From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: Marxism (was Re: Pessimism
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:34:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct7.161938.4530@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.033854.23078@microsoft.com>,
>chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.181741.26913@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct1.004932.27961@gagme.chi.il.us>,
>>>.
>>>In regards to the above:  the reason why I think so many Silicon
>>>Valley nouveau riche here in California and elsewhere are ponying so
>>>much moolah to Clinton is that they feel threatened by the
>>>disparities between rich, middle-class and poor.  Now it's only rich
>>>and poor.  Folks are beginning to look real hard at WHY, and that
>>>puts the rich on the hot seat.  Better back this cornpone dude no
>>>matter how much you hold your nose. The alternative may be their
>>>ass.  Plus, no body likes Bush, the phony!
>>
>>
>>
>>Clinton's economic program will not redistribute wealth with is what is
>>necessary for the economic mess to be repaired.  Clinton defines the
>>middle class as income below $200,000.  This is ridiculous when the MEDIAN
>>income is below $30,000.  While Clinton may throw people a bone with more
>.
>(Stuff deleted here for brevity's sake.)
>.
>.
>Don't you think I don't know about some of this stuff here?  I don't
>take back anything I said, especially about folks holding their
>noses as they vote.

I don't think you should take back anything. My point is that if the rich in 
Califorinia believe that voting for Clinton will provided them security from
the pervasive poverty & its social pathology IMHO they are mistaken.  Clinton's
economic program fall short of what is needed to repair the economy of the 
cities.  I followed the Clinton camapaign since the DLC conference was aired
last year on C-SPAN.  Some of Clinton's early speeches contained some degree
of substanced but as the campaingn progress and as I learned more about the 
DLC I realized it was same-old-shit.  I didn't like the way Dukasis campaigned
in 1988 and I refused to vote the same way again.  This year I rather vote
for what I want and what I feel this country need and lose than vote for what
I don't want and still lose.  However  I fully respect those who vote for 
Clinton == !Bush;


>
>Look, there was the documentary that came out re The Kennedys on
>PBS last week or so.  While their shit, unconfirmed or not, has hit
>the wind publicly, can anyone now, in hindsight, think that Nixon
>was a sure alternative in 1960 to Kennedy? Give me a break.  Just
>who do you suggest as a viable person to run this country?  I count
>myself as progressive, too, and I also believe that this is the last
>chance I'm giving the system as run so far to choose a president.
>In this, I join my girl Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, who said
>this is the last white boy she's voting for.

[stuff removed]

As I allueded to above, there comes a time when one has to say "I'm mad as hell 
and I'm not going to take it anymore."  I support the Ron Daniels candidacy 
because his platform and political ideology match mines.  Notice how Bush
embraced his ideological base while Clinton alienated his.  His base is the 
transnational corporation and Clinton educational and economic program puts
corporations first not people.  He rather transform the society into one that
services the wishes of the transnationals rather than reversing that trend
and have the transnationals serve the people.  This is what an ecomonic system
is supposed to do.

I ask you Gabrielle, when will you stop holding your nose? Pat Buchanan plans
to run in 1996.  The point is there will always be an evil to vote against and
the Democrats have exploited this to maintain their viability as a party and
to lock in the progressive vote.  There is no time like the present for 
progressive to began anew and form their own base of support.  This has been 
the major theme of the Daniels campaign.  Daniels spearheaded the People's
Progressive Convention in Ypsilanti, Michigan this past August to bring 
progressive organizations together.

The real issue of the 1992 election is the NOT the poor state of our economy
it is the sorry state of our democratic (small 'd') institution and it is in 
this context that ecomonic decisions are made and whose voice is represented
within these institutions.  As it now stands they are the transnational and
the wealthy elites.

ChrisWa.    
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american