The Democratic party

[Comrade Anarchist]

The Jackass party. This is the party i have rooted for for 10 years (I'm only 16 right now so i never understood the elections till a few years ago and then my ideology ran leftwards). Democrats always seemed better then republicans and they were and i always thought that they were it. I had always thought the farther left you went you started tripping over Stalin(obviously i do not believe that now). Now I'm not a democrat, and every time i see them on t.v. the first word to pop in my head is fascist and yet i find myself hoping they win. The democrats are having 2 hard governor elections in my state V.A. and another one is N.J. and my brain's right side says fascist and the left side of my brain is saying hopefully the democrats win so at least we center-right party rather than a far right party. I am finding it hard to break away from wanting the democrats to win even though I am devoutly anarchist. Where do you stand on elections within the existing political structure.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't think you're as confused as you think you are. There's nothing wrong with hoping Democrats get in above Republicans, if the Democrat candidates will be preferable. For example it would be in your material interests, and that of the working class to have Congressmen that will, at a basic minimum, defend a woman's right to abortion. This isn't a given with Republican candidates.

The contention comes when you actively support those candidates. Congress is not a platform for leftists. As anarchist-communists we do not utilise the state, however we recognise at times some sections of the ruling class are willing to concede more limited gains to our class than are other sections. This doesn't mean we champion their election however.

[RedSonRising]

I agree with most of the post above, however it is frustrating that such concessions bribe the working class into complacency. The Democrats were eager to get Bush of out power, and now that he is gone, the anti-war movement has all but halted for formerly active citizens. While the democrats may provide short-term relief for the working class, I get frustrated at the potential angry reaction that workers may use to motivate political movements that is stifled. If there was a continued cycle of outwardly visible republican aggression, perhaps the focus would not be so much on the party or person, but the fact that the electoral system even allows such things to occur, revealing the idea that systemic changes must occur, not shifts in individual state actors. Perhaps if the working class, specifically the African-American working class, feel that Obama has failed within the next few years, the discontent with the best hopes of both parties will be enough to prompt dissenters to look elsewhere for "change." And that's where we come in.

(if we can get our shit together.)

[h9socialist]

The problem with the Democratic Party is NOT ideology! Simple and to the point: The US Democratic Party is the second most capitalistic party in the world. To expect the Democrats to carry a lot of left-wing water is an exercise in futility.

However . . .

Demographically, the Democrats sure do look a lot like the party that the left wants to build. That is, it's base is workers, African-Americans, women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians -- go down the line. The quilt of class interest and common interest of the oppressed is woven in the Democratic Party. The trick for the US Left, is how to radicalize the coalition of interests that unite under the Democrats. Whether the result is a new political movement or party or a radicalized Democratic Party is up for question. The important thing is to keep building the coalition, AND keep radicalizing it. If we do that correctly, the institutional concerns will resolve themselves in due course.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The fact that an Anarchist chooses a specific party to win over another is not a problem.

When an Anarchist chooses a party which is moderately conservative, I worry.

I would understand rooting for Nader or something, but the Dems? Come on. they are republican lite. They are republican's minus the idiocy.

[cb9's_unity]

h0m0revolutionary made a lot of good points. The democrats are better than the republicans, but neither of them are really any good.

The problem now is that there is a big split between socialists parties about how to deal with the democratic party. One opinion is that socialists ought to work within the democratic party in order to radicalize it and turn it to the left. Another opinion is that the democrats and republicans are essentially "one big capitalist party" and that any alliance with the democrats is allying with bourgeois interests.

Personally I'm not a fan of working within the democratic party, its has and always will be run by capitalists and will only support capitalist candidates. Democratic politicians have never been afraid to distance themselves from the radical left and true radicals will never be able to take advantage of tools and resources of the democratic party. However there is also problems with the "one big capitalist party" idea many of this site have. On social issues the democratic party is years ahead of the republicans, gay rights, abortion, freedom from religion are all values that democrats and socialists hold. The result is that the easiest people to turn into socialists are democrats.

[9]

Simple and to the point: The US Democratic Party is the second most capitalistic party in the world. To expect the Democrats to carry a lot of left-wing water is an exercise in futility.




Demographically, the Democrats sure do look a lot like the party that the left wants to build.Wait...what?
So the "left" should judge the merits of a party by its base and not the class interests the party actually represents? If you are willing - and you seem to be - to work within what you call "the second most capitalistic party in the world" because it appeals to some segments of the American working class (only to betray them, of course, as it has done so consistently in the past and will continue to do for the whole of its existence), would you also not have any objection to working with parties like the BNP, who also have a largely working class base?
If you think revolutionaries can infiltrate a party which has always represented the interests of the capitalist class and somehow persuade the capitalists to stand down.... you're set to have a Dutch-style social democratic party on your hands around the time the sun collapses. If you're lucky, you'll reach a classless society a few billion years after the death of the universe.


The quilt of [capitalist] class interest and common interest of the oppress[ors] is woven in the Democratic Party.
^It's still a little redundant, but I corrected your typos. :)



The problem now is that there is a big split between socialists parties about how to deal with the democratic party. One opinion is that socialists ought to work within the democratic party in order to radicalize it and turn it to the left.
That's not a split between socialists, in spite of the rhetoric by organizations like the DSA and CPUSA, which are unambiguously reformist. Rather, it's the clear line between social democrats and socialists - between middle class "leftists" representing the interests of capital (albeit in a more socially liberal outfit) and socialist revolutionaries representing the interests of the working class.

Another opinion is that the democrats and republicans are essentially "one big capitalist party" and that any alliance with the democrats is allying with bourgeois interests.
Yes, absolutely. This is the opinion of the revolutionaries.

[cb9's_unity]

I probably should have chosen my words a little more carefully. The idea of trying to make the democratic party turn somewhat leftward is an idea generally accepted by social democrats. However I think a few genuine socialists still hold onto the (imo flawed) idea that the democratic party can be radicalized.

However I think the distinction must be made that one can be socialist and still a "reformist". One stops being a socialist when they start believing that reforming capitalism will produce such adequate results that socialism can be postponed to some later date. However there are those that can fight for reforms that strengthen the working class and prepare them for more immediate transition into socialism. (btw I don't necessarily think reforms alone are enough for revolution, I think more grassroots organization and resistance are needed. I'm sorta just trying to explain the political scene right now)

[h9socialist]

Comrade Apikoros, I am suggesting that the coalition in the US that supports the Democrats in elections is very close to the same coalition that socialists need to triumph and govern democratically (small "d"). The problem that many US leftists tend to give short-shrift to is that the movement isn't just simply ideology. If it was we wouldn't be so marginalized in the US. It also has to do with the people who can comprise a majority, and having them act in their own class interest. To the extent that socialists have failed to win those folks over we have a lot of work to do, and a lot stacked against us. But we also have problems that need to be corrected -- one is learning to listen to those who comprise that majority. Another is relating to the immediate needs of that majority. Building a socialist society is a long range project that requires fortitude and willingness to accept bumps in the road. Most people in the "proletariat" are concerned about day-to-day life and find "revolution" either too disruptive or too "pie in the sky." I am saying that socialists need to emphasize the more immediate impact for workers, and develop a more convincing strategy for being relevant to average working class folks --- particularly in the US. We are, I believe, in need of developing a socialist politics with both immediate relevancy and long term vision. That's very, very difficult to put together. But until the socialist movement in the US does that, the Democrats will always be in the driver's seat, because they present themselves as a more realistic alternative. That is not giving in to the Democrats -- that's challenging US socialists to do better.

[x359594]

There's a saying about the Democratic Party: "The Democratic Party is the graveyard of social change." Meaning that those who believe that supporting a capitalist party by putting time and energy into supporting its programs are doomed to disappointment and frustration and end up as burn-outs.

[Cheung Mo]

The Democrats: Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders, and a bunch of neoliberals.

Okay...So Sanders isn't really a Dem.

[h9socialist]

Okay, openly I am a member of DSA, my avatar is Michael Harrington, I have many good friends, comrades and connections with SPUSA and CPUSA. I have high regard for those organizations, along with CCDS and Solidarity. If that makes me some sort of terrible petty bourgeois reformist, so be it -- although I don't think that's the case. I must tell you, though, I don't see a more viable way to move the US off its right wing haunches. I also feel that the rank-and-file of the US Democratic Party are the very people we need to win over to build a viable socialist movement in this country.

[chegitz guevara]

You may have friends in the SPUSA but we don't share your perspective towards the Democrats. We understand that capitalism must be overthrown. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be voted into being. Only revolution will bring about socialism.

Yes, we need to win over those who support the Democrats. We also need to win over those who support the GOP. We also need to breathe air. Some statements are so self-evident they don't need saying.

We could have the perfect program, perfect politics, know exactly what to say in every situation, be the best damn organizers in the world, and the socialist movement still wouldn't grow considerably. It's not a matter of worker better or working harder (although there's no reason we shouldn't do both). The material circumstances determine whether people will support the capitalist parties or look for an alternative.

In the mean time, we need to do the best we can to build a revolutionary alternative, not prop up illusions in the system.

[GatesofLenin]

Remember that we'll never have a true radical left choice as long as politicians are paid six figures and get so many benefits like tax breaks, etc... How can a politician say truthfully that he represents the people when they're miles apart from you and me. Todays politicians DO NOT KNOW WHAT WORKING MEANS! Use to be a time when you volunteered for office and had to work the rest of the time = now you can say you represent the working man. YES, I'm angry and ticked off. :(:cursing:

[x359594]

...I don't see a more viable way to move the US off its right wing haunches. I also feel that the rank-and-file of the US Democratic Party are the very people we need to win over to build a viable socialist movement in this country.

Does the US Democratic Party have a rank and file beyond the people who are registered vote under its banner? Does it have a rank and file involved in the day to day decisions that shape party platforms and priorities?

Even if there is rank and file involvement in the day to day activities of the Democratic Party, any proposal which the bourgeois parties will accept or give support to must of necessity be acceptable to the capitalist order, and therefore is a priori nonrevolutionary. The whole process of compromising with bourgeois parties in legislative voting blocs and electoral alliances means that no measures will ever be adopted which are unacceptable to the bourgeois parties and the capitalist order. The party degenerates into a hollow shell which, while mouthing revolutionary platitudes, does nothing more than any other liberal bourgeois reform party would do. The party becomes revolutionary in name only

All of these reformist parties seek legislation to insure that labor power is sold at more favorable terms, to make wage labor more palatable for the worker. None of these organizations upholds the revolutionary goal of abolishing the wage system, of ending the sale of labor power as a commodity.


The wage relationship is the linchpin of the entire capitalist system--the capitalist cannot extract a dime of profit if he is unable to purchase the labor power of those who have no capital. To be a socialist is to fight for the abolition of the wage system--anything less is not socialism, but liberal reformism.

[chegitz guevara]

Does the US Democratic Party have a rank and file beyond the people who are registered vote under its banner? Does it have a rank and file involved in the day to day decisions that shape party platforms and priorities?

No. In any event, the Party platforms and priorities are utterly meaningless. The politicians are free to completely ignore them, and routinely do. Parties have little capacity to discipline members except by withholding election money, and most politicians raise their own.

[AmericanRed]

No. In any event, the Party platforms and priorities are utterly meaningless. The politicians are free to completely ignore them, and routinely do. Parties have little capacity to discipline members except by withholding election money, and most politicians raise their own.

Chegitz is correct. But recognizing this tends to undercut the case for never supporting any Democrat, doesn't it? If Dennis Kucinich can't be disciplined by Nancy Pelosi, why not support him? Unless one's stance is that one should never support a politician who isn't a revolutionary. OK, but then one is left with electoral politics as a purely propagandistic exercise, which doesn't attract very many people in the working class.

Anyway, DSA's official stance vis-a-vis the Democratic Party can be found in their documents on the DSA home page -- see the "Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice" document and the "What is Democratic Socialism?" document.

It certainly doesn't seem to me that DSA's INTENT is class-collaborationist -- the group isn't ideologically Bernsteinian or what have you. One can argue that DSA's PRACTICE ends up class-collaborationist, I suppose, but that's obviously not the intent...