: I can't believe anybody who considers themselves progressive or socialist or anything--even liberal--could vote for Clinton or Democrat. Clinton's single contribution to history should, in my opinion, be that he was the final nail in the coffin of American Liberalism. : That being said, I disagree with people who stay away from the polls. I know it's not a catchy phrase, but: We commies must vote in bourgeois elections!
Let us recall the most momentous 'democratic movement' of the 20th century: the universal suffrage movement. Granting half of the country voting rights was considered revolutionary at the time. The 'female perspective' would either 'feminize' America into ruin or salvation, depending on whose polemics were aired throughout the late 1910s.
The result was Calvin Coolidge, the politician famous for saying that 'the business of American is business'---and famous for overseeing the rapacious, merger-crazed business climate that led to the most severe financial panic in the history of the bourgeoisie, the Great Depression.
In short: the 'revolutionary' 'feminization' [read: reformism] of America was a hype.
The moral: no matter WHO is voting, or WHY, the 'democratic process' is never democratic unless the people decide WHICH choices to have in the first place.
To simply get to choose between choices already made (and thus limited) is a veneer of democracy at best. And that?s what 'we commies' like Fred---who think capital is defined by its quantity, not its quality---offer working people. A veneer.
Over half of America has not voted for a generation.
Some interpret this as candidate satisfaction, others as apathy. I say it's a grassroots boycott, a nascent working class condemnation of the class rule of the bourgeoisie.
'Commies' like myself think THIS mass dissatisfaction is the kernel of class revolution.
Let us work our way to an election where 75% of the nation rejects the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Give it focus. Give it leadership. And give it guns.
Workers of the World Unite!
None.
