Voice of Revolution

State of the Union Makes Clear

Organize for a New Direction for the U.S.

Across the country people from all walks of life are expressing their rejection of the current direction of the country. Many are joining anti-war actions and affirming the just stand of the majority: We do not want or need a war president and war government. We want and need an anti-war president and government. Workers are taking action to defend their rights, as are youth, women and national minorities. Immigrants are in the fore demanding that their rights and the rights of all be respected. The demand for change is so insistent that both Democrats and Republicans include it in their slogans, as they attempt to hijack this demand for change and turn it against the people.

Voice of Revolution and the collectives organized around it will be initiating public forums in the coming period to address this drive for change. We will be organizing to involve people in investigating conditions of life and work across the country so that everyone can grasp and occupy the space for change that exists to renew society and avert the disasters that the rich have in store. We will be analyzing the conception of change presented by the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans and the content of the change being demanded by the people — to change the direction of the economy and the country to favor the interests of the people here and abroad.

President George W. Bush’s State of the Union very purposefully ignores the conditions of life and work, and refuses to analyze the economy as it exists — its inherent contradictions, its problems and most importantly the need to change the direction of the economy to serve the interests of the working class and people. Far from it, Bush attempts to do everything to convince people to put all the assets of the country, especially all public funds, in the service of the U.S. monopolies and their striving to be kings of the world. His speech and budget include more funding for war and aggression abroad and more repression at home. They include intensifying the anti-social offensive of the government, with more cuts to education, healthcare and attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Bush and the Republicans are not alone in this effort. In fact, it is the Democrats who are the main ones putting forward the banner of “change” so as to have “One America.” Hillary Clinton put it this way, "I see an America where our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, where prosperity is shared." Barack Obama said, “This election is about the past versus the future. It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.” John Edwards in abandoning his campaign, presented as a fight for economic justice and against corporate greed said, “This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you, once again. And we will lift you up with our dream of what’s possible. One America, one America that works for everybody.”

What is this conception of change the Democrats have in mind, and what are the arrangements already being put in place to secure — by force as needed — “One America,” of, by and for the rich? We call on all workers to examine this conception of change so that everyone can grasp what is going on and develop their resistance in a way that opens a path to progress.

According to the Democrats, there are no classes and no class differences in the country. The fact that the federal and state government consistently stand against the working class and people and do so with increasing force and brutality is to be ignored, replaced with a “shared vision” of “shared prosperity.” We are not to correlate the facts about what is actually going on, which people are seeing more and more, based on the impact of the anarchy, chaos and monopoly competition inherent in the monopoly capitalist economy of the country. The working people are also supposed to negate their direct experience of the billions of public funds handed over to the rich, in the name of providing “opportunity” and “prosperity.” People’s experience is that there is not trickle-down prosperity, there is trickle-down homelessness. Their experience is massive attacks on healthcare and education and now massive foreclosures and impoverishment. Major industrial cities like Cleveland and Detroit are examples of how the monopolies ruthlessly enrich themselves by exploiting our labor and resources and then leave the workers and entire cities to die. And then the government comes in to say giving yet more funds to these same monopolies will change conditions.

The working class and people are fighting for change that favors their interests. To win this fight, it is necessary to break out of the limits imposed by the rich — limits that say their economy and system are the only possible alternatives. There are alternatives, the direction of the economy and country can and must be changed. It is the working class and people fighting to defend their rights and build a society that does the same that can open the path to progress.

Voice of Revolution encourages all to join in investigating and deliberating on these matters, to challenge the current arrangements of governance and come forward with our own vision, a vision in the image and interests of the working class and people.

[TOP]

Bush State of the Union

A Call to Further Eliminate the Responsibility of Government to Society

President George W. Bush delivered his last State of the Union address January 28. It is perhaps notable more for what is absent in the speech than for what is present. Absent is any serious analysis of the actual state of the union — particularly the increasing failure of the economy to meet the needs of the people and the responsibility of government to contend with these problems by respecting the rights of the people. There is a complete refusal to analyze the economy itself and explore how economic problems can be sorted out by putting the assets of the economy in the service of the people and society as a whole. Given this refusal, the only response is that of feeding the crisis by handing over even more billions in public funds to the monopolies. For Bush, in particular, this takes the form of more tax breaks for the monopolies and more corporate welfare of various kinds. Bush mentioned, for example, the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). ACI is supposed to provide $50 billion in public funds for research for the private monopolies and another $86 billion in research and development (R&D) tax breaks over the next ten years. Bush complained that Congress has not yet funded the initial $10 billion in ACI corporate welfare slated for 2007-08.

Similarly, when Bush spoke to U.S. wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no presentation of the facts, no information as to the role of this aggression and the unending crimes committed, which harm the peoples of the world and threaten world war. Bush had literally no solutions in regards to eliminating U.S. aggression and again demanded that it continue, including again, threatening to unleash another illegal war against Iran.

The Pentagon and its war machine now get $700 billion yearly, an amount greatly weakening the economy and harming the peoples abroad and at home. With the arrogance and chauvinism of the ruling class, Bush calls for more war and more war funding — which contributes to poverty, hunger and disease — then proclaims the U.S. is “leading the fight” against global poverty, hunger and disease. He also presents these as problems that only exist abroad, and not at home, even though all are actually increasing across the country. Bush also speaks to the paltry amounts the U.S. provides, such as $30 billion over the next five years for fighting AIDS.

According to the United Nations, by simply diverting one year of the Pentagon budget, significant progress could be made in reducing poverty, hunger and disease worldwide. But no such discussion is permitted. Bringing all U.S. troops home now, so as to drastically cut the Pentagon budget while also ending occupations and allowing peoples worldwide to breath a little easier, is also not to be discussed. The role of imperialism and its striving for empire as the source of problems, and its elimination as a key part of solutions, is most certainly not addressed as a viable alternative.

In presenting the state of the union, it is the responsibility of government to address these issues and justify its path. And while perhaps few had such expectations from Bush and the government, certainly it is just such information and analysis and discussion among the people that is needed at this time. People across the country feel the urgency of the current situation, anger with the path the country is on and the necessity to change the direction of the economy and the country as a whole. What changes in the economy and governance are necessary to put the economy in the service of the people? To have foreign relations of mutual respect and fraternal unity of the peoples? How can the work now being done to politically empower the people be taken further, so as to develop new institutions of democracy? These are key problems people are taking up for solution.

Government Abandoning Responsibility to Society in the Name of Empowering Individuals

President Bush does have an inkling about the drive of the people for empowerment. He repeatedly used the term “empowerment” in his speech. In doing so, he attempted to take this demand of the people for their political empowerment — their right to govern and decide the direction of the economy and society — and use it against the people. Indeed, his is a call for the government to go even further in abandoning its responsibility to society. Government is not to take responsibility for respecting and guaranteeing the rights of the people at home and abroad, but instead, individuals are to be “empowered” to essentially fend for themselves.

In his speech Bush says, “In all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.” It sounds like he plans to empower the people to “make wise decisions” about their lives and their future. But in his very next sentence he says, “We must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy.” Thus, with the blink of an eye, workers, who produce the wealth, are turned into individual consumers whose money will “grow the economy.” The role of government then is to put a few hundred dollars into the hands of consumers. This is the content of the stimulus plans of Bush and Congress.

Actual decisions about the economy itself, its direction, what the wealth is used for and who benefits are all left in the dark. This is the actual content necessary for “wise decisions.” Workers are producers, not consumers, and it is their production that drives the economy. Indeed, the productivity of U.S. workers has greatly increased in the past period, but they, and society as a whole, have not benefited — only the handful of monopoly owners have. It is workers, as the producers of wealth, who must be empowered to decide problems of the economy, so that they can actually be solved.

Bush also talks about workers in relation to trade. And again the U.S. government is acting not on behalf of the workers and world’s peoples, but on behalf of the monopolies. He says, “We must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas.” He then calls for more “free trade” agreements, agreements already well known for devastating workers abroad and here, while greatly enriching the monopolies and their positions of domination worldwide. It is not workers who are “empowered” by new markets and succumbing to the demand to make the U.S. monopolies competitive in the global markets. They are instead disempowered and pitted against their fellow workers on a global scale.

Interestingly, when Bush speaks of the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, there is no mention of empowerment. Instead, a main instrument of the ruling circles to further exploit and divide the peoples and militarize all of North America is mentioned. The next meeting of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), bringing together the heads of state from the U.S., Mexico and Canada, is to meet in New Orleans in April. This means Bush will once again come to occupy the city with police and military, at a time when the people of New Orleans and activists from across the country are together fighting for the right to return and rebuild in the city. Let Bush beware that just as in previous meetings in Mexico and Canada, the peoples will stand as one to organize to oppose and denounce the SPP as an instrument of U.S. annexation and militarization.

Bush also addresses the lack of healthcare in the U.S. by saying “we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options.” He adds that the best way to do this is “expanding consumer choice, not government control.” Again, human beings needing healthcare are not human beings with rights, but consumers with choices. The lack of healthcare in the U.S. is not a crime of the government, but a failure of the consumers to make better choices! Government responsibility to meet the right of all to healthcare is not only non-existent, it is said to be “government control” and negative.

When it comes to education, according to Bush, “we must trust students to learn if given the chance and empower parents to demand results from our schools.” What parent, teacher and youth has not been demanding and fighting for quality public schools?! The problem is precisely that they are not empowered to make the decisions and they are not backed by government taking responsibility to fund the schools at the levels required. Bush says not a word about the massive cuts and wrecking of education that everyone across the country is experiencing, with more on the way, as cities and states contend with the impact of more poverty, unemployment and housing foreclosures.

In perhaps the clearest example of government refusal to meet the needs of the people, Bush says, “We must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need.” Volunteer service is to replace government responsibility for those most vulnerable. And in case anyone missed this direction of government abandoning responsibility, Bush also calls for making cuts to the bare minimum the government currently provides to the elderly and poor — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Clearly, volunteer service will solve this problem!

Bush’s repeated phrasing of “trust,” not in government and its responsibility to the people, but in various groups of individuals, coupled with his call for “empowerment” are together designed to eliminate the notion of a society, with a government responsible to its members. It is to dismiss the actual collectives of the people and their rights, and instead reduce everyone to an individual consumer, responsible for making the right choices. The rights of workers, youth, teachers, elderly, all collectives of society simply do not exist and thus government responsibility for them does not exist. This is a backward and medieval notion with no place in modern society.

Americans, like all the world’s peoples, do indeed have big hearts, vast skills and abilities. What stands out most clearly in the present state of the union is that it is not the working class and people that are making the decisions — about war, about the economy, about health and education. They are blocked from doing so by the existing political and economic system and its institutions of democracy, including the current elections that bring the parties of the rich to power. Political empowerment of the people is indeed on the agenda for solution, as is the necessity for a new direction for society and government, a direction that provides for the peoples and their rights.

[TOP]

Necessity to Change the Direction of the Economy

Some Basic Indicators of the State of the Union

President George W. Bush presented his State of the Union address on January 28. It is an address that is specifically supposed to speak to such basics as the state of the economy, of living and working conditions in the U.S., of international relations, and the plan of government to contend with them. Below are some of the trends of the monopoly capitalist economy and the conditions of living and work it gives rise to. All are election issues.

The trends indicate the inability of the monopoly capitalist economy to meet the just claims of the people for their rights, such as their right to jobs, housing, education, recreation, culture and more. They are indicators of the inherent trends of the system, where the rich get richer, the poor poorer, where wealth and power is concentrated in fewer hands, and these powerful drive for yet more, through use of force and war. They also indicate the failures of the policies of the rich, such as deficit financing and “trickle-down” economics, which have brought trickle-down homelessness. The stimulus plans now under debate will do nothing to solve any of these problems. Neither President Bush nor the Democrats in their response speak to the basics of the economy and its contradictions as a main source for the path of war and fascism the rulers are now pursuing. They and the monopoly media seek to hide that basic among society’s problems is the contradiction between the collective socialized economy and the seizure and ownership of its parts and sectors by private individuals. This contradiction is the most important one that must be resolved for society to advance. It is private ownership of parts of the socialized economy that blocks the working class from mobilizing the enormous collective wealth of modern production to guarantee the well-being of the people here and abroad, and to develop the economy peacefully without monopoly competition and war.

1. The United States is spending more than $700 billion a year on the military: The United States accounts for roughly half of all the world’s military expenditures. [1] More than half of all discretionary federal spending is now directed to the military, and this level is increasing. [2] These are funds taken out of the economy, thus harming it, and used for aggression and interference on a world scale, greatly harming international relations with the world’s peoples.

The 2008 Congressional appropriations bills include $506.9 billion for the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy, plus an additional $189.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. [3] Even more military and policing funding is located in the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

Congress has so far approved nearly $700 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the appropriated amount. It does not include the massive costs to the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. in terms of loss of life, injuries, mental illness, long-term medical care, as well as destruction of infrastructure, government and cultural institutions and more. The U.S. is also responsible for about 42 percent of the world’s arms sales — $16.9 billion in new sales in 2006 alone.

2. Concentration of Wealth Greatly Increasing: The source of wealth lies in workers, who produce it through their labor. Between 1947 and 2005, U.S. worker productivity grew by 370 percent, while wages grew by less than half that amount. Current wages are frozen at about 1973 levels. As the claims of the workers on the wealth produced are constantly driven down, and concentration in fewer hands increases, concentration of wealth at the top increases. In 1976, the top 1 percent of the population received 8.83 percent of national income. In 2005, they grabbed 21.93 percent. [4] In 2004, the richest 1 percent in the United States held more than $2.5 trillion more in net worth than the entire bottom 90 percent. Between 1979 and 2001, the incomes of the top 0.1 percent — families earning $1.7 million a year — increased by 181 percent. And incomes of the top 0.01 percent (one-hundredth of one percent — those earning $6 million a year) grew by nearly 500 percent.

3. This concentration, and the parasitical nature of Wall Street financiers can also be seen in their levels of CEO compensation. The average CEO from a Fortune 500 company now makes 364 times an average worker’s pay, reports the Institute of Policy Studies. This is up from a 42-to-1 ratio in 1980. [5] Overall compensation and benefits at seven of the Street’s biggest firms totaled $122 billion, up 10 percent since 2006 — even though net overall revenue for these firms fell 6 percent. [6] Compensation grabbed by some private equity and hedge fund managers has been more than $1 billion in a single year.

4. Between 2000 and 2006, the average income of the lowest fifth of the population is down 4.5 percent, the middle fifth is down 2.5 percent, and only the top fifth is up, by 1 percent. The share of income going to the top fifth of households was 50.5 percent, the highest share on record going back to 1967, with much of this actually taken by the top 1 percent. The middle-income share was 14.5 percent, the lowest on record. The bottom income share has been 3.4 percent since 2003, also an historic low.

Since March 2001 — the most recent business cycle peak — the United States has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs, a decline of 17.4 percent. The Midwest and East Coast have been hit the hardest, with Michigan and the Carolinas losing the largest shares of jobs. Since March 2001, Michigan has lost 5.2 percent of total employment (or nearly a quarter of a million jobs) due to declines in manufacturing jobs. Detroit now has the highest poverty level in the country.

5. More than one in six children live in poverty and in many cities the level is one in four. In a country where the vast wealth produced could eliminate all poverty, its continued existence is a long-standing indictment of the system. It is also an increasing problem that Bush and Congress offer no solutions for. The official U.S. poverty rate was 12.3 percent for 2006. The rate for children was 17.4 percent. Millions of minimum-wage workers and their families are living in poverty. The official poverty line is also absurdly low, meaning the actual levels of impoverishment are higher. As defined by the Office of Management and Budget the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614. For an individual, it was $10,294. [7]

6. Institutional racism continues to mean greater repression of African Americans and all national minorities. It is growing worse. Between 1982 and 2004, the gap between wealth (including and often mainly homes) of African Americans and whites is closing at such a low level, it would take 594 more years for African Americans to achieve parity. Given that the same institutional racism forced far more national minorities to take subprime loans, the loss in wealth among blacks and Latinos as a result is one of the largest in modern U.S. history. [8]

7. Institutional discrimination against women means they continue to be paid far less than men. The ratio of the annual averages of women’s and men’s median weekly earnings was 80.8 for full-time workers in 2006, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Progress in closing the gender wage gap has slowed considerably since 1990. The gender wage ratio for annual earnings increased by 11.4 percentage points from 1980 to 1990, but added only 5.4 percentage points over the next 15 years. [9]

8. More than two million people in the United States are locked in prison, one of the highest levels worldwide. What a colossal waste of human beings and public resources. 2,258,983 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails, at the end of 2006, an increase of 2.9 percent from 2005. The prison population has grown 3.4 percent annually since 1995. African-American males are imprisoned at a rate 6.5 times higher than white males, Latino males almost 3 times higher than whites. [10]

In addition, the U.S. has one of the highest levels of jailing children for life. Currently 2,270 youth are in jail for life. According to a Human Rights Watch study, 26 percent of children in the U.S. condemned to life imprisonment are not guilty of violence or murder. Instead, they were sentenced using the felony murder law. This law requires that someone that is only marginally involved, such as a youth standing guard or driving the car, is as guilty as the individual that actually carried out the murder. And this is true even if the youth had no weapon or intention of harming anyone. Forty-two states allow children to be sentenced to life in prison, including those who were involved in a crime when they were 14 or younger.

9. The nation’s infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring the nation’s infrastructure to good condition. [11]

10. More than 47 million people in the United States do not have health insurance.

According to the Census Bureau, 47 million were uninsured in 2006, 15.8 percent of the population. [12]

11. The subprime mortgage crisis, imposed by the banks and lenders, is driving millions of families from their homes. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that 2.2 million subprime home loans made in recent years have already failed or will end in foreclosure. One in five subprime mortgages originated during the past two years is likely to end in foreclosure. Homeowners will lose $164 billion from these foreclosures, the Center projects. [13] Overall losses from falling housing values may top $2 trillion. For 2007, the median price of a single-family home fell for the first time in at least 40 years, according to the National Association of Realtors. Sales of previously owned single-family homes fell 13 percent in 2007, the largest drop in 25 years.

12. The U.S. public now holds $937.5 billion in consumer debt, with the average borrower owing more than $9000. According to the Federal Reserve, credit card debt for the year rose 7.4 percent, compared to increases of 2-4 percent from 2003-05. These are indications that many working families are going into debt simply to pay for basics, like groceries, heat and gas.

13. The U.S. trade deficit is more than 5 percent of the gross domestic product, now totaling $763.6 billion. [14].

Sources:
[1] SIPRI Yearbook 2007, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
[2] War Resisters League
[3] Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
[4] Online newsletter Too Much
[5] Executive Excess 2007, Institute for Policy Studies
[6] Tomoeh Murakami Tse and Renae Merle, The Bonuses Keep Coming, TheWashington Post, January 29, 2008
[7] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty06/tables06.html
[8] Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008, United for a Fair Economy
[9] Institute for Women’s Policy Research, The Gender Wage Ratio: Women’s And Men’s Earnings
[10] US DOJ, Office of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[11] American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card for America’s Infrastructure
[12] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin06/hlth06asc.html
[13] Center for Responsible Lending, Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners
[14] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html

[TOP]

U.S. Conference of Mayors

Hunger and Homelessness Survey

About 85 percent of Americans now live in cities and metropolitan areas. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), “Metro economies now account for 85 percent of national employment, 87 percent of labor income, and 86 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Of the largest 100 international economies in the world, 42 are U.S. metro areas.” At the end of 2007, the USCM together with Sodexho, Inc., released the results of its 2007 Hunger and Homelessness Survey. For more than 21 years, the Conference of Mayors has documented the magnitude of the issues of hunger and homelessness in the country’s cities. Their report provides an analysis of the scale of the problem in 23 of America’s major cities (listed below) and the efforts these cities are making to address the issue.

Conference President Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer reported, “Although 86 percent of our nation’s wealth is generated in our nation’s cities, hunger and homelessness persists in most of our country’s cities and urban centers.” He added, “At a time when the nation is focused on the presidential campaign, we must ensure that the needs of those most in need in America are at the top of the candidates’ policy agendas.”

Significantly, the report cites high housing costs and the lack of affordable housing as a major cause of homelessness in households with children, as well as a major cause of hunger. The survey also notes the recent spike in foreclosures, the increased cost of living in general and the increased cost of food as major causes of hunger in the U.S.

Unlike past reports, this year’s report contains individual profiles of hunger and homelessness for each city that participated in the 2007 survey, as well as contact information for service providers in those cities. As a whole, cities reported that they are not able to meet the need for providing shelter for all the people that are homeless, many of them families. In fact, twelve cities (52 percent) reported that they turn people away some or all of the time.

Additionally, cities reported a limited ability to meet the need for emergency food assistance. Across the survey cities, 17 percent of all people in need of food assistance and 15 percent of households with children are not receiving it. Nineteen cities expect the demand for food assistance to increase in 2008.

“This report underscores the fact that issues of poverty in this country are often inter-related,” said Mayor Frank Cownie, of Des Moines Iowa and Co-Chair of the Conference’s Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness. “It is instructive in that we must deal with these issues collectively to make a sustainable impact, but cities cannot handle these challenges alone. We need all levels of government, as well as the private sector, to partner with us.”

Other key findings of the report are as follows:

Hunger

• The main causes of hunger in survey cities are poverty, unemployment and high housing costs.
• Food Stamp benefits not keeping up with the increasing price of food is also a major factor.
• Sixteen (80 percent) of survey cities reported that requests for emergency food assistance increased during the last year.
• Among fifteen cities that provided data, the median increase was 10 percent.
• The most commonly cited way to reduce hunger is through more affordable housing.

Homelessness

• Among households with children, common causes of homelessness other than of the lack of affordable housing are poverty and domestic violence. Among single individuals, the most common causes are mental illness and substance abuse.
• During the last year, members of households with children made up 23 percent of persons using emergency shelter and transitional housing programs in survey cities, while single individuals made up 76 percent. Only one percent of persons in these programs were unaccompanied youth.
• Six cities reported an increase in the overall number of homeless persons accessing emergency shelter and transitional housing programs during the last year. Ten cities cited a specific increase in households with children. Seven cities reported a decrease in the number of individuals accessing emergency shelter and transitional housing programs.
• Disability is more prevalent among homeless singles than among adults in households with children. Rates of disability (mental illness, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, physical and developmental disabilities) were approximately three times greater for singles than for adults in households with children.
• The average length of stay for persons in emergency shelter and transitional housing decreased from 2006. Cities reported that for households with children, the average length of a stay was 5.7 months in 2007. For singles, the average length of a single stay was reported as 4.7 months. In 2006, cities reported that an average length of stay was 8 months for both populations.

The 23 participating cities in this survey are members of The U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness and include the following: Boston, MA; Charleston, SC; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Des Moines, IA; Detroit, MI; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Providence, RI; Salt Lake City, UT; San Francisco, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Paul, MN; Trenton, NJ.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,139 such cities in the country today, each represented in the conference by its chief elected official, the mayor.

[TOP]

Economic Failure in United States and Canada

Workers Are Producers Not “Consumers”!

K.C. Adams

A solution to the economic failures in the United States and Canada can be found in organized working class resistance for increased spending on social programs, to stop paying the rich and for an anti-war government, for the working class to constitute itself as the nation and vest sovereignty in the people.

The mass media are full of stories describing present problems of the U.S. and Canadian economies and predicting worse times ahead. The focus in the U.S. has mainly been on a falling stock market; freeze on credit due to massive speculative borrowing and collapse of dubious investments; home ownership foreclosures; rising prices of consumer goods accompanied with the falling value of the U.S. dollar in comparison with other currencies and with a basket of commodities; falling real wages of U.S. workers; exploding gap between rich and poor; growing gross poverty and homelessness; massive U.S. trade and current account deficits accompanied with unprecedented levels of U.S. state and private monopoly borrowing abroad; around one-half of U.S. federal spending funneled into the military and war with the next largest expenditure for debt servicing; deteriorating conditions of society’s social and economic superstructure such as schools, medical facilities, welfare programs, roads, bridges and levees; suffocating expenditures on policing and prisons with over 2 million people in jail; lower level of direct manufacturing of social product as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product; and stagnant or even negative overall economic growth as measured by GDP, which directly increases the size of the captive labor market of unemployed workers.

The solution most commonly proposed in the mass media in response to this failure of the U.S. capitalist economy is centered mainly on “getting the consumer to spend more, as the consumer is the engine of growth making up roughly two-thirds of the economy.” President Bush praised this solution and has proposed a plan to get consumers to spend about $150 billion more mainly through a one-time income tax rebate of up to $800 dollars to each taxpayer of a certain level.

Workers Are Producers Not “Consumers”!

Consumers are not the “engine of growth”; workers and their productive activity transforming raw material into useable products are the engine of growth. Any society that bases itself on consumption and not production will fail. The failed capitalist system blocks the working class from developing a sustainable socialized economy based on the foundation of productive work and control of production and its distribution by the producers themselves.

In response to the Bush plan, the first thing for workers to do is strip this solution of its emotional and forceful content that comes from its constant repetition in the mass media and its connection with the anti-conscious perception of the U.S. and Canada as consumer societies. How does the solution “getting consumers to spend more” solve any specific or general problems of the U.S. capitalist economy, problems that even the mass media acknowledge to a certain extent? More consumer spending will not stop home ownership foreclosures; will not stop rising prices of consumer goods; will not stop the falling value of the U.S. dollar; will not stop the falling real wages of U.S. workers (even with schemes such as the one-time $800 or less tax rebate); will not stop the exploding gap between rich and poor; will not solve the problem of gross poverty and homelessness; will increase the massive U.S. trade and current account deficits; will require more borrowing from abroad; will not stop U.S. federal military spending and debt servicing; will do nothing to address the deteriorating conditions of society’s social and economic superstructure; will do nothing directly to stop the lowering of direct manufacturing of social product in the U.S. (as with the case of the tax rebate most of the product purchased with the $800 will come from abroad); will have only a temporary effect on overall economic growth stimulating certain retail sectors; and will do nothing to assist the plight of those who are presently in the captive labor market of unemployed workers other than to provide some temporary low paying retail jobs.

To reduce a modern socialized economy such as in the U.S. and Canada to a matter of “getting consumers to spend” is to fall into the depths of banality and irrationality. The socialized economy is based on the collective work of millions in different sectors producing and distributing the necessities of life creating conditions for the flowering of modern definitions of culture, politics and social forms. The socialized economy and the birth of the modern worker mark the beginning of history and humanity’s break with the animal kingdom and its desperate vagaries such as bankruptcies and recession. The era of the working class heralds the coming to power of the human factor/social consciousness and banishment from the halls of political and economic power the evils of medieval ignorance, lawless impunity, monopoly right, the tyranny of private wealth, and the warmongering of might makes right.

Workers Are Leaders in the Necessity for Change

Neo-liberalism promised trickledown wealth from the rich once supply was increased; when this failed and led to trickledown homelessness, gross poverty and recession the same neo-liberals present a lack of consumers as the problem to resolve. Workers must reject such simplistic notions and examine the situation as it presents itself and from their own outlook. This requires from the outset a rejection of the regressive notion that a socialized economy has an economic category called consumers made up mainly of workers whose demand for commodities is the engine of growth. Workers produce social product and make claims upon production for their livelihoods. They also insist that what they produce be used for social programs and to build the nation, and that the country must strive to eliminate as much as possible the claims of the idle rich and the obsolete interference and destructive control of private monopolies over the socialized economy. For workers to view themselves as consumers violates their very being as productive and progressive members of the most important collective in the history of humanity, the modern working class. Workers are producers not consumers; it is the height of insolence and retrogression to treat them as simple-minded consumers, dangling enticements of tax rebates in front of their noses as if training domestic animals.

Bush retrogression results in pressure on the working class to liquidate itself as a collective, to deny the existence of society and the necessity for change and thereby not engage in acts of conscious participation in acts of finding out to change the world and manifest in practice the human factor/social consciousness.

Bush retrogression demands workers abandon their collective fight in defense of the rights of all and succumb to the liquidationist pressure leaving individuals to fend for themselves without organization, without collective strength and unity, without conscious thought and analysis, and without their progressive leadership of society. The most important step for workers is not to give in to the capitalist perspective, steadfastly reject the liquidationist pressure, stand as collectives and concerned participating individuals in defense of the rights of all, fight consciously for collective and individual security, and actively and consciously contribute to building their own independent vanguard mass political party.

To defend themselves, workers must reject the anti-consciousness of Bush retrogression and his anti-social anti-worker solution to economic failure. They must not accept the outlook of monopoly capital that workers are consumers blindly following stimuli offered by the ruling elite, organisms without collective and individual social consciousness of who they are and their crucial productive and progressive position and role within society.

Society exists and faces the necessity for change. It is the duty and social responsibility of workers to unite as a mighty collective force to strengthen society and move it forward to an alternative with a conscious plan step by step. The individual members of this collective must see their economic, political and civil security as dependent on their collective struggle for survival and to defend the rights of all. To reduce workers’ security to a tax rebate and worse to see it as a solution to economic failure is to succumb to the siren song of the monopoly capitalists and open themselves up for disaster.

Workers Security Lies in Their Collective Fight!

The solution to economic problems of the capitalist system lies in the collective fight of the working class and its allies. Any other perspective leaves individual workers prey to the demand that people should line up behind U.S. and Canadian monopolies to make them competitive on the global battlefield leading to endless wars for empire and economic failure here and there and eventually everywhere. The anti-conscious outlook of capital denies the very being of workers as individuals and members of the most advanced and progressive collective that humanity has ever produced. This denies the real solution to the economic failure of the capitalist system, which is found in the collective resistance of the working class and its program for change. The way forward to force real change with or without the approval of the U.S. and Canadian ruling circles is through determined effective working class resistance for increased spending on social programs, to stop paying the rich and for an anti-war government. Active working class resistance strengthens resolve and builds confidence in a way forward and program that challenges the ruling class on all issues, especially political and economic ones such as the nonsense that security lies in making monopolies competitive. A new perspective opens possibilities to grasp the necessity for fundamental change in the economic system based on new relations of production that harmonize and unify the socialized economy with socialized ownership of all of its essential sectors and parts. Such unity and harmony will release the initiative and enthusiasm of the working class to launch its own nation-building project in its own image based on solving social and economic problems to serve the public good not ignoring or blurring them to serve narrow private monopoly interests; it means vesting sovereignty in the people that will as first duty bring home all U.S. and Canadian troops and military equipment and begin solving international problems through peaceful means without war, empire-building and blackmail and the overwhelming destructive might of U.S. military weaponry.

By taking the first step in denouncing the irrational anti-social policies of the ruling class and demanding increased spending on social programs, to stop paying the rich and vest sovereignty in the people, the working class begins its march towards the necessity for change and a new anti-war nation based on modern definitions and the human factor/social consciousness.

K.C Adams is a journalist for TML Daily, Canada.

[TOP]

23 states, Feb. 5

People Prepare for Feb. 5th Primaries and Caucuses

People are using the primaries as a means to express their anger with the direction of the country and the refusal of government to heed their demand to end the war. They are coming out in larger numbers and repeatedly giving more votes to those candidates seen as against the establishment — Obama, Edwards and Kucinich, rather than those of the establishment, particularly Hillary Clinton. Commonly, across the country, about 10-15 percent of registered voters participate in primaries. This year, particularly for the Democrats, the numbers are significantly higher, sometimes double the previous primary. And while these numbers still represent a small fraction of the voters, more significantly, they represent the drive of the people to have a greater say in the primaries and elections more generally.

Another expression if this drive to have their say can be seen in broad participation in various other forms, such as blogs, webpages, union polls, and more. Union-organized debates, including all the candidates, were organized over the summer, for example. Union members sent in their questions, which, unlike those of the monopoly media, did not focus on personalities and mudslinging but on their concerns. They demanded direct answers about ending the war, about jobs, about housing, about relations of mutual respect and benefit with other peoples — not aggression, occupation and trade wars.

With few exceptions, people everywhere are coming up against the nature of the existing electoral institutions, which are designed to keep the demands and decisions of the people out. For example, the people long ago decided that they want universal free healthcare for all. Many consider it a crime, in a country of such wealth, that anyone goes without healthcare let alone millions of children. But the existing institutions, dominated by the two parties of the rich, reject this decision and instead claim, “it’s not possible, it can’t be done.” The candidates then echo this in various forms, with plans that recognize the power of the pharmaceuticals and insurance monopolies but not the rights of the people.

Similarly, when it comes to the war on Iraq, the people decided and have repeatedly made clear: End the War Now! All Troops Home Now! But the rich and their parties refuse to do so and instead impose debate on their plans of “limited withdrawal,” “special brigades to fight terrorists,” “redeployment of troops to Afghanistan and bases outside Baghdad,” and various other maneuvers for continued occupation.

It was also not the decision of the people for John Edwards to withdraw right before the February 5 primaries and caucuses. It was not their decision for him to abandon the stand that brought him votes — that there are two Americas, one rich and one poor and the people of America reject the dictate of the rich (see article below). This was a decision of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the primaries are organized by the parties in such a manner that despite the fact that a very small portion of the people nationwide has even had a chance to vote, the Democrats have gone from nine candidates down to two.

The primaries are designed to give the appearance of choice among different candidates, while quickly narrowing the field to two candidates. The institution operates in part by requiring massive sums of money simply to participate, and also, using the monopoly media, on the basis of who is labeled “electable” and who is a “fringe candidate” that “can not win.” It also generally keeps independent and other parties out of the primaries altogether. It is not the people making these decisions — they are being imposed by the parties and the monopoly media.

Despite these obstacles, people are still striving to break through. Many votes for Obama are cast as a challenge to the Democrats, to their exclusion and racism. Few believe the Democrats will allow Obama to be the candidate and by voting for him are daring the Democrats to do so. On February 5, while the ruling circles are now testing who will emerge between Clinton and Obama, the people are also testing Obama and the Democrats.

As people use the primaries to show their rejection of the establishment, what also stands out is the need to be pro-active — to take up a program not simply in reaction to the Democrats and Republicans, but as part of organizing the agenda of the working class and people to build their own mechanisms and institutions for democracy and change. Voice of Revolution encourages all its readers and supporters to join in investigating and discussing the existing institutions. How do these mechanisms exclude the people? What interventions now and in the future contribute to the fight for change? The primaries are revealing answers to these problems and the necessity for new institutions of democracy as part of the new direction now being demanded .

[TOP]

Submits to Democratic Party

Edwards Abandons Race and Stand of “Two Americas”

John Edwards abandoned the race for president Wednesday, January 30, less than a week before the February 5 primaries and caucuses in 29 states. He did so after repeatedly saying, both before and following the most recent South Carolina primary, that he would continue to run. He did not endorse either of the two remaining Democratic Party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In making his announcement, he also abandoned a main slogan and driving force of his campaign: “There are two Americas, one rich and one poor,” in favor of “One America that works for everybody.”

Edwards, along with Dennis Kucinich, brought the issue of class to the fore. And though he commonly spoke of the “middle class,” his general appeal was made to “hard working people everywhere” who have been “abandoned and forgotten by government.” He chose to start and end his campaign in New Orleans to illustrate this point of government abandonment. More generally, as one person who supported Edwards said, “I believe excessive corporate power has created an America that serves the interests of wealthy people at the expense of middle class and poorer people here in America and elsewhere around the globe. John not only appears to me as one who recognizes the realities of corporate power, but also one who has refused financial support from moneyed interests and, as a result, is not beholden to them and has had, in his words, ‘the guts’ to stand up to them.” Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards refused corporate funding and that from political action committees (PACs). He accepted the federal cap on spending and the federal campaign financing that comes with that acceptance.

Money, however, was not the reason for abandoning the campaign. As his campaign announced, he raised more funds online in the month of January — more than $3 million — than in all of last quarter. About 93 percent of the donations came in amounts of less than $100. And 53 percent of those contributing were new. Most of the $3 million will be doubled by federal matching funds. So from the point of view of support among the people, including financial support, the indications are that it was growing.

Edwards also maintained his general campaign content with its “two Americas” in responding to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union, January 28. He said, “The president tonight renewed his call for an economic recovery plan. But the plan he and Congress have offered leaves out tens of millions of Americans who need help the most. This plan would take months to have any impact, and the people I meet everyday on the campaign trail do not have months to wait. These people are hurting now and need this help now. Over the past seven years, typical workers’ paychecks have failed to keep up with inflation, millions of families are facing the loss of their homes to foreclosures, health insurance premiums have doubled, and families are spending $1,000 more a year on gasoline. The State of the Union may be interesting political theater, but until we find bold solutions to the challenges facing the country, we will be stuck with the same old small, Washington answers.

“And in the chamber of the House of Representatives where the president speaks, even though this Congress stopped listening to him a while ago, they will still applaud and cheer him. The truth is that Washington is out of touch with what is happening across the country. Between now and January of 2009, Democrats must stand up to this president, stand up for what is right, so he does not continue to forget about the middle class in this country.”

In his speech, not only did Edwards abandon the race, he also repeated, “Economic justice in America is our cause.” But the act of abandonment, and its timing, made clear that Edwards chose to submit to the Democratic Party.

He stated, “It’s time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we’ll create hope and opportunity for this country.” Then, giving a nod to the many workers he spoke with who rejected the direction of the economy, denounced the foreclosures, demanded healthcare and an end to the war, Edwards concluded, “With all of the injustice that we’ve seen, I can say this: America’s hour of transformation is upon us. It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad and it may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn’t have the right books for your kids. It’s hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard. But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you, once again. And we will lift you up with our dream of what’s possible. One America — one America that works for everybody.”

Many are asking how, especially given the facts Edwards himself presents, anyone, especially his supporters, are to believe that there can now be “One America that works for everybody.” The rich and poor, the working class and ruling class are still very much alive. Edwards tries to hide this by echoing the language of the Democratic Party, and the rich more generally — language that echoes that of the Civil War, with its “house divided.” He appeals to his supporters to submit to this one America of the rich, saying, “All of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause, we need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you. Do not turn away, because we have not just a city of New Orleans to rebuild. We have an American house to rebuild…It is time for all of us together, to make the two Americas one.”

The top leadership of the Democratic Party has clearly called on Edwards to quit the race, and do so before the February 5 primaries and caucuses, and he has. In this manner, the rich will have the opportunity to see whether votes now going to Edwards will go to Obama or Clinton. They want to see if one or the other emerges as more of a vote-getter — that is, as someone who can successfully bring the voters to heal and maintain illusions that the Democrats, and hence the system, will, as Edwards put it, “lift you up.” They are also concerned that the battle between Clinton and Obama is one that will divide the Democrats. The problem is, will Edwards’ exit serve this purpose, or serve to increase anger with the set up, and the Democrats’ top brass in particular, for forcing him out?

The Democrats also clearly called on Edwards to abandon his campaign and its content to ensure that it is the ruling class chauvinism of “One America” that wins out. The Democrats, in particular, are presenting to the rulers that they are the force that can block the drive of Americans for change that serves the interests of the working class and that of the peoples of the world. People have far too much experience to fall for the old tale that the interests of the rich and their monopolies and that of workers here and everywhere, are the same. So the Democrats, especially, are instead attempting use the chauvinism of the ruling class against the people — the chauvinism that says workers must first of all be loyal to America, to its imperialist system, to its monopoly capitalist economy that does not and cannot guarantee the right to jobs, housing, healthcare and education. This is the “One America” the Democrats are talking about. Edwards submitted to this content, but again, will this backfire? People are giving consideration to the reality that there can indeed be another America, a new America, an America that does meet the needs of the peoples.

The Democrats, in forcing Edwards out now, are attempting to block this path and ensure that the workers striving for economic justice abandon their cause, abandon their class and join instead with the Democrats to protect the “One America” of the ruling class. They are looking now to Obama or Clinton to carry this banner. But will the rich succeed? Let all those angry with the direction of the economy and looking to turn things around reject this chauvinism of “One America” of, by and for the rich and instead continue intervening in the elections to turn things in favor of the people.

[TOP]

South Carolina Speech and Coming Primaries

Obama and the Demand for
Change that Favors the People

Barack Obama, as a candidate of the Democrats, is facing increasing difficulty meeting the demands of the ruling circles to win people over to change that favors the rich, while presenting himself as an agent of change for the people. His speech following his decisive win in South Carolina (55.4 percent vs. 26.5 for Clinton) and actions since reveal the difficulty he is having. People are demanding a change that favors the people. Their chants of “Yes, We Can” embody the content that not only is change required, but the people themselves can bring it about. Obama attempts to use this striving, while turning it into change that favors the Democrats and the rich more generally.

In his speech Obama positions himself as someone in favor of fundamental change and solving problems in a manner that favors the people, and doing so by bringing everyone together. He begins by saying his campaign has “the most diverse coalition of Americans that we’ve seen in a long, long time…We are tired of business as usual.” He adds, “This is a contest for the Democratic nomination and all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration. But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. It’s a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.” Then he adds, “What we’ve seen in the last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s a politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon, a politics that tells us that we have to think, act and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us, the assumption that young people are apathetic, the assumption that Republicans won’t cross over, the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor and that the poor don’t vote, the assumption that African Americans can’t support the white candidate, whites can’t support the African American candidate, blacks and Latinos cannot come together. We are here to say that is not the America we believe in.” Here one can see the effort Obama is making to draw on peoples’ rejection of the politics of the rich with its racism and attacks on the people, while mixing in the issue of Republicans, the wealthy and the “America we believe in.”

He also makes a point of speaking to “bitter partisanship.” He says, “We’re up against decades of bitter partisanship that causes politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner… That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party. It is bad for our country. And this is our chance to end it once and for all. We’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics. This is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore. This is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.”

In this manner, several things occur simultaneously. The very serious problems of the existing electoral set-up, which brings parties to power while blocking the people from power and marginalizing their demands, are reduced to the problems of mud-slinging, candidates “saying anything” to get elected, basically bad habits. Without doubt people reject these aspects of the set-up, but their concern, their demand for change, is far more fundamental than that. Obama nowhere actually speaks to these fundamentals — such as the demand of the people to be the ones to decide, their demand to have candidates from among their peers that represent them — the workers, and not the Democrats — their demand for words and deeds of government to be one, and to be deeds that defend the rights of the people, not the monopolies. It is not a matter of “belief” — it is a matter of fundamental change that favors the people. And the unity of the people required cannot be brushed aside with a slight of hand that simultaneously includes the rich and the poor, as though the country they are both striving for is the same. People “tune out” because the existing set-up and all its various institutions block them from decision making and from participating in deliberations to actually solve the problems they face. They reject the existing leadership of both parties because they are taking the country down the path of fascism and war — they are acting directly against the interests of the peoples here and worldwide. It is the content of the politics, and the democratic institutions that serve this content that must be changed. It is the workers that are the leaders of the fundamental change necessary. The Democrats are trying to block them from taking up their leadership role, using this election as one means of doing so.

Obama recognizes the difficulty in convincing anyone to follow the Democrats, especially given the experience of the last elections, let alone the many before that. So he cautions, “The kind of change we seek will not come easy. We’re not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington. We’re also struggling with our own doubts, our own fears, our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and great sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.” Once again, he speaks to the necessity for change the people so desire and the struggle necessary to achieve it, positioning himself on the side of the people. He puts together things that everyone responds to: “this is not about black versus white,” and in the same sentence says it is also “not about rich versus poor.” Who then are the contending forces? Is it not the rich standing in the way of progress and the poor fighting for change, the two worlds’s of the ruling class vs. the working class? Obama, candidate of the Democrats, necessarily says no. He says, “This election is about the past versus the future. It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.”

We live in an America where the poor are to sacrifice so the rich can prosper. The call for “a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity,” is to deny this reality and make it appear that there can be a future without fundamentally changing the status quo of a system that serves the rich on the backs of the poor. This is not the change people are demanding and not the future they are fighting for.

People are voting for Obama and participating in his campaign primarily as an expression of what they are against — the exiting establishment and the existing set-up that depoliticizes people by blocking them from decision making and deliberations to solve problems. He is also, so far, seen as a uniter and not a divider, something he utilizes to his advantage in blurring divisions between rich and poor. Obama regularly has to voice the discontent with the establishment, then attempt to twist it in a manner that favors the rich and the Democrats. Voters are not naïve and they are not blind. People can sense the contention and are fighting so that despite the demands of the Democrats, Obama comes their way. He, on the other hand, is striving to show he can be a reliable champion for the ruling class. Hence his repeated conclusions that the system can be made to work for the people, with “shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.”

But the position he is trying to occupy, of representing change that favors the people while remaining a champion of the rich, is not easily secured. Already, for example, he has been forced to take a position against the demands of the top brass of the Democratic Party on the issue of immigration. Going into the February 5 primaries where there is a sizeable Latino vote, he has now come out in favor of driver’s licenses for undocumented workers, and promised to take up immigration reform in his first year in office. Rahm Emanuel, in charge of the 2008 election campaign for the Democrats as a whole, recently stated just the opposite — the Democrats would not address the issue in even the first term in office and everyone, citizens and non-citizens, documented and undocumented, must prove citizenship before getting a driver’s license. Obama is risking the displeasure of the top brass as a reliable representative of the rich, as part of maintaining his position as one favoring change. Will he succeed or will it backfire? Will he emerge as the main vote-getter but be rejected by the top brass of the Party? And if so, what impact will this have on the illegitimacy of the entire set-up, something very much on the minds of the voters? Keeping a sharp eye on developments is a must.

[TOP]

Some Basic Information on Primaries

The existing primaries are one form used by the ruling circles and their two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, to simultaneously give the appearance that voters are choosing the candidates, while giving the ruling circles the opportunity to determine who will be their champion. Part of determining this champion is the candidate’s quality as a vote-getter — that is, their ability to convince people to support the program of the rich, as represented by a particular candidate. The primaries also now serve as a test of fire, as to whether the candidate will submit to the dictate of the party when confronted by the demands of the voters. Obama, for example, is currently being tested in this regard on the issue of immigration.

For both primaries and caucuses, the legislature in each state usually decides whether a primary or caucus will be used and when it will be held. Each state party then decides whether the primary will be open or closed to independent voters and voters registered with a different party. This means, in some states, independents and Republicans or Greens, etc. can vote in the Democratic primary and vise-versa. In others, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary, Republicans in the Republican. In still others, Democrats and independents can vote but not Republicans in the Democratic primary. And while the parties have decided to use a public, rather than party, voting process, the party still determines who can and cannot vote.

The Republicans generally use a winner-take-all system for awarding delegates. The Democrats use a complicated proportional system. Generally, each district in the given state is winner-take-all. But the number of delegates each district gets is not based solely on population. Delegate counts are weighted to the number of Democrats that voted in the district in the last election, with more delegates given to districts with higher turn out. This is in part a mechanism to reward local party machinery for their efforts to get the vote out. It also makes it possible to get the most votes statewide, but not the most delegates, as occurred in Nevada. Clinton got more votes, Obama one more delegate, as he secured a district with more delegates.

Primaries are organized essentially the same as a general election. Voters go to the polls. Particular candidates, accepted by the two parties, are on the ballot and people vote can for one of them. A rather complicated system of delegates has been devised so that the votes themselves do not actually count as votes, just as occurs in the general election. Both parties have a block of delegates that are party leaders and elected officials, who may be pledged to a candidate but can vote as decided at the convention. Similarly, delegates assigned to candidates that are eliminated before the convention, can also vote differently. Indeed, none of the delegates are required to vote at the convention according to the actual vote in the primaries. These are some factors showing that the primaries as institutions are not democratic and need to be changed so that votes count and more importantly, so the candidates of the people are electable.

[TOP]