We finally heard from the self-proclaimed Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, on the presidential elections, on KPFA, 94.1 FM, 6 p.m. news, 7/15/12, on his view of the elections and it was a shameful, anti-Marxist, lesser evil line, especially considering Wolff is a founding member of the Connecticut Green Party.

Listen to the beginning of the 7/15/12 newscast at:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/82427

His reasoning is that in the contested states between the Democrats and Republicans, the twin parties of war and fascism that represent the same capitalist class (he did not add these adjectives), he would lean toward Obama, the president best known for his drone killings and targeted assassinations, as well as all the other horrors that he has promoted, carrying out the same capitalist agenda as his Republican predecessor.


This is not Marxism-Leninism; this is bourgeois stupidity and utterly reactionary. As far as all socialist and Green Parties are concerned, all 50 states and the District of Columbia are contested areas, the opposition being the capitalist Democrat-Republican Party.

Jill Stein, M.D., currently the Green Party’s candidate for president, did an excellent interview on Democracy Now on July 13, 2012. See, read and listen at:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_new_deal_organizer_physician_jill

The Green Party plans to register as many as possible of the 30 million students who are deep in debt and cannot find a decent paying job to pay the debt, on the excellent promise that if a Green Party candidate is elected, that person will cancel the debt and enact Green New Deal measures for full employment at decent paying jobs. The Democrat-Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer these students in terms of cancelling the debt or decent-paying jobs. See
http://www.jillstein.org/green_new_deal
http://www.jillstein.org/text_psou

The Green Party is on the ballot in 45 states plus D.C., and usually gets on the ballot in the other 5 states by election day.

Socialist parties are on the ballot in many states, including California, which has Peace & Freedom Party on the ballot. If P&F has a socialist candidate on the ballot, this writer will vote for that person. In 2008, P&F had Ralph Nader as its candidate for president, who is not a socialist and does not support the 9/11 Truth Movement, so this writer voted for Cynthia McKinney, the Green presidential candidate, who is a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement and has other excellent positions.

In those states where there are no Green or socialist candidates for president, it is best to just skip that position and vote on the propositions. There is nothing lesser about the Democrats; they are the twins of the Republicans.

So now we know exactly where Richard Wolff stands, or more accurately, fails, so hopefully we never have to hear his pontificating again. We have seen this many times, with alleged socialists and Marxists promoting Democrats, and in the end, they are nothing more than proud promoters of capitalism, the cause of all our grief. For more on the California Peace & Freedom and Green Parties, see:
1. http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/
2. http://www.cagreens.org/

Both Wolff and Nader are bourgeois intellectuals, but technically, Nader espouses a more bourgeois ideology. Wolff uses a more traditional Marxist analysis.

Also, Nader was not a Green Party member, and I suspect he wasn't a P&F member either. While I admire the guy, that's bogus. It also caused me to lose some respect for these 3rd parties, because the whole point of having a party is to use it as a machine to influence people to action. It's a political structure.

What Nader should have done was spread many of his donations downward to viable local candidates to get some wins. But since he wasn't in the parties, there wasn't really sufficient motivation on his part toward party-building.

Labels are kinda funny. They morph into generalizations.
Or miss-application.
Liberal
Leftest
Socialist
Communist
Capitalist
Marxist
all tend to restrict the group it represents to undefined and misunderstood categories.
rather than use such over reaching labels, I would point out the common shared properties of such sets.
I hate mushy thinking and writing.