Third Party Coverage for Presidential Election 2012: Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) - Peta Lindsay and Yari Osorio

PSL hopes to continue the struggle
against the capitalist system in 2012.

The next part in our coverage of third-party candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election. I anticipate reposting and updating this closer to the election, as it is still almost 11 months away. This is not intended as an endorsement of any kind. Also, do not pay notice to the fact that the socialist parties are being covered first - they were simply the first to nominate somebody. Also, I apologize for the atrocious formatting. Blogger's being annoying. 

Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation

Presidential Nominee: Peta Lindsay*

Vice Presidential Nominee: Yari Osorio*

Election Website: http://www.votePSL.org

Ideology: Socialist/Marxist

* - Neither Lindsay nor Osorio is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Lindsay is 28 and Osorio was born in Colombia so is not a "natural-born US citizen". This is explained further below.

Response by staff member (text in bold was my questions):

Dear Gregory


You could consider posting what we have on our site at http://www.votePSL.prg which will have the most up to date information on our campaign.

I am inserting some excerpts from the website below so you can get a better idea

The PSL is a revolutionary Marxist party in the United States that struggles for socialism. We want a revolution; and, we work hard to make it happen.
The PSL is involved in struggles—both large and small—that affect the U.S. working class. From the Occupy movement to the anti-war movement and the fight for immigrant rights; from struggles for affordable housing and health care to combating racist police brutality; from the movement for women’s rights and LGBT equality to labor and union struggles—the PSL is at the forefront of the class struggle against the capitalists and their rotten system.

Peta Lindsay will be the Presidential
nominee.

We are comprised of militant, working-class organizers and leaders dedicated to advancing the struggle for workers’ power.

Our party knows that revolution is necessary. We fight for reforms that ease the burden on workers and oppressed people, but ultimately reforms are not enough. We know that revolutions are made in the streets, in the factories and other workplaces, and in the military units when workers—in and out of uniform—become conscious that the power of the capitalist bosses and the generals must be replaced with the power of the people. This is the message that the PSL will bring through its intervention in the 2012 elections.

The U.S. electoral system is reflective of a capitalist plutocracy. We live under a government of, by and for the wealthy. These politicians—from President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and on down the line—are fully beholden to their corporate backers, the 1 %. Even if they started off from humble backgrounds or espoused progressive positions earlier in their careers, not one politician will be able to become president of the United States unless they adjust their positions to that which is acceptable to the capitalist vultures and the military-industrial complex. Each one of them will embrace the goals of U.S. imperialist domination or they will be dumped unceremoniously by the Republican and Democratic parties. None of them will forward the working-class struggle.

The PSL’s 2012 campaign is meant to inspire more working-class organizing, agitation and revolutionary consciousness. We will take the ideas of socialism—a better, more just society; the way forward for humanity—to the workers and poor people in the United States. The PSL’s campaign will open a much-needed avenue for workers to wage political combat against the capitalist establishment and their corrupt representatives.

Our candidates will travel to every part of the country to spread this message.

Join the PSL’s 2012 campaign. Raise the banner of socialism. Champion the cause of the working class.

Become an advocate for people’s rights and revolutionary change.

First (and this part I am asking everyone), could you please give me a summary of your campaign and what it stands for. What are some important issues to you?

Also, since ballot access is important for third party candidates, please let me know (as best you can - best guesses are fine) what progress you have made/plan to make on ballot access.

The ruling class in the imperialist United States do everything they can to keep workers' candidates off the ballots. Those who do get on have to collect thousands of signatures using volunteers for weeks and week and even with such a noble effort it is still only possible to get on a handful of states' ballots. Most organizations that represent workers interest do not have the millions of dollars to pay to get the candidates on the ballot or the ability to spend millions in mobilizing volunteers, e.g. California alone requires hundreds of thousands of signatures to gain access for just one election.

Yari Osorio will run for VP.
He is not Constitutionaly
eligible to be President
but PSL wants to send a message
more than anything.

Neither you nor Mr. Osorio are Constitutionally eligible to be president. How will this impact ballot access?

Our candidates are selected as representatives of the struggles of working people. Our first decrees would be to offer universal healthcare for all, end landlordism, forgive all student loans, forgive mortgage payment and reverse forclosures to attain housing for all, provide citizenship to all undocumented, abolish racism, double the minium wage--these are just some examples of our program and what our candidates represent. Our campaign is one of expanding rights of working people, not a campaign of exclusion like those of the candidates of the rich. The Constitution, as you state, prohibits our candidates from running. Each state has different laws that interpret this and it will be part of the struggle for ballot access. We will, however, gain access to the states we are aiming for.

Also, what happens if you win and Speaker of the House John Boehner becomes president?

I'm not clear about this question. (see note below)

What makes you different from Stewart Alexander of Socialist Party USA? Why should we support you over him?

We run with other socialist and progressive candidates against the capitalist system. We are not running against them but with them. We will have different campaigns and views. Workers should select the candidates they feel best represents them, but our campaigns are all in the spirit of solidarity with other campaigns like the Socialist Party.

What is your view on First Amendment Rights?

Although PSL nominee Peta Lindsay
 and Socialist Party USA candidate
Stewart Alexander agree on most
issues, Lindsay would not protect
hate speech as "free", while
Alexander would.

We support individuals choice in worship if they choose to do so. The first admendment is a description of bourgeois rights--we ask right to assembly for who? We stand for the right of assembly of the Occupy movement that is being severely repressed by the cops around the country, we are for workers' rights to organize a union at the workplace. However, we are not for the rights of racists, like the Klan and the Nazis--the promotion of racism and violence would be illegal. We are also not for the bankers to hire armies to suppress people from speaking out against them.

Do you oppose all forms of censorship, no matter what? Or would you support censoring certain things, possibly including hate speech or attempts to reinstate capitalism?

I think I answered this in the previous question

President Obama has been "accused" of being a socialist. Do you feel these statements are accurate? Why or why not?

President Obama is a representative of the banks and corporations. He is th ecommander in chief of an army of occupation that is killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. He is not a Socialist.

Is war ever justified? If so, when?

We are for the defense and liberation of working and oppressed people.

What do you feel is your biggest accomplishment so far in terms of politics?

In seven years our party has grown and matured in the struggle. It is an achievement to announce this campaign that will capture the attention of many working people around the country as we promote a program for true liberation through Socialism.

My notes and commentary:

Obama is just another
corrupt capitalist, according
to Lindsay and the PSL. 

• After reading the response to the first couple questions, it appears to me PSL is attempting to continue the struggle against capitalism in 2012, not win it then and there. This isn't particularly a problem for a small party. Start with baby steps, and hopefully you will eventually reach your goal.
• Also, I stand corrected with regards to John Boehner. It was my understanding that Constitutionally speaking, if neither the President-elect nor Vice President-elect were Constitutionally eligible to be President, it would pass to the Speaker of the House (Boehner). But, accordng to Article III of the 20th Amendment, "Congress shall provide by law for [such a case]". Either way, PSL doesn't seem to expect that to happen. But as I've said, if you truly support a third party candidate, you should vote for them even if they have no chance of winning. It's far better than picking the lesser evil. 
• Note the differences between Lindsay and Stewart Alexander on free speech. Recall my quote from my coverage of Mr. Alexander. "As President, even if Nazis or Klansmen protested peacefully outside the front doors of the White House for weeks on end, I would not raise a finger against them or instruct anyone else to do so." In contrast, PSL would censor these things. I personally prefer Alexander's approach, but for voters who want to see those things stopped, Lindsay is the better choice.
• I completely agree on the quote about Obama. This is why we need a third party candidate. Obama is absolutely pitiful. I can't believe I supported him at one time.
• Let's hope all third party candidates can capture America's attention, Peta. Good luck!

Jack Fellure of the Prohibition Party is the only already-nominated candidate who I haven't covered. I will mail him a letter when I get back to UConn to ensure that his response gets to the right place at the right time.

Third Party Coverage 2012: Stewart Alexander, Socialist Party USA

The first in my multiple part series on third parties running for president in 2012. This will likely be reposted as we get close to November. But I will post it now, as they have responded. I wouldn't assign much significance to the fact that they were first to respond - most parties haven't nominated anyone yet. 

Party: Socialist Party USA

Image from Wikipedia.

Website: http://www.stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/home.htm
Presidential Candidate: Stewart Alexander
Vice Presidential Candidate: Alex Mendoza
Ideology: Socialist
Ballot Access: [A]s to what we are doing to gain ballot access, we are getting things planned.  I can say that we are working on organizing our candidates in Alabama and Vermont, which have the sensible ballot access law that we merely have to be organized in the state.  We already have access in several states, such as Ohio and Florida, and there are some easy states, such as New Jersey, with low requirements and in which we have a lot of members.   In Michigan, there is a pending lawsuit for ballot access as the leading candidate for the Greens from 2010, which officially keeps their ballot access, was not a Green party member, but a Socialist party member whom ran openly as such.  That's what I know offhand.  We may not get all 50 states as many have early deadlines, though many do have later dates for president-only access.

Summary: I did not receive a summary exactly, but the website and question answers were detailed enough that I think we can establish it.

Questions (answered by campaign staff member):

Many of us are old enough to remember the "Red Scare" of the 1960s. Do you feel the need to convince them that socialism is not the ultimate evil as some would claim? If so, how will you do so?

Absolutely.  The Socialist Party USA, and its predecessor, the Socialist Party of America, have long supported civil liberties stronger than those of the twin capitalist parties.  In fact, Eugene Debs had spent years in prison for speaking against World War I.  Norman Thomas, a presidential candidate through much of the Socialist Party of America's history, had been good friends with Martin Luther King Jr and wrote President Truman warning him of Stalin.  Though many had been supportive of Lenin in Russia, the party was very much opposed to the USSR once Stalin took charge.

Election after election, Socialist Party candidates rank in as more freedom-loving than the capitalist candidates, including Ron Paul, whom ranks as slightly authoritarian (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008).

Pointing to this long history, in the face of the capitalist parties voting strongly for various civil liberties violations, such as creating indefinite detention without trial for American citizens, will do far to awaken them to the truth in these times.

2) On those lines, during the Cold War, many politicians from both sides adopted, to quote Harry Potter, a "neither can live while the other survives" approach to communism and capitalism. Do you feel that way? Why or why not?

It is not necessary for either capitalism or
socialism to die at the hand of the other. One can live
while the other survives. The same could not be said
of Harry and Voldemort, however.

We are not a Communist party, so this does not really apply to us.  Now, we do believe that socialism and capitalism can coexist in the same world, though the United States is a threat to socialism overseas at the present.  However, if the US were to go socialist, there would not be a powerful enough imperialist power to create such a threat to worldwide socialism.

The United States isn't truly practicing capitalism now, as one can see if they read Wealth of Nations, written by the "Father of Capitalism," Adam Smith.  Smith wrote the book describing how corporations concentrate power and destroy free market forces.  One method of building socialism still leaves room for these small shops (see http://www.stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/nowakowskimodel.htm)

3) On your website, you say "We call for a ban on animal experimentation for product development, and for an oversight board to examine and limit the use of animals in scientific and medical research.". But where do medical drugs fall on there? Are they considered "product development", or "scientific and medical research"?

Medical drugs would fall under scientific and medical research.  These days, it is possible to culture animal cells in petri dishes which can be used for much of scientific research and product development to ensure that as few animals as possible are violated by research.

4) On those lines - it goes without saying that socialism would be for all the American people. But animals aren't people. What "human" rights should/shouldn't they have, in your opinion?

We do not have any animal rights experts working on the Presidential campaign at this time.  However, I could give some precursory answers that they should not be abused by humans outside of necessary testing done with the full review of scientific ethics boards.  Even when they participate in such tests, the greatest care should be taken to bring as little harm to the subjects as possible.  Wild animals should be given ample habitats to ensure they can survive successfully in the wild due to the laws of nature, not human expansion.  Animals should also not be killed for the commercial use of their furs.  We certainly would not suggest that animals, other than humans and any sentient species we may come across some day, deserve political rights.

Alexander seems to adopt a Keynesian
approach to economics. The more money
we put into the economy, the more comes
out, regardless. However, a campaign staffer
says this merely represents the way things
run under capitalism. The main goal is to
establish socialism.

5) How can you simultaneously enforce a $15/hour minimum wage and a full employment policy? When minimum wage goes up, businesses are able to afford fewer employees, not more. Or would the government simply pay the wage to unemployed individuals, somewhat similar to social security now?

The driving force in hiring policies of businesses is not the cost of labor, but rather a volume of business that demands more labor.  Putting more money in the hands of those likely to spend it quickly, which would include anyone whose primary income was what they earned making less than $15/hour, can only create more demand for labor.  Where the market was in place, perhaps a higher price on products produced by minimum wage workers may make up a small part of the adjustment, but the higher business caused by that and other policies would make up the vast bulk of the difference.  Businesses would have much less of a problem paying for a worker earning $15/hour with twice the business than a worker earning $7.50 with the same business.  Don't fall into the capitalist lies - these politicians are not speaking the actual knowledge of capitalist economics, but rather the interests of capitalist business owners who want to pay employees as little as possible so they can get a bigger piece of a smaller pie - often to their own detriment.  They don't look outside the immediate profits of now. Update: Per the campaign staff member: "Alexander does not take a Keynesian stance, though he takes that interpretation of how things run under capitalism.  The goal for the economy is establishing socialism, collective ownership and control of the means of production (and Alexander is adopting the Nowakowski model as his ideal model, which explains this more).  I answered this question based on what was asked, not a general stance.  Stewart Alexander believes in directly creating jobs, and he understands that before socialism can be fully instituted, this will be much more effective in a Keynesian sense than indirect incentives for corporations which often results in lots of waste." Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Alexander would not prevent
peaceful protests outside
the White House by anybody,
not even the Klu Klux Klan.

6) Kudos to you for opposing all forms of censorship. Would that extend to those who seek to reinstate capitalism?

Absolutely.  Your commitment to free speech is not measured by how you extend it to those you agree with, but by how you extend it to those you disagree with.  Socialism involves a lot of power being held in collective enterprises which must always be under democratic scrutiny, and no matter who is in power, the people must always scrutinize them and look for abuses.  Otherwise you will end up with a Stalin, a Bush, or an Obama.  To quote Stewart Alexander:

"As President, even if Nazis or Klansmen protested peacefully outside the front doors of the White House for weeks on end, I would not raise a finger against them or instruct anyone else to do so."

7) You call for proportional representation in government. Of course, the asymptotic limit of this is a complete direct democracy (i.e. each "voting district" has exactly one person), But anything other than this could lead to a opinion or candidate supported by a minority of Americans winning anyway. How do you plan around this?

You misunderstand proportional representation.  We are not calling for a mixed system, like in Germany.  We are calling for all the votes for the legislature to be pooled and seats being granted to parties based on votes received by the entire populace, not by districts.  We are not nationalists who drop our solidarity at national borders; neither would we drop our solidarity at arbitrary district borders.

Stewart would not let the
people go so far as to
violate human rights. Pictured
above is the English Bill
of Rights, one of the first
documents of its kind.

8) One final question on those lines - how far could the "voice of the people" go? If 55% of the voters in my district think that it's ok for a man to beat his wife, should domestic violence be legalized here? Of course, that's an extreme example, but I guess the real question is whether the people's decision is absolute, no matter what, or if "common sense" applies.

In light of the previous answer, I'm going to treat these as municipal or state borders, as there are no districts in the political system we are calling for.  Human rights are not at the discretion of any political unit, but something to be guaranteed everywhere.  Domestic violence isn't a matter of choice, it is a matter of violating human rights.  No political subdivision would be allowed to violate human rights or civil liberties.




My initial reaction:

• With regards to Ron Paul, all the primary candidates from 2008 except Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were considered as authoritarian (as opposed to "libertarian"). Ron Paul was less authoritarian than any of them (other than Gravel and Kucinich). That being said, Bob Barr (the Libertarian 2008 nominee) is significantly more authoritarian than Brian Moore (SPUSA's 2008 nominee). In fact, Barr is more authoritarian than Obama and Biden, according to Political Compass. Then again, most people within the LP weren't happy with Barr's nomination. It will be interesting to mark off the candidates for 2012 once we know who the LP nominee is.  However, as the pictures on the compass site are copyrighted, I cannot include them here.
  

• 

  What "human" rights
  apply to sentient
  aliens? It's an interesting
  topic.

  Interesting comment in question #4 implying that they would give political rights to sentient aliens (actual aliens, not foreigners) if they ever came to Earth. I don't particularly have a problem with that (and actually agree with that) but how to give certain rights to aliens would propose a problem. I remember reading Robert J. Sawyer's novel Illegal Alien, in which an alien is put on trial for murdering a human scientist. The question was raised as to whether a "jury of his peers" would be required to contain 12 aliens of his species rather than 12 human beings, and if so, how that could practically be arranged. This led to the so-called "Trial of the Centuri", the name being an allusion to the alien's home star. But I'm not going to get into that right now. It was a very good book though, and it raises many legal and ethical issues. 
• Note the ultra-Keynesian approach to #5. But also see the update above.
• I completely agree with the sentiment in question six. I've said similar things myself. And I fully support the Supreme Court's ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment gave the KKK a Constitutional Right to hold a rally. I personally find their message repulsive and atrocious, they absolutely have the right to say it.
• Proportional government is interesting. Seems like a classic parliamentary system, only without the minimum quota, however.
• And as for number eight, the voice of the people absolutely should not override civil liberties. We saw what happened in New York City with the mosque. Don't let it get worse.
• I'm also somewhat surprised that I couldn't find any sources who made the comparison between the Harry/Voldemort prophecy and the Cold War attitudes. But that's another story.