Feature Page: Vote Socialist in November!

by Socialist Action's Editors

The most glaring demonstration of the absence of any significant differences between the presidential candidates of the principal capitalist parties could be seen in the voluminous commentary on the first presidential debate in all the big-business media.

There was a torrent of words about the “body language” of the two candidates but the media generally failed to probe with any depth into the issues of the debate, or to ask questions that might go beyond the narrow boundaries of the two candidates’ political platforms. Kerry was critical in the debate of Bush’s decisions to invade and occupy Iraq (though Kerry had voted to give the president such power before the war). He also made a jab at Halliburton corporation (Vice President Cheney’s company) and its grab of Iraqi oil, but did not delve into the obvious corollary that a desire to control Iraq’s resources had something to do with the war.

On the issue of military policy, Kerry tried to go both to the right and the left of the president at the same time. While he denounced the occupation of Iraq as a wrong decision, he also proclaimed his intention to strengthen the U.S. forces for intervention anywhere in the world.

“That’s why, in my plan” said Kerry, “I add two active-duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect to fighting the terrorists around the world.” Kerry vowed: “And I’m going to lead those troops to victory.”

This “plan,” of course, is not very logical, and Bush was able to play on that. But it is par for the course in U.S. capitalist politics. Kerry’s statements do not commit him to any specific action in Iraq. As president he could go one way or the other.

The key decisions will be made in actuality by the ruling class behind the scenes on the basis of its judgment of the relationship of forces. In fact, exits from the major military adventures of the United States since World War II, Korea and Vietnam, were made under the aegis of conservative presidents.

Indications are that there is a shift within the ruling class toward the view that the U.S. has overreached itself in its occupation of Iraq and its confrontation with the core countries of the European Union, its principal economic rival in the world.

If the U.S. rulers decide to retreat from Iraq, it will only be because they have decided that the political cost of staying there is too high, and a major factor in that is the active antiwar movement in the United States and its allied countries. To the extent, however, that opponents of the war and occupation put their trust in Kerry, that force will be weakened.

The lack of real differences between the two capitalist parties is inspiring a growing interest in third-party alternatives. That is evidenced by the polls that indicate determined support among many left and liberal voters for the ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo. This is despite the campaign by the Democrats to remove them from the ballot in many states, while demonizing Nader as a “spoiler” who will turn the country back to a dangerously reactionary Bush administration.

But how can you effectively challenge the capitalist two-party system without challenging the capitalist system as such? Nader and Camejo—and David Cobb of the Green Party, their estranged co-thinkers—fail to do that. They give the impression that the capitalist system, with some reforms, can meet people’s needs. Nader and Cobb are not an alternative but a diversion.

The only way to make your vote count is to vote for socialism. If even a small number of people clearly express their rejection of the capitalist system by voting for socialist candidates, it will have more of an impact and a future than a much larger (but still limited) number voting for third-party candidates who do not offer a clear alternative.

Furthermore, in order to change society, powerful social forces will have to be set in motion—the working class and the oppressed sections of the population. Socialists can speak to the needs of these sections of society and offer them a perspective for mobilizing. Populist third parties cannot.

One of the basic objectives of Socialist Action is to encourage working people to form a mass party of their own—based on their own organizations of struggle, such as a revitalized and militant trade-union movement—and independent of the capitalist class and its parties.

But to argue effectively for such a party you need to be able to explain to working people why the capitalist parties cannot defend their interests. And you can only do that by running on a socialist platform.

For these reasons, Socialist Action is calling for a vote for candidates that stand for socialism—those of the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers World Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party. Although these parties are small and have serious political weaknesses, they make the basic point that needs to be made in this election, the need for opposing capitalism and constructing a new society in which human needs come before corporate profits.

A vote for these socialist candidates is the most effective way of building an alternative to a system whose disastrous effects on the peoples of the world are more and more glaring.

This article first appeared in the October 2004 issue of Socialist Action newspaper.