The thrust of your post seems to be that one cannot claim to have an understanding of capitalism and oppose aspects of Ralph Nader's candidacy at the same time.

I believe that is not correct. Indeed, the manner of presentation appears a bit patronizing to me. I have read the Anarchist FAQ, Chomsky, and Marx's Capital. Such readings will not necessarily lead one to become a full-fledged Nader supporter.

Ellis Dee says,

<>

Perhaps it would be more naive to expect that a candidacy rooted in direct financial investment of some of the most corrupt corporations could result in anything other than the creation of a party which is BEHOLDEN TO THOSE INTERESTS.

Perhaps it would be more naive to expect that a candidate who has no interest in democratically run, worker controlled, worker owned corporations to act in way so as to further the goal of creating a DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED ECONOMY.

<
Colombia or where-ever.>>

We are not talking about Ralph being good or evil, per se, but about a set of behaviors and instititutional commitments which should make us suspect the phenomenon which we call "The Nader candidacy." We should apply institutional analysis to this phenomenon. Undemocratic institutions cannot easily yield democratic results.

I have yet to see any evidence that Nader's organizations are democratically run. He runs them like an autocrat. His "non-profits" yield great profits, and these profits are under his control.

WHY ARE THESE PROFITS NOT UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF WORKER-MEMBERS who helped bring in those profits? What role does voting and democracy play in the day to day decision making?

<< I've got news for the publishers of these broadsides. Welcome to capitalism. >>

This is a bit patronizing. Most readers here know that the US system is capitalistic.

<>

It is a bit naive and undiscriminating, perhaps, to assume that all corporations are the same. Nader himself expresses a preference for small corporations over large ones. It makes little sense to be a Green candidate and invest in Occidental Petroleum. It makes little sense to invest in Raytheon systems, and claim one is for decreasing military expenditure. It makes little sense to say one is against sweatshops, and to invest in the GAP.

I know workers who quit working for organizations they thought were immoral, abusive, and corrupt. I know of investors who took there money out of arms companies, big polluters, and transnationals that break unions, to invest in companies with clean, anti-war, more labor friendly policies. If Nader cannnot make these relatively simple

distinctions, how can he claim to run a campaign based on any sound moral principle.

<>

This is the same argument that "pragmatic" Gore supporters make.

You could take the name "Nader" out of the above statement and put in the name "Bush" or "Gore", and you would have essentially the same argument that they make to justify all their shenanigans.

<
local head shop, and the corporations don't pay them anything to do the dirty work. It's bad.>>

Yes, its bad. So the very LEAST Nader should do is to refrain from investing in companies like the Gap, Occidental petroleum and Raytheon. There are plenty of other companies to invest in.

<
fight them. Sure, it's a crazy thing for him to do if you look at it from his perspective -- with one hand he's fighting the corporations, with the other hand he's investing in them.>>

"HE JOINS THE CORPORATIONS". You said it right there. So would the best way to fight the Ku Klux Klan be to join them, and try to change them from the inside. To become a dues paying member, so as to have a SAY in how the Klan is run. Nader, by investing in Oxy, is contributing to their well being.



<
IT NEXT TUESDAY. >>

"Look what he gives YOU". I think Nader supporters are in a sorry state if they think he is giving "YOU" anything. You are giving him something. Nader's political strength comes from the number of people who are willing to vote from him, to campaign for him, and to fund his campaign. Let's not think backwards.

<
The other seven hours of work is the basis for the employer's PROFIT, pure and simple; it's time spent working for your employer "for free." They profit because your work is cheap. And if your work wasn't cheap, they wouldn't profit, they would go out of business, and you wouldn't work. Get it? That's why they call it "wage slavery." >>

I agree, but Nader is not against wage slavery. He does not oppose capitalism; he practices it and praises it, so long as it is not "too extreme". He does not oppose entrepreneur's profit. He uses profit, and he uses the surplus. He does not believe that the worker-members in his organizations should exercise any democratic control over

the surplus extracted from their labor. Anyone who thinks otherwise should reread Nader's literature and reread Marx's Kapital.



<>

The implication here is that if one reads Marx or Anarcho-syndicalist literature, one will come to support Nader.

During the Nader rally in DC, broadcast on C-Span, one supporter said. "Nader is being demonized. People are calling him a radical. They are saying he is opposed to capitalism. THAT IS NOT TRUE."

Ask yourself, why is Nader being given so much coverage now on television? On NBC, CBS, Larry King Live, various morning talk shows, and C-span? It is precisely because he is NOT a radical. His rhetoric is leftist, and he is ALMOST beyond the pale, in many respects, to many commentators. But his rhetoric is just barely WITHIN the realm of respectable discourse.

On the other hand, the discourse of anarco-syndicalists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, Chomsky, Susan George, anarcho-communists, left marxists, anarcho-communists, communists of all stripes, Trotskyists, proponents of workers control, workers ownership, employee management are ALL TOTALLY TABOO in the

mainstream media. Many of these are marginalized even on so-called progressive media, such as Pacifica (which we all know is rapidly being pressed backwards into the mainstream).



<>

Ralph Nader's own supporters say that Ralph is NOT A RADICAL. Perhaps you should say what you mean by radical. Radical politics cannot be consistent with union busting, cannot be consistent with investing in the most abusive mulitinational corporations-----Radicalism cannot be consistent with giving money to Gap, as it

exploits sweatshop labor, to Raytheon, as it produces more missiles to kill more Arabs, to Occidental, as it begins drilling on the land of indigenous Colombians.