The way I see the US political parties

[Fulanito de Tal]

Tea party - These people are reactionary. They are upset that they used to have it made and shit went bad for them due to monopolizing of industries. These are the petty-bourgeois that Marx and Engels mentioned in the Communist Manifesto.


Republican and Democrat parties work together to produce an outcome. This outcome is the increasing concentration of wealth, diminishing the middle class, and removing power from the people. It does so in 2 ways.

1-Having two parties allows us to believe that we have a choice between parties, when in essence, they are almost the same.

2-They work as part of a pendulum. When the Republicans have gone too far, the Democrats come back and soften the blow done to the population. When the population starts feeling better, the Republicans step in and the cycle continues.

Republican - They try to concentrate power into the elite of the US. They promote and start the wars, remove progressive taxes and restrictions that prevent economical collapse.

Democratic - They understand that recessions and increasing unemployment are due to capitalism and increasing technological advances which require less labor and that the wealth is concentrated into a few people. They try to offset revolution by giving the poor enough to survive through food stamps, welfare, TANF, etc. They also provide necessary measures to ensure that the economy does not collapse.


What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

As I try to solidify my views, I would like to hear praise and critiques. I would like to hear your viewpoints as well.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Tea party - These people are reactionary. They are upset that they used to have it made and shit went bad for them due to monopolizing of industries. These are the petty-bourgeois that Marx and Engels mentioned in the Communist Manifesto.


Republican and Democrat parties work together to produce an outcome. This outcome is the increasing concentration of wealth, diminishing the middle class, and removing power from the people. It does so in 2 ways.

1-Having two parties allows us to believe that we have a choice between parties, when in essence, they are almost the same.

2-They work as part of a pendulum. When the Republicans have gone too far, the Democrats come back and soften the blow done to the population. When the population starts feeling better, the Republicans step in and the cycle continues.

Republican - They try to concentrate power into the elite of the US. They promote and start the wars, remove progressive taxes and restrictions that prevent economical collapse.

Democratic - They understand that recessions and increasing unemployment are due to capitalism and increasing technological advances which require less labor and that the wealth is concentrated into a few people. They try to offset revolution by giving the poor enough to survive through food stamps, welfare, TANF, etc. They also provide necessary measures to ensure that the economy does not collapse.


What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

As I try to solidify my views, I would like to hear praise and critiques. I would like to hear your viewpoints as well.


With the republicans you know your gonna get screwed. With the Democrats, they use a little KY jelly.

[graymouser]

The Republicans are the party of capital that pretends to be for the petty bourgeoisie. The Democrats are the party of capital that pretends to be for labor. Both parties are fundamentally designed to fail in achieving the actual ends of their "base" groups. The Democrats will never achieve any of the aims of old school American liberalism, with single-payer health care, equal rights and so on. The Republicans will never achieve any of the aims of modern social conservatism, banning abortion and bringing prayer into public schools and so on. Both sides use such rhetoric to bring out supporters but neither side would be caught dead doing something about it unless it had been watered down to meaninglessness. Meanwhile both parties do plenty to enrich the big businesses that are their real constituencies.

Right now, the Democrats aren't functioning as a safety valve - essentially if they were the ones who people used to blow off steam, the whole agenda would be moving leftward (albeit in fits and starts). So the Republicans are being used to channel basically correct anger about the crisis into the Tea Party movement, which is basically a pro-austerity populist movement.

[Marc24]

Tea party - These people are reactionary. They are upset that they used to have it made and shit went bad for them due to monopolizing of industries. These are the petty-bourgeois that Marx and Engels mentioned in the Communist Manifesto.

Defiantly agree on that one.


when in essence, they are almost the same.

There are some differences. Democrats are pro-choice, while Republicans are Pro-life. Democrats believe in recognizing gay marriage, while Republicans don't. Republicans also don't want gun restrictions while Democrats do. Those are just a few differences.

[Rakhmetov]

The Democrats under Clinton supported NAFTA the repeal of Glass-Steagal, took away Welfare, the Rich pardon, etc, etc. Whatever happens to the Democrats they deserve it.

[Jazzhands]

The Dems are basically Republicans without balls. They have a slightly more civil-rights-friendly agenda, but really, they're the same other than that.

[Fulanito de Tal]

There are some differences. Democrats are pro-choice, while Republicans are Pro-life. Democrats believe in recognizing gay marriage, while Republicans don't. Republicans also don't want gun restrictions while Democrats do. Those are just a few differences.

Democrats are the ones the prevent the masses from opposing the order, the relations. So, they are on the progressive side. They believe in recognizing same-sex marriage only as much as needed. While the GLBT community organizes and progresses their movement, the Democrats have to give them someone to vote for. Otherwise, no Democrat in office would care.

[FreeFocus]

They just represent two different general approaches by the bourgeoisie, two different approaches of preserving and expanding class rule and American imperialism.

[Hexen]

Democrats and Republicans are both bourgeoisie parties. Nothing more.

[GPDP]

They [the Republicans] promote and start the wars

World War I - Woodrow Wilson

World War 2 - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Korean War - Harry S. Truman

Vietnam War - John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson

All Democrats.

And that's not even getting into the wars they helped escalate (Clinton's NATO bombardment of Kosovo, Obama's escalation of Afghanistan).

In fact, the President with possibly the least bloodshed to his name in the last 100 years was probably Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Well, either him or Carter, but the latter only had four years.

[mlgb]

They just represent two different general approaches by the bourgeoisie, two different approaches of preserving and expanding class rule and American imperialism.

rather, two haves of the same approach.

the republicans edge the country farther right. pushing as hard as they can whenever they are in power.

the democrats (sorta)oppose this. they point to how totally crazy the republicans are, say that they have to stop the republicans no matter what. they move towards the 'center' to try and win and then when they get in power they adhere to the status quo instead of pushing back towards the left. this non-action legitimizes the new frame created by the republicans move to the right. if the 'left' party governs from the center and the 'right' party governs from the far right pretty soon the center is the new left and the far right is just the right.

since there are only two parties, any move 'towards the center' by either party shifts the center towards the other party. the republicans find themselves not only able to move farther right, but compelled to. if they don't, the slow 'centerward' drift of the democrats will eventually lead to a loss of distinction between the parties.

[synthesis]

In fact, the President with possibly the least bloodshed to his name in the last 100 years was probably Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.

Maybe not directly, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dry. Mossadegh is a good place to start.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Maybe not directly, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dry. Mossadegh is a good place to start.

Or Guatemala...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Adding to what others have said. Both parties are run by corporate America. The Republican Party, not having a progressive constituency, is free to be more "radical", free to give reign to their extremists. The Dems are caught in a bind. They have a progressive constituency, the "little guy" and the working class, but they are far from progressive themselves. They have to use left sounding rhetoric but also have to go out of their way to reassure their corporate paymasters that they won't change the system or raise expectations They come off as weak, hand wringing wimps. Their working class constituency becomes demoralized. That is the purpose of the DP in US politics.

Last year a friend and I were talking about the assertiveness of the European working classes compared to the passivity of the US working class. My friend said that is "an eloquent testimony to the historic influence of the Democratic Party".

The Tea Party movement is made of a white petty bourgeois layer. It plays on a deep, intense undercurrent of racism and paranoia that's periodically appealed to by elements of the ruling class.This movement plays on fears of small business owners that somehow "everything we earned though hard work will be taken from us to appease those howling black and brown mobs in the inner cities". Although this impulse has long existed, the Tea Party itself has been carefully stage managed. The liberal journalist Frank Rich has a good expose of this.

[ZeroNowhere]

They understand that recessions and increasing unemployment are due to capitalism and increasing technological advances which require less labor and that the wealth is concentrated into a few people.I don't think that it's at all accurate to say that the Democrats hold capitalism responsible for the crisis, generally. Usually they seem more to blame it on 'greedy bankers' or 'under-regulation', or just Bush, but I haven't seen many incriminate the capitalist system as a whole.

[Rafiq]

Republicans and Democrats(leaders,party) are both enemy's of the workers.

However, to make it sound a little easier:

Republicans: Angry, Aggressive, Idiotic, Unintelligent, closed minded.

Democrats: More intelligent, less bombs more corrupt affairs global.

To make it simple, Republicans are 'Stupid Evil People' and Democrats are 'Smart Evil people'

[Fulanito de Tal]

I don't think that it's at all accurate to say that the Democrats hold capitalism responsible for the crisis, generally. Usually they seem more to blame it on 'greedy bankers' or 'under-regulation', or just Bush, but I haven't seen many incriminate the capitalist system as a whole.

The US is too good at keeping its working class in check, so they must know what's happening. Some of the US's smartest people work for their think tanks. Their words are a show, just like the elections and debates.

[Sexy Red]

The tea Party is astro turf, A fake grassroots movement. I mean, they're being financed by Republicans and former and current Republicans are running with them.

The left needs to fight back with a REAL Progressive party NOT financed by the Democratic party.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Overall, with the media exposing several of the big mouth candidates of the tea party, I sense the demise of the tea party in about a year or two. And yeah, I totally agree that we have been stranded on a pendulum. Overall, I don't think things are going to change for awhile. But, I am starting to feel vibes in the air that are suggesting that people are starting to become sick of this shit and want something new. And I'm not talking about the tea-party sheep. Lately, I've had a lot of people, primarily liberals, ask me about my own political stance and what I hope to see change.

[DragonQuestWes]

Republicans = bourgeois
Democrats = bourgeois
Tea Party = even if they don't call themselves Conservative or Republicans, but rather non-partisan independents, they're still bourgeois nationalists.

The Tea Party may not seem as pro-Republican as they seem considering that a Tea Party candidate that is a Democrat got elected to one of the government offices (I can't exactly remember what position), but that makes no difference to me because they could be in love with Obama and his "Socialist" policies for all I care and I would still NEVER support them because they are nothing but bourgeois nationalists advocating so-called "freedom" from government using free-market capitalism.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Democrats: More intelligent, less bombs more corrupt affairs global.
Beg pardon?

But I essentially agree with the OP here. The 'cunning' Democrats offer themselves as a softer version of the Republicans. Do they want the same things? Of course. If someone finds an example of a proletarian politician in America I will give them a cookie.

[Red Commissar]

As Eugene V. Debs observed a century ago:


The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production, and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class.


The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.


The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor.

Same can be said about the dominant political groups in any country.