Your thoughts on current parties?

[TheJungle]

I'm pretty sure no one in here is a Republican, right? :lol: But what about the other parties?

I don't like what Obama's doing. Giving $700 billion to corporations without many stipulations? Not just letting badly run businesses fail? FORCING PEOPLE WHO CAN BARELY SURVIVE TO PAY MONEY TO PRIVATE INSURERS FOR HEALTHCARE?!?!?!?! How does anybody think this guy is a socialist? He's a corporate guy, and John McCain is worse.

Ralph Nader, hah! There's a laugh.

Ron Paul. Do I have to say it?

America's in sorry shape these days (not just politically). What are your thoughts on current political parties, even ones outside the US. How are the supposedly socialist governments in Europe?

[Demogorgon]

America's in sorry shape these days (not just politically). What are your thoughts on current political parties, even ones outside the US. How are the supposedly socialist governments in Europe?
I think you have been misled by the rhetoric of the American right, there are no Socialist Governments in Europe. Not even in name. There are social democrats, but certainly no socialists. There is a notable tendency amongst American conservatives to try and claim Europe is socialist in order to scare people away from pretty tame European policies like Universal Healthcare and fairer electoral systems. But a truth is many of these things weren't even brought in by Social Democrats, let alone Socialists and in fact are simply considered normal parts of society.

As for what the parties across Europe are like, well obviously they vary in the level of distaste I have for them, but those participating in Government are ultimately all Capitalist Parties and hence do not share our interests.

[TheJungle]

I said supposedly.

But there has to be one "best" or "least bad" party. The SDP? The French Communist Party? British Labour?

[Demogorgon]

I said supposedly.

But there has to be one "best" or "least bad" party. The SDP? The French Communist Party? British Labour?
Well like I say, they aren't even supposedly socialists, they are social democrats. As for asking which is "least bad" is a pretty complicated question because these are different countries with their own political systems. The three parties you mention all come from different countries, each with very distinctive political set ups and also aren't readily comparable even at that because while the SPD and Labour are parties regularly in Government, the PCF are a much smaller party.

In way of example, in Scotland, to take the four mainstream parties from left to right they go: Scottish National Party-Liberal Democrats-Labour-Conservatives (though the Lib Dems have moved to the right a bit, so that could be inaccurate now), so on that basis the SNP are "least bad" taking into account just the four, but of course there are other parties too. The Greens also have a couple of seats in parliament and they are more Left Wing and the Scottish Socialist Party used to have seats and was even more left wing still so it was the best until we had a massive falling out and fell apart.

But I think the point to emphasise is that you shouldn't look too hard at mainstream parties for who is best, there are areas where some are clearly better than others (the pro-immigration stance of the SNP for instance is really refreshing given the political climate in the rest of Britain on the subject) but as a whole they are all fairly similar.

BTW as for Germany, the SPD are just another neoliberal part these days. Die Linke is the best party in parliament there.

[MarxSchmarx]

None of the major political parties in the developed world, even the half tolerable ones like Die Linke, JCP, or PCI have any viable long term strategies. And even the USPV is a lost cause. Well, perhaps the solid anti-capitalists within these parties have their hearts in the right place. Still, you're better off with something like the CPGB, the new CNT, or the WPA, working primarily outside the electoral arena.

[Crusade]

Actually, my favorite candidate so far has been Ralph Nader. Many consider him to be a libertarian leftist(although not in the obvious anarchist sense), which I admired. It's a mistake to remain uninvolved with politics because you don't have your ideal choices in mind. I pick the one which would give us the best environment for a socialist revolution, or at the very least, would keep the people struggling from clocking out altogether. I will NOT vote to strengthen the state by any means, but a libertarian(although capitalist) with socialist leanings? Count me in. I'm not gonna wait for American socialists to get our shit together before we at least give a temporary safety net for those of us feeling the pinch day to day. :( I feel that Nader at least gives us that much.

Actually, he spoke on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6C1TgIbEVo&feature=channel

[know2b]

But like I mentioned in another thread, it seems from what they wrote that Marx & Engels would have voted for rightwing free trade parties. This issue confuses me very greatly. If we vote for candidates like you describe, we slow the eventual collapse of capitalism, according to Marx & Engels. So do we support bandage measures which will help people in the short term or do we take the "tough love" approach and oppose those measures and try to speed along the end of capitalism? It seems like Marx & Engels would disagree with every leftwing party in existence.

[Crusade]

But like I mentioned in another thread, it seems from what they wrote that Marx & Engels would have voted for rightwing free trade parties. This issue confuses me very greatly. If we vote for candidates like you describe, we slow the eventual collapse of capitalism, according to Marx & Engels. So do we support bandage measures which will help people in the short term or do we take the "tough love" approach and oppose those measures and try to speed along the end of capitalism? It seems like Marx & Engels would disagree with every leftwing party in existence.

I understand that approach, but frankly it sickens me. The working class at this point cannot afford anymore hardship. And without proper representation and public knowledge of what socialism actually IS, their reaction to the sky falling around them won't be productive. Americans are notorious for their never ending pursuit of a scapegoat. America goes to hell and they'll blame the jews(:confused:), the racial minorities, women working, Obama, TOO much government regulation, Canada, sour cream dip, etc pretty much everything except Capitalism. For a lot of people there really is no other way. I believe, instead of people being FORCED into socialism by seeing the horrors of capitalism in decay, they can be PURSUADED into socialism, by witnessing the successes of socialist practices in action, such as universal health care(the real kind) worker managed businesses, etc.

Also, I feel that support of 3rd party candidates makes the political arena far less uniformed. People can't see capitalism's faults and say "This is the Democrats/Republicans" fault anymore. They'll judge based on POLICY. Once they start thinking about individual policies, they'll think about which policies benefit them most. I believe most of the country would accept Socialism one piece at a time, but they're shit scared of the "idea" itself, due to very successful brainwashing. Once you get them thinking independently, Socialism can gain popularity. It received a massive boost in both popularity and curiosity when Republicans started calling Obama a socialist. I believe the war can be won in a very clean way if we calm down and think strategically about our image and how we can make our case to the Americans. They're not our enemies(yet?) they're our neighbors. We gotta get them on our side.

[know2b]

And I understand why it would sicken you but I don't want to make a moral judgment about it. I only want to understand the confusion surrounding it. Like I said in the other thread, it doesn't look like conditions have reversed since Marx & Engels made their argument. Instead it looks like conditions have progressed along the same path and that their argument makes more sense now than it ever did (if it ever did). I'd like to read arguments from those who agree with Marx & Engels that free trade represents the lesser evil if only because it will unleash the power of capitalism to destroy itself.

[AK]

British Labour?
The Labour party of Britain - like so many other Labour parties that claim to be acting in the interests of the workers - is about as loyal to the working class as the National Socialist German Workers' Party was.

[The Idler]

I'd recommend the ideology of the World Socialist Party of the United States (http://www.worldsocialism.org/usa/) but there are probably over 30 parties on the left in the United States (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States) alone so maybe you need to delve a bit deeper than Ron Paul/Ralph Nader.

[CartCollector]

Those that suggest trying to force a revolution by pursuing policies that are harmful to the working class are usually never on the receiving end of those policies. Is it really worth it to try to raise consciousness by deliberately harming people?

[know2b]

Those that suggest trying to force a revolution by pursuing policies that are harmful to the working class are usually never on the receiving end of those policies. Is it really worth it to try to raise consciousness by deliberately harming people?

I assume you directed that at me.

I agree with you that it seems wrong to pursue policies that will harm workers in the short term. But Marx and Engels advocated free trade as the lesser evil because they saw it as "destructive" of capitalism and saw protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. I haven't found much willingness to take this confusion seriously. I've found dismissals, mostly based on the concerns you've raised. But I don't find those dismissals satisfactory, even if I agree with the concerns behind them.

If Marx and Engels advocated free trade on the grounds that it would speed along the destruction of capitalism, then why do most anticapitalist parties take the opposite line? I say most, because I don't know that none take the Marx/Engels line, but I don't know of any that do.

[CartCollector]

Where did you read this? I'd like to see Marx's and Engel's full, unparaphrased argument.

[anticap]

I'm pretty sure no one in here is a Republican, right? :lol:

I may be putting my neck on the chopping block by revealing this, but the armchair psychologist in me thinks it'll be worth it to probe just how unhinged and incapable of seeing beyond scary buzzwords the powers-that-be on this forum have become. At any rate, here goes:

Yes, I am a registered Republican, and I always have been. But Wait! Before you drop that banhammer, at least listen to my exciting story... :rolleyes:

One day, after I had come of age, there was a knock at the door. A guy was registering people to vote. At that point in my life I didn't give half a shit about politics; I just wanted to party. But I was bored enough to listen to his spiel about the importance of voting, yadda yadda, blah blah. When it came time to check off a party, I didn't know one from the other (in any meaningful sense), so I asked what party he was. He said Republican, but assured me that I was under no pressure to join his party; he only wanted me to register. He seemed like a nice guy, and, considering his honest gesture, I decided make his day and register as a Republican, with no intention of actually voting. He looked pleased, and I felt I'd done my good deed for the day. The end.

Later, after I became politically awakened (starting out as a typical "Patriotic American" asshole who revered the "Founding Fathers"), I went to vote in some insignificant election (non-Presidential, maybe even local, I can't remember), intending to vote Republican, but when I weighed "wait in line to vote" against "go smoke a bowl," the latter won out.

After my politics shifted leftward, I decided not to change my registration, because I had devised a plan to destroy the Republican Party from within, by voting in their primaries for the least reactionary candidate! Sheer genius, I know.

Anyway, at this point I simply can't be bothered to change it, because I haven't heard a convincing reason why I should. "You're inflating their numbers!" Meh, I'm sure there are reactionaries enrolled in leftist parties, too. It's a wash.

So, yeah, I'm a card-carrying member of the GOP! Maybe I should make that my user title.

[revolution inaction]

Later, after I became politically awakened (starting out as a typical "Patriotic American" asshole who revered the "Founding Fathers"), I went to vote in some insignificant election (non-Presidential, maybe even local, I can't remember), intending to vote Republican, but when I weighed "wait in line to vote" against "go smoke a bowl," the latter won out.


spoke like a true communist :)

[Spawn of Stalin]

anticap just earned my eternal respect. To be honest I like the Republicans more than the Democrats, Obama is far more dangerous than Bush could ever be, they both represent the same thing, that is war, racism, and above all else, the protection of private property, but one does it with the whole world convinced he is a progressive.

[Crux]

I said supposedly.

But there has to be one "best" or "least bad" party. The SDP? The French Communist Party? British Labour?
You want me to namedrop parties? Well, first off I have to say they all have their share of problems, mostly an undecieviness on the way forward and the ever reoccuring spectre of allying with the establishment parties. In France there's the New Anticapitalist Party, in germany you have Die Linke (The Left), in portugal the Bloco de Ezquerda, in greece SYRIZA (The Radical Left Alliance) and the Communist Party, there has been some back and forths in other countries where projects starting up but nothing large scale so far as I am aware.

Oh yeah and I like the Socialist Party in Ireland, but then again I am a member of the same international organization. ;)

On that note: http://www.socialistworld.net/index.php?m=5

[The Idler]

Anyway, at this point I simply can't be bothered to change it, because I haven't heard a convincing reason why I should. "You're inflating their numbers!" Meh, I'm sure there are reactionaries enrolled in leftist parties, too. It's a wash.
You're funding them by paying membership fees.

[Demogorgon]

You're funding them by paying membership fees.
It doesn't work like that in the states. He has just registered as one. That is simply to let you vote in the Primaries and the like.

[Die Neue Zeit]

None of the major political parties in the developed world, even the half tolerable ones like Die Linke, JCP, or PCI have any viable long term strategies. And even the USPV is a lost cause. Well, perhaps the solid anti-capitalists within these parties have their hearts in the right place. Still, you're better off with something like the CPGB, the new CNT, or the WPA, working primarily outside the electoral arena.

The PSUV, the main party that's supposed to be behind the new International project, is a lost cause? :confused:

But yeah, Mayakovsky named a few others, like SYRIZA and the NPA.

In practice, Die Linke doesn't have a viable long-term strategy. However, the rhetoric of its Draft Program (participatory democracy and clear conditions for parliamentary coalitions) may be something else.

[TheJungle]

I assume you directed that at me.

I agree with you that it seems wrong to pursue policies that will harm workers in the short term. But Marx and Engels advocated free trade as the lesser evil because they saw it as "destructive" of capitalism and saw protectionist fair trade as "conservative" of capitalism. I haven't found much willingness to take this confusion seriously. I've found dismissals, mostly based on the concerns you've raised. But I don't find those dismissals satisfactory, even if I agree with the concerns behind them.

If Marx and Engels advocated free trade on the grounds that it would speed along the destruction of capitalism, then why do most anticapitalist parties take the opposite line? I say most, because I don't know that none take the Marx/Engels line, but I don't know of any that do.

I never thought of that. We should do that because more people would get pissed and want to revolt. When The Jungle was published, there was nearly no regulation and look at where the characters went. People were being crushed and sold in lard! That seems conducive to Socialism, because people see the need to change things. Now, with regulated capitalism, people get in the mindset of "Capitalism's not great but good enough."

If we can force another market crash in America, people
might say enough and come on our side.

Or, we could say that the next time you come for a bailout, the Fed will buy your company. That's their incentive to work harder and, eventually, nationalize banks.

[CartCollector]

If we can force another market crash in America, people
might say enough and come on our side.
Yeah, but if it happens under Obama (or even a run-of-the-mill Republican) it'll get blamed on 'socialism' and 'the government,' sending the masses further down the lassiez faire rabbit hole. The only way this can work is if it happens under a Tea Partier, but I imagine then they'll just say "see Obama wasn't so bad, we need someone like him again," another undesirable option.

[know2b]

Where did you read this? I'd like to see Marx's and Engel's full, unparaphrased argument.

I can't post links, and you want full arguments so I won't post excerpts, but if you search for "free trade" in the Marx section at the Marxists Internet Archive you will find many comments by them. That site even has an entire subject section dedicated to Marx & Engels on free trade.

[NGNM85]

I generally vote for the Democrats, unless the Republicans haven't got a prayer, then I vote Green/Socialist.

[Konstantine]

Trotskyist.

[Who?]

Most parties in America are trash, as Gore Vidal once said: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

Which is why I now support the PSL.

[Victory]

Personally out of the top candidates in the US election, I wanted Ron Paul to win.

Let me explain my reasoning.

Ron Paul is an Anti-Interventionist, he advocated bringing ALL US Forces back to USA.
The biggest obstacle in delaying Socialism is US imperialism, and Ron Paul wanted to practically end it. However, of course as a stuanch republican and constitutionalist, his Social policies in helping the poor were horrible.

My favourite Communist Party in USA is the Revolutionary Communist Party lead by Bob Avakian. They print a lot of stuff I agree with, and his "Revolution Film Talk" was pretty amazing and educational. - revolutiontalk.net

[DragonQuestWes]

The only parties right now I support are the SPUSA (Socialist Party USA), California's Peace and Freedom Party and the RCPUSA (Revolutionary Communist Party USA). Not the CPUSA though because they've been a wee bit revisionist as of late.

[NGNM85]

The only parties right now I support are the SPUSA (Socialist Party USA), California's Peace and Freedom Party and the RCPUSA (Revolutionary Communist Party USA). Not the CPUSA though because they've been a wee bit revisionist as of late.

There's a difference between voting for a party and 'supporting' it.

[Victory]

There's a difference between voting for a party and 'supporting' it.

I Disagree. You might not principally support a party you vote for, but by voting for a party you are supporting its policies through voting for it.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

The current political parties of America suck... because they are either run by nut job, racist hicks or by insecure idiots who can't handle opposition... and above that both of them are controlled by massive corporations not to mention that the special interest groups, which I swear spawn from the pits of hell, bait and bribe the candidates with "campaign donations..." And with the Libertarian party and the CPUSA and SPUSA... meh... Libertarians are basically the crazy shit that is rejected by everyone else... the CPUSA is meh... the SPUSA is okayish....

[NGNM85]

I Disagree. You might not principally support a party you vote for, but by voting for a party you are supporting its policies through voting for it.

ell, I guess it depends how you define 'support.' I'm hardly enthused with the democratic party, but, while being far from socialists, don't have the same zeal as Republicans for kicking the poor in the teeth. There was a recent Princeton study, in the last several decades, the working class have done somewhat better under Democrat administrations, which shouldn't be a surprise. I vote for them because I want to minimize the suffering of the working class, not simply because I am working class. I'm not supporting their policies, I'm making a tactical decision to the action which my conscience compels me to take.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the PSL(Obviously) and the SP-USA's revolutionary wing.

as far as tendency goes, the PSL is pretty much just a Marxist-Leninist party that split form the WWP. The WWP used to be trotskyist but isnt anymore. The PSL has no major tendency beyond Leninism which in my opinion provides fertile ground to take a look at all revolutionary theories that developed after the russian revolution.

and the SP-USA. The Left(revoltionary) wing of the party is made up of a stable mix of marxists and anarchists(at least i believe so) but the current leader ship is of the right(reformist) wing that looks a lot like social democrats or as chegitz put it once, militant liberals. -Democratic Socialist with multiple internal tendencies but internal unity for the most part.

Not a big fan of the RCP although i admire their dedication. - MLM/Avakianists

CP-USA? lol democrats

ISO? well that was the third tendency/party i was considering joining but found myself to not really agree with some of their stances on certain issues. and im not really a trotsykist beyond the point of thinking that socialism cant really be completely developed in one country until socialism is in development across the whole world. Anyways the ISO is trotskyist.

[human strike]

Even parties outside the US?! :blink:

[anticap]

Cheers, comrade!

And cheers to you, my fellow Reaganite! Long live the revolution! ;)

I figure if I'm ever tempted to go to the trouble of switching enrollment, I'll just unregister entirely (a simple matter of sending a request to your local municipal clerk). Fuck voting, under this system. I'm too muddleheaded to pick a real party anyway. Or should I say, the real parties are too muddled for me to decide which one to pick. There's 1,001 socialist parties all squabbling over less than 1% of the vote. Fuck 'em all.


I'm hardly enthused with the democratic party, but, while being far from socialists, don't have the same zeal as Republicans for kicking the poor in the teeth. There was a recent Princeton study, in the last several decades, the working class have done somewhat better under Democrat administrations, which shouldn't be a surprise. I vote for them because I want to minimize the suffering of the working class, not simply because I am working class. I'm not supporting their policies, I'm making a tactical decision to the action which my conscience compels me to take.

I believe you're talking about a study by a guy named Bartels. He showed that, since WWII, those in the lower and middle income brackets have, as you said, done better, financially, under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones, while those in the top brackets have seen their bottom line remain steady. Of course the latter revelation ought to come as no surprise either, since the state is the instrument of the ruling class, and the ruling class are the rich. Democrats are allowed to be elected only because they're no threat to the rulers (contrary to the rantings of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck). Still, it is empirically true that the Democratic lash has fewer knots than the Republican one.

Edit: Here (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf)'s the study (PDF).