From Glenn Davis at Independent Voter Network:
According the party’s website, ”The Peace and Freedom Party is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality. We represent the working class, those without capital in a capitalist society.”
The party took root in 1967 in opposition to the Vietnam War, supporting environmental protection, individual rights, feminism, and socialist economic principles.
The PFP has run hundreds of candidates, mostly in California, yet few have been elected.
“People run as PFP candidates to offer a perspective seldom heard in American election campaigns, and to raise issues which professional politicians would prefer to ignore,” the party claims.
This concept, common to many third-party efforts, was clearly voiced by Akin in his comments:
“As for why we would run, without an expectation of immediate victory: victory can be defined in many ways. Bringing people to see the issues our way, putting pressure on major-party politicians that results in gains for working people, expanding the number of people willing to make a clear Left choice, and building local organizations are all small victories that can add up to a lot.” – Kevin Akin, Peace and Freedom Party
Akin added that most major reforms originate as proposals of smaller parties, often ultimately adopted by others.
Read the full article here.
Agreed!
I once asked a self-proclaimed Marxist who held season tickets for a Major League Soccer franchise, if we would give away half of his tickets to someone that could not afford them or if he would be pleased if the team forced him to do so. He said, “no”. He elaborated that he paid for the tickets and they were his property. I asked him what the difference was between his tickets and my money. He admitted he had no logical answer. To my knowledge he still remains a Marxist.
The Peace and Freedom Party is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality.
I don’t want to get into a semantic debate, as I realize that different people have different conceptions of what words like “socialism” and “feminism” mean, but I don’t see what any of these five things — socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality — as they are likely defined by the PFP, has anything whatsoever to do with peace or freedom.
I still think it is an absolute shame that such a wonderful name, which would have been perfect for the LP, is wasted on the PFP.
Since they believe in socialism, I assume all the people in the photograph have no problem if someone from the government comes into their homes and tells them to give him/her all their stuff.
Why do they need to own those coats and sunglasses and shoes and watches? What a bunch of greedy capitalists.