President's Speech

[StockholmSyndrome]

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend an intimate rendezvous with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. After a brief introduction by Organizing For America's Jeremy Bird, the President spoke to a room of about 50 people. Video cameras fed to an internet broadcast. The nature of this rally: fire people up to vote for Democrats in November. Don't ask how I got invited to this event; I would hate to blow my cover. ;)

Obama spoke for ten minutes, and then he answered about six questions from the audience. The first thing the President said was that immediately after taking office, he was briefed about how the country was about to experience another Great Depression. As you can probably guess, the main themes of the evening were: creating a stronger manufacturing base in the U.S. by investing in entrepreneurship and innovation; and making the U.S. a competitive player in the global economy once again. Economic nationalism.

The President expressed concern over the financialization of the economy, and the declining presence of the manufacturing sector. He talked about creating an environment for "structural change" in the economy, which I took as meaning a second industrial revolution to create green jobs, and make the United States "Number One" again. He talked about solar panels, wind turbines etc. I believe Obama's bible is Thomas Friedman's "Hot Flat and Crowded". In fact, I remember seeing somewhere that the President regarded this book very highly.

As all of you who live in the United States know, our President is an amazing speaker. Hell, he had me convinced. He went through the country's history and painted a picture of people overcoming hardships, such as racism and sexism, in order to create the best country in the world which treats everyone equally. Innovation, creativity and the contribution of hard working Americans are what make up the national character. American capitalism is the answer, not the problem.

Mr. Obama may or may not understand that global capitalism is, in fact, the problem. My guess is that he does, but that doesn't matter, because he's a professional politician. Professional politicians rely on their own ability to save face and kiss ass in the name of the bourgeoisie. After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should vote for Democrats. However, even if we did have a truly left wing party in this country, that would not make too much of a difference. The most we will ever attain with the ballot box is some sort of variation on the European social democracies. The fact is that professional politicians do not speak for the people, let alone for themselves.

[Amphictyonis]

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend an intimate rendezvous with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. After a brief introduction by Organizing For America's Jeremy Bird, the President spoke to a room of about 50 people. Video cameras fed to an internet broadcast. The nature of this rally: fire people up to vote for Democrats in November. Don't ask how I got invited to this event; I would hate to blow my cover. ;)

Obama spoke for ten minutes, and then he answered about six questions from the audience. The first thing the President said was that immediately after taking office, he was briefed about how the country was about to experience another Great Depression. As you can probably guess, the main themes of the evening were: creating a stronger manufacturing base in the U.S. by investing in entrepreneurship and innovation; and making the U.S. a competitive player in the global economy once again. Economic nationalism.

The President expressed concern over the financialization of the economy, and the declining presence of the manufacturing sector. He talked about creating an environment for "structural change" in the economy, which I took as meaning a second industrial revolution to create green jobs, and make the United States "Number One" again. He talked about solar panels, wind turbines etc. I believe Obama's bible is Thomas Friedman's "Hot Flat and Crowded". In fact, I remember seeing somewhere that the President regarded this book very highly.

As all of you who live in the United States know, our President is an amazing speaker. Hell, he had me convinced. He went through the country's history and painted a picture of people overcoming hardships, such as racism and sexism, in order to create the best country in the world which treats everyone equally. Innovation, creativity and the contribution of hard working Americans are what make up the national character. American capitalism is the answer, not the problem.

Mr. Obama may or may not understand that global capitalism is, in fact, the problem. My guess is that he does, but that doesn't matter, because he's a professional politician. Professional politicians rely on their own ability to save face and kiss ass in the name of the bourgeoisie. After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should vote for Democrats. However, even if we did have a truly left wing party in this country, that would not make too much of a difference. The most we will ever attain with the ballot box is some sort of variation on the European social democracies. The fact is that professional politicians do not speak for the people, let alone for themselves.

Sycophant no no sycophant no! Bad dog!

[bcbm]

so we won't gain anything from them and they speak for themselves, not us, but we should still vote for them?

[Amphictyonis]

I think he's a fine example of stockholm syndrome :)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I really don't think that Barack Obama is that good a speaker at all. Maybe it's different in intimate gatherings, but in front of big audiences he just looks wooden and like someone who could not survive without the autocue.

[StockholmSyndrome]

so we won't gain anything from them and they speak for themselves, not us, but we should still vote for them?

I never said we won't gain anything. I said the most we will gain is something like they have in Europe. I think it is important to vote because there is always a worse choice, and there are people who wish to take us backwards.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I think he's a fine example of stockholm syndrome :)

Nice one, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not sucking up to the guy. I'm just trying to get inside his head.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why? He's a Capitalist, an ardent right-winger.

We know what is going on in his head.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Why? He's a Capitalist, an ardent right-winger.

We know what is going on in his head.

I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, but why be argumentative?

[ed miliband]

“We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”
...
“We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”
...
“We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”
.................
....................
......................

Yes, all "intelligent communists" should vote for a man who advocates “a thriving, dynamic free market.” No doubt about that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDLk0lPYaSa0

[ed miliband]

I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, but why be argumentative?

I don't think it's a case of El Granma finding your post uninteresting so much as absolutely fucking ridiculous.

No offence, dude, but seriously...

[StockholmSyndrome]

Tough crowd. By all means, continue to take your dogmatic, "principled" stance against voting. But don't complain when women lose their reproductive freedoms, when homosexuals are reduced to second-class citizens, when anti-immigrant fervor carries us into a 21st century apartheid, when unaccountable corporate money continues to hijack any semblance of public participation in elections, when public programs are massively slashed, the burden on the working and middle class is increased, and laissez-fare, free market policies become implemented once again.

I know the limits of bourgeois democracy. I do not like the Democratic Party, but I am realistic and I recognize the importance of voting for people who have some progressive elements to their platform. Don't lie and say you weren't a bit relieved upon hearing that John McCain would not be our next President and Sarah Palin the VP.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not against voting, comrade. I am also not into internet wars, or anything like that. I wasn't trying to start on you.

As a matter of fact, i'm probably more in line with the Marxist-Leninist position on participation in bourgeois assemblies, than with the general left-communist line. Having said that, I cannot see any merit in voting for Barack Obama. The Democrat/Republican divide in America doesn't really seem to have any basis in class, either historically or currently. Where I live, in the UK, Labour have historically been a party of the working class (though not of Marxism), and as such they are affiliated to millions of union members and, whilst certainly reformist, have a role to play in trying to defeat Capitalism. Well, some elements of the party do.

But yeah, there really is zero merit for me, in voting for Barack Obama. He's still a war-mongering, torture-sponsoring, environment-destroying Capitalist, and a pretty right-wing one at that, as his actions in the White House have shown. He'd certainly be either Tory or Lib Dem if he were British.

[Obs]

Tough crowd. By all means, continue to take your dogmatic, "principled" stance against voting. But don't complain when women lose their reproductive freedoms, when homosexuals are reduced to second-class citizens, when anti-immigrant fervor carries us into a 21st century apartheid, when unaccountable corporate money continues to hijack any semblance of public participation in elections, when public programs are massively slashed, the burden on the working and middle class is increased, and laissez-fare, free market policies become implemented once again.

I know the limits of bourgeois democracy. I do not like the Democratic Party, but I am realistic and I recognize the importance of voting for people who have some progressive elements to their platform. Don't lie and say you weren't a bit relieved upon hearing that John McCain would not be our next President and Sarah Palin the VP.
You've been palling around too much with Obama.

[ed miliband]

But don't complain when women lose their reproductive freedoms, when homosexuals are reduced to second-class citizens, when anti-immigrant fervor carries us into a 21st century apartheidI'm not American, but I'm fairly sure many women don't have much reproductive freedom to lose and many homosexuals feel like second-class citizens. Voting for the Democrats hasn't stopped that.

But your apocalyptic vision of America falling into the hands of a Republican Party who will torture women who have abortions, legislate against homosexuality, and send immigrants to gas chambers doesn't seem to have much basis in reality. What has even less basis in reality is asserting that voting is going to somehow stop any of that from happening.


when unaccountable corporate money continues to hijack any semblance of public participation in elections, when public programs are massively slashed, the burden on the working and middle class is increased, and laissez-fare, free market policies become implemented once again.Ummm... because none of this would ever happen under the Democrats...? Isn't much of the above happening right now?


Don't lie and say you weren't a bit relieved upon hearing that John McCain would not be our next President and Sarah Palin the VP.I wasn't even slightly relieved.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We won't achieve anything by voting in right-wing Capitalists to stave off the threat of slightly worse right-wing Capitalists.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Fair enough El Granma. As I pointed out in my OP, we in the United States do not have the luxury of a left-wing party, so this guy's the best we've got. Anyways, this wasn't really about voting for Obama, but voting for Democrats in the Congressional mid-term elections which are in November. While Obama is certainly to the right of his party, there are Democrats who are trying to push the party to the left, and we should support that, or at least until it becomes viable to form a labor party like what happened in the UK around the turn of the century.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Let me guess StockholmSyndrome, you belong to the CPUSA right?

[Red Commissar]

Not taking into consideration your political comment at the end, it was an interesting read. Though I think Glenn Beck and co. would love to see your comment about communists having to vote for democrats. ;)

[Obs]

Fair enough El Granma. As I pointed out in my OP, we in the United States do not have the luxury of a left-wing party, so this guy's the best we've got. Anyways, this wasn't really about voting for Obama, but voting for Democrats in the Congressional mid-term elections which are in November. While Obama is certainly to the right of his party, there are Democrats who are trying to push the party to the left, and we should support that, or at least until it becomes viable to form a labor party like what happened in the UK around the turn of the century.
This is the same kind of mentality that leads to people thinking of terms of when the revolution will "happen". Don't just go for the lesser evil, do something yourself. Organise, agitate, do some political work. Your mother isn't going to make a classless society for you.

[StockholmSyndrome]

This is the same kind of mentality that leads to people thinking of terms of when the revolution will "happen". Don't just go for the lesser evil, do something yourself. Organise, agitate, do some political work. Your mother isn't going to make a classless society for you.

Nowhere did I say that we should sit around and do nothing while we wait for the revolution to happen. I am talking about what is viable in the arena of mainstream electoral politics. I am quite active myself; where do you get off trying to preach? Can anybody say anything on this board without someone trying to pick it apart and invent evidence of a "flawed mentality"? Am I not allowed to discuss Congressional elections? Kindly step off of your high horse, please. Thank you.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Let me guess StockholmSyndrome, you belong to the CPUSA right?

No, I do not. Frankly, I don't know enough about them to guess whatever sectarian reason it is you have for assuming that I do. Please indulge.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No, I do not. Frankly, I don't know enough about them to guess whatever sectarian reason it is you have for assuming that I do. Please indulge.
Ow you just called me sectarian. In this case I'd be glad to be called that though, the CPUSA is the most revisionist "communist" party in the United States, their platform at this time goes like this "try to make Democrats shift to the left, call those who are critical of Obama kids who just want to seem radical". Join up, you'll fit in perfect. If you don't believe that this will work, just ask the CPUSA how greatly it's worked out for the workers here. I mean Glenn Beck calls Obama a Marxist every night, he must be pretty far to the left right? I guess they finally got a president to curve to the left ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

StockholmSyndrome, the problem I find with your method is that, quite simply, the Democrats are not, have never been and probably will never be a party like teh Labour Party. Whilst both of them have a similiar ideological outlook in terms of leadership right now, their ideological and class underpinnings are completely different. I hope you do realise that the Democrats are probably to the right of the Conservative Party here in the UK.

I also have a problem with your methodology, in that you say we should first get people to vote for Obama (a right-winger), then get the Democrats (a right-wing party) to shift to the left in the ultimate hope of creating, what I think i'm right in saying, is your aim of a left-labour style party.

You could try to do all of that for two generations and not get anywhere. I'm not saying participation in the mainstream political arena is futile, but what tends to happen when people adopt such tactics is that they becoming so defensive and sectarian over them (not saying you are at this stage yet, i'm just giving a warning, if, as a comrade has said, you look at the CPUSA, for example) that they end up defending the right-wing Democratic Party against even bona-fide left wing forces.

If I was in teh US, i'd probably adopt a strategy of supporting the positions of relatively well known leftist-(ish) people such as Chomsky, Nader and maybe even the likes of Kucinich and Sanders, in terms of parliamentary politics, whilst also pushing to expose both the Republicans and Democrats, of all hues, as un-salvageable right-wing parties.

Frankly, I don't see any mileage in trying to push the Democrats to the left. Don't forget, this was the party of segregation not even 50 years ago. This is not a Labour-style party. They have more in common, I promise you, with UKIP than they do with the Labour Party.

Set your sights higher, comrade. You have nothing to lose but your chains.:laugh:

[Obs]

Can anybody say anything on this board without someone trying to pick it apart

You must be new here.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I was more talking about getting the left wing of the Democrats to split off and form a separate party, like when the Radicals and socialists within the Liberal party split off to form the Independent Labor Party in your country.

I have also adopted the strategy you suggested. I support the views of Kucinich and Sanders, they are my favorite Senators, I have long admired Nader and I love Noam Chomsky. In fact, I am very influenced by Chomsky's views on parliamentary politics. He distinguishes between goals and vision. Goals being what we can realistically achieve in the immediate future given the current objective reality, not to be confused with our ultimate vision of a revolutionary transformation once the limits of reform have been reached.

Are we on the same page yet?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not quite on the same page.

If I were you, i'd certainly go and read The Making of the English Working Class - E.P. Thompson. I am not preaching, but you should understand the differents between the making of the english workers as a class, and thus the origination of Liberals, Radicals, Socialists, Marxists and Trade Unions, and the current situation in the US. I'm afraid the two do not bear too many parallels, in terms of the relationship between workers and the lefter-leaning bourgeois party.

Chomsky is a left-libertarian, so i'm not sure that what your saying really marries up to his views.

As far as goals and vision are concerned, the problem is that, in reality, they become obscured. What is a parliamentary tactic ends up becoming the entire thrust of the revolutionary movement and strategies change accordingly. I can only point to the Labour Party in this country as an example. The Labour left is in a sorry state. The Democratic Party, though, does not really even have a cohesive left. The 'left' of the Democratic Party is by and large made up of liberals. Do we want/need to support liberals?

Whilst I support parliamentary participation, I don't support the 'lesser evil', scare-mongering type politics. Bush or Obama, Palin or Biden, the result is the same for the working class, comrade. Poverty, war and discrimination still exist to no lesser extent. I doubt they ever would even if a 'liberal' Democratic President were ever elected.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Yes, I understand, and I've been meaning to read that book for a while now. I'll be sure to put it on my list. The working class movement in my country was suppressed and appropriated by the ruling class while it was still in its infancy, and now we are indeed in a sad state of affairs.
Chomsky was talking about achieving victories through parliamentary action, which has been done in the US in the past. Read his essay called "Goals and Visions". This is what I'm talking about. I completely agree with you about the risk of confusing the two. I think my avatar reflects this paradox quite nicely.

Edit: No doubt though, the main task at hand is to create a united, class-conscious movement in the US, something we clearly have lacked for a long time.

[Rusty Shackleford]

this shows that Obama is a Fabian Socialist. He surrounds himself with people who have wolves in sheeps clothing for avatars!

[StockholmSyndrome]

Lol, I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but can't really tell over the internet. Anyways, my avatar is meant to be a statement which reflects the ultimate danger of Fabianism.

[Obs]

I have also adopted the strategy you suggested. I support the views of some capitalist and some other capitalist, they are my favorite Senators, I have long admired yet another capitalist and I love this liberal philosopher. In fact, I am very influenced by said philosopher's views on parliamentary politics. He distinguishes between goals and vision. Goals being what we can realistically achieve in the immediate future given the current objective reality, not to be confused with our ultimate vision of a revolutionary transformation once the limits of reform have been reached.

Are we on the same page yet?
This is what your post reads like to a communist.

[StockholmSyndrome]

It is a shame that your simplistic and dogmatic world view prevents you from considering other people's ideas just because they can be labeled "capitalist" or "liberal". I can find merit in a liberal philosopher's ideas, just like Karl Marx could be influenced by the countless bourgeois philosophers who came before him. How can you call yourself a non-doctrinaire communist? To me, you just seem like a "knuckle-dragging ideologue" and an immature thug.

[Obs]

It is a shame that your simplistic and dogmatic world view prevents you from considering other people's ideas just because they can be labeled "capitalist" or "liberal". I can find merit in a liberal philosopher's ideas, just like Karl Marx could be influenced by the countless bourgeois philosophers which came before him. How can you call yourself a non-doctrinaire communist? To me, you just seem like a "knuckle-dragging ideologue" and an immature thug.
And you seem like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Then again, you might just have Stockholm syndrome.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I really don't think that Barack Obama is that good a speaker at all. Maybe it's different in intimate gatherings, but in front of big audiences he just looks wooden and like someone who could not survive without the autocue.


The America people care more about ones oratory skills than dissecting the content of the speech. Plus they even care about looks. When women were asked why they voted for Clinton, a percentage said "because he was nice looking".The more intelligent one is, the more they speak the truth, the more informed one is the more they are held suspect and ignored. Americans love and respect mediocrity.
This was not geared toward El_Granma, it was a thought about how and why, what they look for when they vote.

[Antifa94]

need some water for those flames?

[Amphictyonis]

It is a shame that your simplistic and dogmatic world view prevents you from considering other people's ideas just because they can be labeled "capitalist" or "liberal". I can find merit in a liberal philosopher's ideas, just like Karl Marx could be influenced by the countless bourgeois philosophers who came before him. How can you call yourself a non-doctrinaire communist? To me, you just seem like a "knuckle-dragging ideologue" and an immature thug.

Reformism is nothing new, neither is "Obama". The current packaged and polished representitive of bourgeois society. Vote for a man who has expanded the murder campagn in the Middle east? Vote for a man who has sent troops to surround Venezuela? Vote for a man who has handed trillions to corporations and banks in order to save capitalism? Vote for a man who had FLOPPED on gay marriage? Vote for a man who has tried to deregulate IMF funds to third world nations? Vote for a man who has continued the patriot act and rendition? Vote for a man who voted for the FISA bill and Patriot Act? Vote for a man who is a member of the DLC and has a slew of right wing DLC members in his administration? Vote for a man who's chief of staff rigged a pro Iraq war congress in 2006? I can go on and on. On and on and on....

[Amphictyonis]

Tough crowd. By all means, continue to take your dogmatic, "principled" stance against voting. But don't complain when homosexuals are reduced to second-class citizens
FZxiVnuFFoI


http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/obam-s30.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/gulf-o14.shtml

http://apxi.us/1725-fidel-castro-criticizes-obama-for-us-troops-in.html

http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/obama-administration-assures-world-bank-and-international-monetary-fund-a-free-reign-of-abuse-project-censored/

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/31/al_jazeera_chief_wadah_khanfar_on

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1



(http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1)

[StockholmSyndrome]

Anyways, this wasn't really about voting for Obama, but voting for Democrats in the Congressional mid-term elections which are in November. While Obama is certainly to the right of his party, there are Democrats who are trying to push the party to the left, and we should support that

In case you didn't realize, Amphictyonis, the entire focus of this thread is the Congressional campaigns that are happening across the country right now. It has nothing to do with voting for Obama.

[Obs]

In case you didn't realize, Amphictyonis, the entire focus of this thread is the Congressional campaigns that are happening across the country right now. It has nothing to do with voting for Obama.
You managed to shift that away by starting this thread by praising Obama as highly as you did. You've got your nose so far up his ass you could be Pinocchio - with the reformist lies you're spreading here, that may just be the case, though.

[Amphictyonis]

In case you didn't realize, Amphictyonis, the entire focus of this thread is the Congressional campaigns that are happening across the country right now. It has nothing to do with voting for Obama.

Ya well, Obama is supposedly the most 'liberal' democrat the party has to offer. He is a democrat yes? Stop the excuse making for and pandering to democrats. It's absurd. I could make a list a mile long of general democrat party idiocy.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Mr. Obama may or may not understand that global capitalism is, in fact, the problem. My guess is that he does, but that doesn't matter, because he's a professional politician. Professional politicians rely on their own ability to save face and kiss ass in the name of the bourgeoisie. After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should vote for Democrats. However, even if we did have a truly left wing party in this country, that would not make too much of a difference. The most we will ever attain with the ballot box is some sort of variation on the European social democracies. The fact is that professional politicians do not speak for the people, let alone for themselves.

You all are very quick to gang up on someone, it's like a knee-jerk reaction just because you hear Obama's name, or hear anything about reformism. I understand that reading comprehension is a hard skill to master, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you really do not understand the thesis of my post. I'll spell it out for you: Reformism doesn't work, it has limits, capitalism is not reformable. The nature of bourgeois democracy is that it produces professional politicians who represent powerful interests. Therefore, the most reformism will ever accomplish is a capitalist welfare-state where the bourgeoisie are able to placate the public without pulling away the curtains. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing. See?

[Obs]

You all are very quick to gang up on someone, it's like a knee-jerk reaction just because you hear Obama's name, or hear anything about reformism. I understand that reading comprehension is a hard skill to master, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you really do not understand the thesis of my post. I'll spell it out for you: Reformism doesn't work, it has limits, capitalism is not reformable. The nature of bourgeois democracy is that it produces professional politicians who represent powerful interests. Therefore, the most reformism will ever accomplish is a capitalist welfare-state where the bourgeoisie are able to placate the public without pulling away the curtains. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing. See?
This fits in with your strategy of voting for the Democrats... how?

[StockholmSyndrome]

I know this is hard to swallow for you, but the world is not all black and white. Things don't always fit squarely into prescribed boxes and categories. It's not that it doesn't "fit in with my strategy of voting for Democrats", it's that it doesn't compute according to your childish zealotry. Think dialectically, I know you can do it.

[Obs]

I know this is hard to swallow for you, but the world is not all black and white. Things don't always fit squarely into prescribed boxes and categories. It's not that it doesn't "fit in with my strategy of voting for Democrats", it's that it doesn't compute according to your childish zealotry. Think dialectically, I know you can do it.
Where the fuck do dialectics come into this? You're openly advocating collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Im guessing you are actually a fabian nutter.

the only reason a socialist is to participate in bourgeois elections is to attack them in their own field of play. to fight on their battlefields. thats the only position we are in now. and joining the CPUSA and running a fucking democratic party HQ(this has actually happened in the bay area) as the democratic party is not some wolf in sheeps clothing. in fact, its the opposite. a sheep in fucking wolves clothing.

im sorry for joining in like this, but seriously... participating in bourgeois politics does not mean supporting the fucking bourgeoisie out-right.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Chill out, comrade. I'm not a member of the CPUSA, and I don't support the fucking bourgeoisie out-right, nor have I advocated any such thing. I assure you, I am not a "fabian nutter".

[Obs]

I don't support the fucking bourgeoisie out-right, nor have I advocated any such thing.
You may not think you are, but objectively, this is exactly what you're doing. Trying to sway the Democrats left or create some kind of social-democratic opposition is folly because a working class movement, however large, will never speak as loudly as a hundred-million dollar lobby. Unless, of course, they have guns - but then they might as well just take power themselves.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Chill out, comrade. I'm not a member of the CPUSA, and I don't support the fucking bourgeoisie out-right, nor have I advocated any such thing. I assure you, I am not a "fabian nutter".


my apologies.

[synthesis]

You may not think you are, but objectively, this is exactly what you're doing. Trying to sway the Democrats left or create some kind of social-democratic opposition is folly because a working class movement, however large, will never speak as loudly as a hundred-million dollar lobby. Unless, of course, they have guns - but then they might as well just take power themselves.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that although reformism can never actually create worker's democracy, it can be used to improve working class living standards (and so on) in the short term. Could have expressed it a little better, though.

[Obs]

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that although reformism can never actually create worker's democracy, it can be used to improve working class living standards (and so on) in the short term. Could have expressed it a little better, though.
Perhaps. I guess I'm just not used to seeing someone saying "Our President is an amazing speaker". Especially considering that Obama is only a good speaker when compared to his predecessor.

Maybe if he'd dropped in an "Obama, that fucking rat" or two I'd have been more open-minded.

[synthesis]

Obama is a charismatic guy. What's the point in disparaging him personally? I think that's a result of people's expectations of him as a candidate. He strikes me as an initially reformist politician who got assimilated into a shitty system, as they all do.

[Amphictyonis]

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend an intimate rendezvous with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. I wouldn't admit to that.
The nature of this rally: fire people up to vote for Democrats in November. No. No thanks :)
As you can probably guess, the main themes of the evening were: keeping the NAFTA treaties going, expanding the never ending war, privatizing education, opposing gay marriage, adding to the patriot act, raiding activists homes, surrounding Venezuela with US troops, deregulating World Bank/IMF funding so they can facilitate more structural adjustments in second/third world nations, threatening Iran,praising the free market and cutting benefits to the unemployed. ^ Fixed. .


make the United States Number One again. No one what?
He talked about solar panels, wind turbines etc. I believe Obama's bible is Thomas Friedman's Hot Flat and Crowded. In fact, I remember seeing somewhere that the President regarded this book very highly. Yes, capitalists have been inflating bubbles for generations. The savings and loan bubble, the .com bubble, the housing bubble....next up? The green tech bubble to save capitalism. Bubbles and bursts. They have nothing else to 'blow up'. It'll be fun when the green tech bubble bursts. Capitalism. Fun.


As all of you who live in the United States know, our President is an amazing speaker. Hell, he had me convinced. Of what?


After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should vote for Democrats. KJKbDz4EZio :)

[StockholmSyndrome]

I wouldn't admit to that.

It was sarcasm


No one what?

I was simply repeating the rhetoric. Should have been more clear that these are not my thoughts.



Yes, capitalists have been inflating bubbles for generations. The savings and loan bubble, the .com bubble, the housing bubble....next up? The green tech bubble to save capitalism. Bubbles and bursts. They have nothing else to 'blow up'. It'll be fun when the green tech bubble bursts. Capitalism. Fun.

Yeah, I know. So what? I didn't say I like the book. I said Obama likes the book.


Of what?

Once again, I was being sarcastic, and simply reflecting on the man's ability to turn a phrase.

Perhaps in the future I should try to be more clear about my positions. I have learned that there are people on this forum who simply love a good row. I'm really done trying to defend myself. I simply meant to practice a little harmless amateur journalism. I guess I still need to learn how to get my voice across in my writing. Didn't mean to touch on any sore spots.

[Amphictyonis]

Democrats are less of a sore spot and more like an infected abscess when it comes to me :) They need to be lanced.

[synthesis]

I guess I still need to learn how to get my voice across in my writing.

Nah, you need to learn that 1. people are going to shit on your opinion here, especially if 2. your opinion involves voting in bourgeois democracies.

[Amphictyonis]

Tonight I had the ill fortune to attend an intimate rendezvous with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. After a brief introduction by the fraud front man for Organizing For America's Jeremy Bird, the President spoke to a room of about 50 hand picked uncritical sycophants. Video cameras fed to an internet broadcast where even more sychophants drooled at the sight of the bourgeoisie's Manchurian candidate (some fainted). The nature of this rally: fool people into voting for Democrats in November. Don't ask how I got invited to this event; I would hate to blow my cover. ;)

Obama lied for ten minutes, and then he answered about six preselected questions from the audience. The first thing the President said was that immediately after taking office, he was briefed (by watching the Bush bail outs unfold on FOX News) about how the country was about to experience another Great Depression. As you can probably guess, the main themes of the evening were: giving Wall St and Goldman Sachs trillions of dollars, keeping the NAFTA treaties going, expanding the never ending war, privatizing education, opposing gay marriage, adding to the patriot act, raiding activists homes, surrounding Venezuela with US troops, deregulating World Bank/IMF funding so they can facilitate more structural adjustments in second/third world nations, threatening Iran,praising the free market and cutting benefits to the unemployed.

The President expressed concern over the financialization of the economy, and the declining presence of the manufacturing sector which Democrats facilitated by signing NAFTA (Clinton). He talked about creating an environment for "structural adjustments" in the economy, which I took as meaning a second wave of cuts to social programs.

As all of you who live in the United States know, our President is an amazing liar. Hell, he had me convinced. He went through the country's history from a bourgeois perspective and painted a picture of people overcoming hardships, such as racism and sexism, in order to create the best country in the world which treats everyone equally. Innovation, creativity and the contribution of hard working Americans are what make up the national character. American capitalism is the answer, not the problem.

Mr. Obama may not understand that global capitalism is, in fact, the problem. My guess is that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing selected by the bourgeoisie to marginalize the left in America. Professional politicians rely on their own ability to save face and kiss ass in the name of the bourgeoisie. After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should publicly scorn people who vote for Democrats.

Fixed :) I won't even charge for editing your article.

[StockholmSyndrome]

touché

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nah, you need to learn that 1. people are going to shit on your opinion here, especially if 2. your opinion involves voting in bourgeois democracies.

I'd have to disagree here. There's a difference between advocating a vote one way or the other in a bourgeois election and open advocacy for a thoroughly anti-worker party.

We can still aid our cause by standing our own people in elections or supporting those who are sympathetic to our cause, as long as we use it as a means, not an end.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Ok, El Granma. Let me rephrase the passage that seems to have gotten me the most flak:

After my experience tonight, I still believe that any intelligent communist should vote, albeit reluctantly, in bourgeois elections. Those candidates who, more often than not, carry a more progressive platform than their opponents usually belong to either the Democratic Party or are registered Independents. American political parties do not operate on the basis of democratic centralism. Therefore, there is a lot of variation between positions on major issues, so a vote does not entail open support for an entire party, or an endorsement for every elected representative belonging to that party.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, I understood from the offing what you meant, StockholmSyndrome. My point was that I think that, although you don't seem to be an idiot, I don't want you to just change bits of passages to make it sound acceptable to other Socialists.

What my point is that, in the US there is not a right-wing and a less-right wing party, in reality. What you have is a choice between tweedledum and tweedledum, not even tweedledum and tweedledee. Thus, there is really, for me, no merit in voting, in terms of Presidential elections for either. In fact, i'd say it does harm to the working class. Just look at the current President and the previous Democrat President. Both to the right of Tony Blair. Would you support Tony Blair?

If I were in the US, i'd probably get involved with someone like the SPUSA and try to build a base within my state, or even city, and then take it from there. In the US, I believe, there's nothing to be gained by trying to get incremental reforms. It's not really like in the UK where the Labour Party can be marginally better because it will not hack and slash at public services like the Tories, which makes a veritable difference in terms of the welfare state we have. But in the US, you do not really have a welfare state, both parties see it as their job to simply manage the Capitalist system and maintain America's imperial hegemony, not make any ideological shifts.

[StockholmSyndrome]

With all due respect, El Granma, you are not a resident of this country and you seem to have a rather simplistic understanding of American politics, and the variety of opinions existing within our incredibly entrenched two-party system, which leaves no viability for marginalized third parties. Also, for the last time, I am not talking about Presidential elections, but the election of Congresspeople in Federal and State legislatures, many of whom do at least try to represent working-class interests.

[mossy noonmann]

No, I understood from the offing what you meant, StockholmSyndrome. My point was that I think that, although you don't seem to be an idiot, I don't want you to just change bits of passages to make it sound acceptable to other Socialists.

What my point is that, in the US there is not a right-wing and a less-right wing party, in reality. What you have is a choice between tweedledum and tweedledum, not even tweedledum and tweedledee. Thus, there is really, for me, no merit in voting, in terms of Presidential elections for either. In fact, i'd say it does harm to the working class. Just look at the current President and the previous Democrat President. Both to the right of Tony Blair. Would you support Tony Blair?
.

it sounds like you would support blair because he is (was?) in a traditionally left of centre party? When do we say to the labour party enough is enough? tweedle dee and tweedle dee lab and con no?

i dont agree with voting democrat and although labour may be more progressive than the tories i would say that the democrats are more progressive than the republicans. I can understand the fear of many on the left who feel like they have to vote democrat to keep out the palins, that women who used to be witch and that homophobe family values hypocrite in NY.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

need some water for those flames?


yeah, it's called revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

it sounds like you would support blair because he is (was?) in a traditionally left of centre party? When do we say to the labour party enough is enough? tweedle dee and tweedle dee lab and con no?

i dont agree with voting democrat and although labour may be more progressive than the tories i would say that the democrats are more progressive than the republicans. I can understand the fear of many on the left who feel like they have to vote democrat to keep out the palins, that women who used to be witch and that homophobe family values hypocrite in NY.

My point was more related to the parties as entities, rather than any particular leader. The point being that the labour left is founded in Socialism (Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn etc.), whereas the Democratic Party 'left' is not really left at all, simply more liberal on social matters such as abortion. There is also the issue that the Democrat Party is a broad church, it does not exist to defend workers or to be centre-left, because it does not and is not. Whilst it may be the least evil, my point is that it is still rotten to the core. I'd not say the Labour Party is rotten to the core. A bourgeois leadership, yes. Tony Blair, yes. Non-Marxist, yes. However, it is still a party whose founding was rooted in class struggle and which, via the unions, has a significant and entrenched link with a large part of the working class in this country. So, whilst I myself do not subscribe to a 'vote Labour at all costs' sort of position, I do think it is important that they are not annihilated by right-wing forces in this country. Only with a Socialist takeover of the country would the downfall of teh Labour Party be a good thing.

[Amphictyonis]

I am not talking about Presidential elections, but the election of Congresspeople in Federal and State legislatures, many of whom do at least try to represent working-class interests.

In a representative "democracy" the representatives need money to win. Once they take that money they no longer have ANY chance of representing the working class. The democrat party is NOT in any way shape or form the party of the working class. Republicans have one section and democrats have the other section of Wall St. The money will switch sides depending on who makes the most promises to the capitalists. There is no real ideological divide between the parties.

The most right wing fuckwads could take over the house and senate and abortion would not be made illegal. The most "liberal" democrats could gain control of the house and senate and the never ending war would continue. The most "liberal" legislative branch could manifest and big business would still run the show. We have a service sector economy now. Unions have been almost completely marginalized. The unions that do boast high membership are totally on board with capitalism.

The working class simply doesn't have the money to compete in a representative "democracy". Any social 'laws' we may have won were not won in Washington but by changing societies views.

One good book you should check out below-

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=487

[synthesis]

I'd have to disagree here. There's a difference between advocating a vote one way or the other in a bourgeois election and open advocacy for a thoroughly anti-worker party.

I don't know if I understand the difference, at least the way you put it.


We can still aid our cause by standing our own people in elections or supporting those who are sympathetic to our cause, as long as we use it as a means, not an end.

Again, I'm not sure that's what he was saying.

[La Peur Rouge]

many of whom do at least try to represent working-class interests.

I haven't seen much evidence of this, especially in the two big parties.