), the Federal election and the Chiapas State election. President-elect Vicente Fox of the right-wing PAN (National Action Party) is not only committed to capitalist ideology; he's a big capitalist himself, high up in the "CocaColonización" of Mexico. But what is significant, may be significant about his victory is the majority-hoped-for dissolution of the PRI's (Institutional Revolutionary Party's) long-standing near-dictatorial control of Mexican society. Whether this will be realized depends not on Fox's ability to change Mexico, but on the continued growth and vitality of the grassroots Mexican Civil Society, and on its radicalization. Now, like all liberal movements, it is demanding the impossible, changes that are impossible from the perspective of the still-dominant forces of capitalism. Like Fox, Nader offers the hope of breaking one-party rule, and that, I hope, will stir enough Americans into action, real grass-roots action, to make voting for the Greens worthwhile. So, what the hell, I'll give it a try.

With no apologies, George

Second comment (Sep 26): Voting the Nader/LaDuke ticket with our eyes open

      It's thrilling to read on Indymedia about the rapidly growing size and enthusiasm of the Green's Nader/LaDuke campaign. On one of the Indysites I came upon an article criticizing Nader's treatment of the staff of the Multinational Monitor (an article I haven't been able to locate again), followed by a fair number of comments. What struck me most strongly was the extent to which the comments showed how effectively even we, probably among those most eager to abolish corporate mind-control of America (after all, who turns to Indymedia besides the Rand creeps working for the War Department on what they call "Cyberwar"?), even we have had our thinking, our terms of reference, shaped by that control.

      The comments were for the most part angry accusations against the person who posted the article, saying how unfair it was that Nader hadn't had a chance to have his say, that the intent of the article was simply to support Gore by dumping on Nader and that, by God! they'd vote for Ralph with even more determination, and how much better he was than either of the official corporate candidates (which is of course so obvious that they won't dare debate him), and so on. Except for an Indian woman, if I remember accurately, who challenged what she saw, I think correctly, as the entire privileged white cast of what issues were being emphasized. How about all the murders on the reservations?, she wanted to know. How come that wasn't up there with the other issues?

      All this line of discussion, it seems to me, misses the essential point. On August 2, 1974, in Tokyo at the 20th World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, George Wald, a wonderful person who happened to have been American, and a Nobel Laureate, put his finger, as always, on the key issue. He said, "Human life is now threatened as never before, not by one but by many perils, each in itself capable of destroying us . . . We could begin to cope with all the problems that now threaten our lives. But we cannot cope with any of them while maximizing profits. And a society that insists before all on maximizing profits for the few thereby threatens disaster for all."

      Clearly, that is precisely what is happening in the current stage of Historical Capitalism. It is destroying life. Our task is not to become caught up in euphoria about a "contest" for the presidency, but to regard the election as an opportunity to mobilize American Civil Society for the long task of hollowing out the structures of capitalism, the forces of death, and building within that structure-to-become-a-shell the society in which we want to live, which we want for ourselves, our children and grandchildren and all the coming generations, a society not of death but of life, to which humankind is entitled.

      So Nader the person is not "the issue." Yes, he is very likely authoritarian, and perhaps arrogant to boot. And probably anti-union when a particular union challenges his power, as the article reported. And he's clearly not a radical thinker, rather a muddled honest liberal who really wants to make the world, or at least the U.S., better. His entire frame of reference, like that of so many of us, is in terms of power, as the following few excerpts from the Barsamian interview of September 10th show, namely:

      "DB. What does it take to get someone from being a gazer and a spectator into being an activist, a citizen in the full sense of the term?"

      "RN. They have to feel that they count, that they can make a difference with their fellow citizens and that they don't feel powerless. The biggest asset of the power brokers who have hijacked our democracy is the feeling among millions of people that they don't matter politically, that they don't count. We've got to overcome that hurdle and get people saying, just like our forebears, We're going to build a progressive political movement for justice in all areas, for workers and environment, consumer and clean politics and the ability of people to have public services and universal health care and the protection and nurturing of childhood.

      "DB. Something like a hundred million Americans don't bother to vote. The conventional wisdom to explain that is that people are apathetic.

      "RN. If you're apathetic, that's the other side of feeling powerless. If you feel powerless, you give out symptoms of apathy. If you give people power, they're no longer apathetic. Almost everybody has a sense of injustice, and they want to correct things, whether it's their own personal grievances with the insurance agent or the local city hall or the local bank or the HMO that denies their kids adequate coverage even though it's been paid for. The issue in politics is power. Who has it, who doesn't have it, who abuses it, who uses it, who needs it.

      "That's what the two major candidates are ignoring. They're ignoring that the issue of the distribution of power and wealth is what the presidential campaigns and what electoral politics has to be all about. Instead, they're squabbling over hypothetical numbers about budget surpluses . . . "

      No doubt about it, Nader thinks power is the name of the game. And it would be better in "our" hands than it is in theirs. It's true, as far as it goes, but that's far from being an adequate vision, if, that is, what we really want is a world without coercive power, without oppressive power, without the vast military system, prison system, C.I.A., F.B.I. and heavily-armed police at every jurisdictional level.

      So, let's vote "for" Nader/LaDuke, but with our eyes open as to how little we're going to be able to gain through the system, even if the "miracle" happens and the Greens' ticket is elected. The first "miracle" happened on July 2nd, when the Mexican people who took part in that election voted No! to the PRI's candidate for President. The second "miracle" was on August 20th, when, in the Zapatistas' home state of Chiapas, the voters who took part in that election said No! to the PRI's candidate for Governor. "Miracle" number three, if it comes to pass in November, will depend on us. Here's hoping the American people who take part in that election say No! to the corporate candidates for president.

      If you are committed to a profound restructuring of American, and world society, the essay Getting Free at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/index.htm is well worth thinking about. Because the entire essay is lengthy, I've also posted the table of contents and the preface separately, at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/C.htm (Contents) and http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/P.htm (Preface).

add your comments [There were several comments posted, one of which claimed that I was in reality a member of the Nader campaign simply lying about my identity as an anarchist in an effort to persuade anarchists to vote the Nader/La Duke ticket, and that my ruse wouldn't work. I can't locate that comment at the moment - Feb.23, 2004]

Learn how the media will Spin this election
by dreamcircle60
4:26pm Tue Sep 26 '00

Spin is an incredibly entertaining and more importantly, incredibly educational documentary detailing the events of 1992, especially the Presidential "Debates"

The movie is there on the page, and it's set up so that it is easy to spread the word about it. If more people were educated on the ways of the media/politicians, we wouldn't be in such a pickle. :)

www.phdepot.com/spin

add your comments

Anarchists For Nader?
by MaRK 7:22am Thu Sep 28 '00
kronstadt@juno.com

      As a revolutionary anarchist, I would never cast my vote to any representative of the State, no matter how progressive their politics may seem on the surface. I cannot in any way support George Salzman's decision to openly urge other anarchists to follow his lead and support Ralph Nader for president. However, since I consider George a dedicated anarchist and a good friend, I will confirm that he is indeed who he says he is, and not some Green Party activist exploiting anarchist influence within the anti-globalization movement in an effort to support Nader.

      Unfortunately, we have been in a period of reaction for so long, even the liberals and opportunists look radical at this point... Regardless of the rhetoric, Nader is and always will be a capitalist who has no intention of rocking the boat of class relations. He is a millionaire and a union buster, and, much like Al Gore, he holds considerable stock within Fidelty Investments (Fidelity Magellan), the investment corporation targetted for it's investments within Occidental Petroleum.

      As the age-old saying goes, "whoever you vote for, government wins". Something for any anarchist to remember before casting a ballot (even a protest ballot) this November.

      To quote the once famous, but now long forgotten Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani (who lived in the Boston area for an extended period of his life):

      "The anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in the State. And this distrust, which is instinctive in the working masses, is for the anarchists the result of their historical experience with the State and its function, which has, at all times and in all places, resulted in a selfish and exclusive protection of the ruling classes and their privileges. [Anarchist abstentionism] strips the State of the constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character as representative, procurer, and protector of the ruling classes."
--MaRK (Sabate Anarchist Group)

add your comments

Response to some comments,
by George Salzman
9:46pm Sun Oct 1 '00
This refers to comments posted by Mark Lasky on Sept 21 and 26, and by Vindaloo Pete on Sept 21

Dear Mark,

      I appreciate, but disagree with, your principled rejection of my decision to vote "for" Nader. Like you, I consider myself a revolutionary anarchist, specifically of the Kropotkin school. In my view, it will remain impossible to make a better world until hundreds of millions of the world's people understand in more than an intuitive way why the global social order that dominates all our lives is so terrifyingly destructive, and they become determined to replace global capitalism with a non-hierarchical social structure based not on coercive power but on love and mutual aid as a natural, healthy and humane way for humans to live with dignity and in peace.

      My reason for voting "for" the Nader/LaDuke ticket is, as explained, unrelated to their "positions." I do not regard their politics "progressive", "liberal", or "opportunistic". They do not look "radical" to me. I did know that Nader is a millionaire and that in one instance, that of the staff of The Multinational Monitor, he was opposed to unionization. I did not know, but am not surprised to learn of his stock in Fidelity Investments.

      As for your statement, "Nader is and always will be a capitalist who has no intention of rocking the boat of class relations", it is conceivable (though unlikely) that his views will change in the future, but I'm not hopeful, nor holding my breath. I stated explicitly, "Nader is an unregenerate, committed capitalist ideologue." And later, "Yes, he is very likely authoritarian, and perhaps arrogant to boot. And probably anti-union when a particular union challenges his power, as the article reported. And he's clearly not a radical thinker…" And later, "Nader thinks power is the name of the game." So, I don't believe I'm under illusions of "what a 'great candidate' or potential 'great leader' he is!"

      Only by comparison to the two schmucks the corporations are offering as "our" choices does the Nader/LaDuke ticket look so good, which is why so many liberals, progressives, and even the United Electrical, Radio, & Machine Workers of America (UE), a really good union, are supporting it. My reason is different: As I said, "Nader the person is not 'the issue'." I acknowledged my belief that "He is honest, smart, incisive, and principled. He truly believes it is possible to have a decent social order within the framework of global capitalism. He is wrong, but wants to try to move the U.S. in that direction." And, I credited him with being a "muddled honest liberal who really wants to make the world, or at least the U.S., better. His entire frame of reference, like that of so many of us, is in terms of power." Here we may disagree. Perhaps you would not credit him with any positive qualities. I am willing to do so, although it is not relevant to my decision.

      I think it is more important for us to try to get our ideas into active consideration by millions of people in the U.S. than it is to stick to an unquestioned belief -- almost like a dogma -- in the futility of voting under any and all circumstances. We ought not be contemptuous of liberals, other radicals, or even of conservatives, many of whom are good, decent, honest people who really want to make the world better, but don't know how to go about it, and think voting is the about the only constructive thing they can do. "Greens" should be seen in that light too, I think, not as dupes of the system. Of course within their ranks are crass opportunists, I'm sure. But that ought not dissuade us from trying to open a dialogue.

      Finally, you quote Luigi Galleani, who if I recall correctly, headed up the defense committee, largely centered in Boston's old North End, to try to prevent the murder, by the so-called Commonwealth (What a misnomer!) of Massachusetts, of those two great Italian people, Bartolomeo Vanizetti and Nicolo Sacco, immigrant anarchists deeply despised by the ruling "blue-bloods." I hate the state with all the passion imaginable. I understand the nation-state to be part and parcel of the "advanced" stage of what Emmanuel Wallerstein calls Historical Capitalism, the major instrument of international terror abroad in the world today. But that is not inconsistent with my voting against the growing corporate domination of the world, and encouraging the growth in the U.S. of a powerful movement of Civil Society. Galleani notwithstanding, I am in no way acting to legitimate the state. We disagree only on what is best to do, or not do, in this instance, and that is a matter of judgement. In solidarity, --George

To: Vindaloo Pete
4:48am Thu Sep 21 '00.
Posted comment "Give Us a Break."

      I suggest you try reading what I wrote, not only the first comment, which was posted on Sept 20th, but also the second comment, which appeared (with the first) on Sept 26th. The site was having difficulty posting things at the earlier time. Your comment does not show any understanding of my position. Moreover, if there's any belief that I am a "Nader Staffer" or that there is someone "behind" what I wrote, I suggest you look at my website, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/index.htm. If you do so, you will see that your concluding remark, "To Nader Staffer behind this: Nice try, but it's not going to work!" is not worth a response.

Sincerely,
George

add your comment

Return to the opening page of the Other writings sub-folder
Return to the opening page of the Strategy for Revolution folder
Return to the opening page of the Website