Open letter to Liberals.

[Kalifornia]

Liberals today and in the past, have claimed to be opposed to the evils of this system, which are infact products of the system itself, not seperate problems that can be dealt with by reform, but rather can only be fully erradicated by a radical solution, changing society from the roots up.

We hear these psuedoleftists parrot worn out words like freedom and democracy, we also hear words like nonviolence and turning the other cheek.

According to some people of the liberal persuasion, it is wrong for the beaten and broken masses, to raise a fist and strike back at the oppressor, it is wrong to kill the oppressor, as this makes us just as bad.....

This kind of utopian reactionary ethos is what keeps large segments of workers from crossing the line between angry yet in line to Angry and armed.

Would it have been wrong for a black man to come upon a lynching and use violent force to free the black man or woman being lynched?

Is it wrong for an Indian peasant to see red at his conditions and join the Naxalites to fight those who force him into a life of destitution?

No.., the truth is, anyone who upholds non violence is actually supporting violence, as they are telling the unarmed out of power downtrodeen to stay defenseless and unarmed, which can only have one conclusion, the death of the people at the hands of the pig.

Speaking about the difference between real liberals and reactionary liberals Malcom X reminds us of one white liberal who stood on the side of the oppressed, rather than on the side of the oppressor looking down at the oppressed and preaching turn the other cheek.

He said:



There are many white people in this country, especially the younger generation, who realize that the injustice that has been done and is being done to black people cannot go on without the chickens coming home to roost eventually.



And those white people, even if they’re not morally motivated, their intelligence forces them to see that something must be done. And many of them would be willing to involve themselves in the type of operation that you were just talking about.

For one, when a white man comes to me and tells me how liberal he is, the first thing I want to know, is he a nonviolent liberal, or the other kind. I don’t go for any nonviolent white liberals.

If you are for me and my problems - when I say me, I mean us, our people – then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown did.
And if you’re not of the John Brown school of liberals, we’ll get you later – later.


It is all too easy to call for restraint and peacefull demonstrations when you are not on the extreme end of police brutality, if you are not a woman facing violent patriachal abuse, if your not a palestinian whose lost his whole family through Israels terrorist programme, it is easy to echo hollow words of unarmed and pascifist struggle, when your not in the firing line.

A brave man once said, it was not about wishing the victims of aggression success, but rather about struggling with them against oppression to victory, or death.

This is the dividing line that stands between liberals and socialists.

The liberal seeks to beg the aggressor for reform, they seek to bring change about peacefully at the speed the oppressor deems suitable, and they decry and victim of his oppression as a terrorist if they decide to fight back.

The socialist however seeks to unite and promote workers struggles, it wishes the people to fight, to break with the system and the false institutions it places before us, the communist says, do not vote, do not bow to a two party capitalist system, no, but rather shouts and bellows, free yourself from the chains of capital and end the oppression of us, by ending the rule of them!

[sologdin]

less an open letter to liberals than an open letter to leftists so that they might dissociate from liberals?

[Kalifornia]

Ha yeah maybe, though I just thought I would post it, so if any Liberals did wander onto this forum, they might be ensnared in my spider like web of reality :D

[NGNM85]

Just what we needed; more empty rhetoric and macho chest-thumping.

[Lucretia]

Just what we needed; more empty rhetoric and macho chest-thumping.

While I am not posting in this thread to defend the merits of the OP, I am here to ask why you bother hanging out on a revolutionary leftist forum when you seem to consider yourself a liberal. Are you here to convince us of the evil of our ways for not lining up lock-step behind the Democrats? Seriously, what's your purpose here?

[thesadmafioso]

Obnoxious choice in font aside, this sort of thought is incredibly outmoded and will achieve nothing of political significance in the current context of western society. If anything, comments such as your own only serve to hinder modern leftism and its chances of making any actual progress towards anything of consequence.

[Lucretia]

Obnoxious choice in font aside, this sort of thought is incredibly outmoded and will achieve nothing of political significance in the current context of western society. If anything, comments such as your own only serve to hinder modern leftism and its chances of making any actual progress towards anything of consequence.

Yes, in order for leftists to make political progress, they must support liberal politicians and policies. It's simply the only way. :sneaky:

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, in order for leftists to make political progress, they must support liberal politicians and policies. It's simply the only way. :sneaky:

A nuanced balance between ideology and practice needs to be struck. To be blunt, as I know that anything else with someone like yourself is simply not possible, there is not a vanguard party mucking about the streets of D.C. organizing the proletariat into a revolutionary force capable of smashing the state machine of the ruling elite. Pure leftist policy is not applicable to modern society, and accepting that is not in any way contradictory.

[Lucretia]

A nuanced balance between ideology and practice needs to be struck. To be blunt, as I know that anything else with someone like yourself is simply not possible, there is not a vanguard party mucking about the streets of D.C. organizing the proletariat into a revolutionary force capable of smashing the state machine of the ruling elite. Pure leftist policy is not applicable to modern society, and accepting that is not in any way contradictory.

As I said, leftists simply must strike a nuanced balance between their leftist ideals and a conservative political environment by supporting liberal politicians. Gee, we haven't heard this argument here before. :o Maybe you can bend your brilliant political mind into answering the same question I asked NGNM above. Why troll a revleft forum if your whole point is to berate leftists for not being liberal ("pragmatic") enough?

[thesadmafioso]

As I said, leftists simply must strike a nuanced balance between their leftist ideals and a conservative political environment by supporting liberal politicians. Gee, we haven't heard this argument here before. :o Maybe you can bend your brilliant political mind into answer the same question I asked above. Why troll a revleft forum if your whole point is to berate leftists for not being liberal ("pragmatic") enough?

Yes, and would you like to know the primary difference between our two arguments? The point which I expose is one which is actually designed around political reality, while yours is based solely in fiction. You show absolutely no regard for the current societal, economic, or political trends which are prevalent in modern western society, which inevitably leads you to conclusions which are simply inapplicable. And in politics, that is exactly the sort of thing that matters.

[Lucretia]

Yes, and would you like to know the primary difference between our two arguments? The point which I expose is one which is actually designed around political reality, while yours is based solely in fiction. You show absolutely no regard for the current societal, economic, or political trends which are prevalent in modern western society, which inevitably leads you to conclusions which are simply inapplicable. And in politics, that is exactly the sort of thing that matters.

Are you going to answer the question?

[NGNM85]

While I am not posting in this thread to defend the merits of the OP, I am here to ask why you bother hanging out on a revolutionary leftist forum when you seem to consider yourself a liberal.

No, I don't consider myself a Liberal. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist. However, the word doesn't automatically send me into a frothing-at-the-mouth fury, probably because I actually know what it means. Liberalism was the product of the Enlightenment and included ideas like democracy, equality, secularism, and the scientific method. The philosophers of the Enlightenment inspired the early Anarchists, like Godwin, Proudhon, as well as Karl Marx, who was influenced by Smith and Ricardo.


Are you here to convince us of the evil of our ways for not lining up lock-step behind the Democrats?

I never said anything of the sort.


Seriously, what's your purpose here?

Right now? Arguing with an idiot.

[Lucretia]

No, I don't consider myself a Liberal. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist.

A libertarian socialist who thinks that Lawrence O'Donnell is also a socialist, and who think it's absolutely terrible that a requirement that everybody must purchase private insurance was ruled unconstitutional by a Florida court? It's a huge blow for libertarians everywhere, socialist or not, when people aren't being forced to donate their paychecks to corrupt health care monopolies. Let me guess, you're a "pragmatic" libertarian socialist. :laugh:

[smk]

As I said, leftists simply must strike a nuanced balance between their leftist ideals and a conservative political environment by supporting liberal politicians. Gee, we haven't heard this argument here before. :o Maybe you can bend your brilliant political mind into answering the same question I asked NGNM above. Why troll a revleft forum if your whole point is to berate leftists for not being liberal ("pragmatic") enough?

Are you the type of leftist who wastes their vote on some obscure socialist candidate when you could vote for the Democrats who actually stand a chance at creating SOME change in this world socially? You seem to say that true leftists must stick to their own, secluded from mainstream politics. That is not the way of advancing our cause or fighting for equality.

All of this was assuming you live in the US.

[Lucretia]

Are you the type of leftist who wastes their vote on some obscure socialist candidate when you could vote for the Democrats who actually stand a chance at creating SOME change in this world socially? You seem to say that true leftists must stick to their own, secluded from mainstream politics.

All of this was assuming you live in the US.

Of course not. I am not one of those ridiculous purists. I always support the Democratic party, because I know the democrats have the workers' interests at heart. Did I mention I think Obama has been the greatest president for workers since Teddy Roosevelt? He's really been sticking it to the banks. This is also why I always try to dissuade leftists from protesting or saying bad things about Obama. Do those purists not understand they're just hurting somebody who at least has a chance of creating some change, and helping right-wingers who want to drag us back to the stone age?

[NGNM85]

A libertarian socialist who thinks that Lawrence O'Donnell is also a socialist,..

I didn't say Lawrence O'Donnell was a Socialist. I said I had no idea if Lawrence O'Donnell was a Socialist or not.


..and who think it's absolutely terrible that a requirement that everybody must purchase private insurance was ruled unconstitutional by a Florida court?

I don't think it's terrible, although I'd rather he hadn't. It isn't going to amount to crap in the long run.


Let me guess, you're a "pragmatic" libertarian socialist. :laugh:

It's not a word I would self-apply, but it's not an insult, not in the literal sense. Of course, you aren't using it in the literal sense.

[Lucretia]

I didn't say Lawrence O'Donnell was a Socialist. I said I had no idea if Lawrence O'Donnell was a Socialist or not.

Oh, right. I must have mistakenly arrived at that impression when you were "thanking" almost every one of thesadmafioso's posts defending the claim that O'Donnell was a socialist in another thread. Silly me. :rolleyes:

[smk]

Of course not. I am not one of those ridiculous purists. I always support the Democratic party, because I know the democrats have the workers' interests at heart. Did I mention I think Obama has been the greatest president for workers since Teddy Roosevelt? He's really been sticking it to the banks. This is also why I always try to dissuade leftists from protesting or saying bad things about Obama. Do those purists not understand they're just hurting somebody who at least has a chance of creating some change, and helping right-wingers who want to drag us back to the stone age?

I didn't even say support. I said vote. The democrats are not much different than the Republicans or even the Tea party, for that matter. But the little differences matter. If you don't care about the little differences which can have a huge impact on improving people's lives, I have no idea how you can possibly call your self a leftist.

[Lucretia]

I didn't even say support. I said vote. The democrats are not much different than the Republicans or even the Tea party, for that matter. But the little differences matter. If you don't care about the little differences which can have a huge impact on improving people's lives, I have no idea how you can possibly call your self a leftist.

I am not sure I understand the distinction you're making between support and vote, and why you think it's an important distinction. Why would somebody vote for a candidate they don't support? Isn't it tautological that if somebody is voting for a candidate that they are (at least electorally) supporting that candidate in that election?

[smk]

I am not sure I understand the distinction you're making between support and vote. Why would somebody vote for a candidate they don't support?

Through gritted teeth, you can vote for a candidate because you know that voting for them means SOME good things, while voting for [insert fringe lefty politician] would result in nothing.

[Lucretia]

Through gritted teeth, you can vote for a candidate because you know that voting for them means SOME good things, while voting for [insert fringe lefty politician] would result in nothing.

To be honest, I think people who take this mentality -- which is called the lesser of two evils mentality -- fail to understand the importance of a long-term political strategy. The entire basis of your rationale is that an election is taking place, and only two candidates have a realistic chance of being elected. Therefore, if one candidate is moderately less bad than the other, then the logical thing to do is to vote for the moderately less bad candidate. You take into consideration only the short-term consequences of your vote (who is going to win that particular election), but not the long-term consequences, which is the message of support your vote sends to the establishment. You might think you're just vetoing the worse candidate, but you're also actively affirming the slightly less bad candidate's agenda. In effect, you are signalling to the political establishment and especially the slightly less bad political party that they can ignore your demands because they know you will continue to vote for them as long as they are slightly less bad than the other party. Your lesser-of-two-evils mindset is a pathway to political marginalization. If you aren't willing to withhold your vote, the one thing politicians or political parties care about (besides money), then what can you possibly use as leverage to make an impact in electoral politics? This also raises the crucial question of what principles or values the slightly less bad party would have to violate in order to lose your vote? Or is there no principle too sacred, so long as the one party or candidate is slightly less bad than the other?

Let's assume that 1/4 of inveterate democratic voters are actually highly sympathetic with socialism, defined as the democratic collective ownership of all the means of production. If they stopped employing the lesser-of-two-evils mindset, and instead sat out a number of elections or voted for a third-party candidate, then the democratic party would realize the need to earn their vote by moving to the left to woo them back.

Of course this entire discussion is sort of missing the point, which is that elections take place in a system controlled by wealthy interests. As we can see in Egypt, the most effective way of extracting reforms from a non-responsive government isn't by abetting its slightly less obnoxious wing. It's by engaging in a kind of grassroots politics that forces the government to adjust accordingly.

[NGNM85]

Oh, right. I must have mistakenly arrived at that impression when you were "thanking" almost every one of thesadmafioso's posts defending the claim that O'Donnell was a socialist in another thread. Silly me. :rolleyes:

I thank people's posts for a lot of reasons. However, a clearer indication of what I think would've been what I actually said;


Is O’Donnell a socialist? By some people’s definition, his own, certainly. I have no idea.

I’m also not saying that O’Donnell is a socialist, I'm saying I don't know enough about his political views.

All I said, all I said was I have no idea what his political convictions are, and based on that lack of knowledge I cannot justifiably determine whether or not he is a Socialist.

Etc., etc.

[Lucretia]

I thank people's posts for a lot of reasons. However, a clearer indication of what I think would've been what I actually said;


[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Etc., etc.


Interesting quotes. They demonstrate you did not agree with thesadmafioso that O'Donnell was a socialist, but this leads me to wonder which reason out of the many you alluded prompted you to thank so many of his posts in that thread. The reason I ask is that I assumed you thanked him because you agreed with them. Did you find them humorous? Constructive? Just curious.

[NGNM85]

To be honest, I think people who take this mentality -- which is called the lesser of two evils mentality -- fail to understand the importance of a long-term political strategy. The entire basis of your rationale is that an election is taking place, and only two candidates have a realistic chance of being elected. Therefore, if one candidate is moderately less bad than the other, then the logical thing to do is to vote for the moderately less bad candidate. You take into consideration only the short-term consequences of your vote (who is going to win that particular election), but not the long-term consequences, which is the message of support your vote sends to the establishment. You might think you're just vetoing the worse candidate, but you're also actively affirming the slightly less bad candidate's agenda. In effect, you are signalling to the political establishment and especially the slightly less bad political party that they can ignore your demands because they know you will continue to vote for them as long as they are slightly less bad than the other party. Your lesser-of-two-evils mindset is a pathway to political marginalization. If you aren't willing to withhold your vote, the one thing politicians or political parties care about (besides money), then what can you possibly use as leverage to make an impact in electoral politics?

Let's assume that 1/4 of inveterate democratic voters are actually highly sympathetic with socialism, defined as the democratic collective ownership of all the means of production. If they stopped employing the lesser-of-two-evils mindset by either sitting out a number of elections or voting for a third-party candidate, then the democratic party would realize the need to earn their vote by moving to the left to woo them back.

Of course this entire discussion is sort of missing the point, which is that elections take place in a system controlled by wealthy interests. As we can see in Egypt, the most effective way of extracting reforms from a non-responsive government isn't by abetting its slightly less obnoxious wing. It's by engaging in a kind of grassroots politics that forces the government to adjust accordingly.


“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
…If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”
-"On Anarchism", Chomsky, 2005

[NGNM85]

Interesting quotes. They demonstrate you did not agree with thesadmafioso that O'Donnell was a socialist, but this leads me to wonder which reason out of the many you alluded prompted you to thank so many of his posts in that thread. The reason I ask is that I assumed you thanked him because you agreed with them. Did you find them humorous? Constructive? Just curious.

Because you and the others were jumping to conclusions, you did not have the knowledge to match your convictions, whereas SadMafioso was thoughtful, analytical, and openminded.

[smk]

To be honest, I think people who take this mentality -- which is called the lesser of two evils mentality -- fail to understand the importance of a long-term political strategy. The entire basis of your rationale is that an election is taking place, and only two candidates have a realistic chance of being elected. Therefore, if one candidate is moderately less bad than the other, then the logical thing to do is to vote for the moderately less bad candidate. You take into consideration only the short-term consequences of your vote (who is going to win that particular election), but not the long-term consequences, which is the message of support your vote sends to the establishment. You might think you're just vetoing the worse candidate, but you're also actively affirming the slightly less bad candidate's agenda. In effect, you are signalling to the political establishment and especially the slightly less bad political party that they can ignore your demands because they know you will continue to vote for them as long as they are slightly less bad than the other party. Your lesser-of-two-evils mindset is a pathway to political marginalization. If you aren't willing to withhold your vote, the one thing politicians or political parties care about (besides money), then what can you possibly use as leverage to make an impact in electoral politics?

Let's assume that 1/4 of inveterate democratic voters are actually highly sympathetic with socialism, defined as the democratic collective ownership of all the means of production. If they stopped employing the lesser-of-two-evils mindset by either sitting out a number of elections or voting for a third-party candidate, then the democratic party would realize the need to earn their vote by moving to the left to woo them back.

Of course this entire discussion is sort of missing the point, which is that elections take place in a system controlled by wealthy interests. As we can see in Egypt, the most effective way of extracting reforms from a non-responsive government isn't by abetting its slightly less obnoxious wing. It's by engaging in a kind of grassroots politics that forces the government to adjust accordingly.

Once again, you can support grass roots politics, support whichever socialist party which you prescribe to, work for the revolution, but when voting day comes, and there's no revolution in site, you SHOULD vote for the best candidate who also actually has a chance. There isn't going to be some voting day when this one fourth of liberals randomly decide to vote for a third party candidate or sit out of the election. When that day is in site, THEN your cause becomes a reason to not participate in elections, etc. However, at this stage, when third party candidates get less than 1% of the vote, what you are proclaiming we should do is insignificant.

[smk]

“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
…If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”
-"On Anarchism", Chomsky, 2005

THANK YOU. this is literally the same quote I was looking for to post, but couldn't find. I agree whole-heartedly with Chomsky's explanation.

EDIT: I take that back. I found a better one I think.

[Lucretia]

“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state.

Huh? I did not mention support of the state as an abstract entity at all, and therefore wonder what point you think you're responding to here. I mentioned that voting for a specific candidate on the basis of vetoing the slightly worse candidate sends a message to that you support the agenda of the candidate you voted for.


Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete,I agree. Let's be concrete instead of talking in abstract terms about some abstract support for the state -- which I never mentioned.


There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state.Yes, it is. And who is doing the attacking? Only members of the evil, wicked party? Or are members of both parties pretty much on board that the social welfare state needs to be rolled back?


Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian. …If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate. What the hell are you talking about? Starving children and support for the state in the abstract? I am talking about how electoral politics works in the United States. You don't seem to be engaging in this conversation.

..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”
-"On Anarchism", Chomsky, 2005

Oh, I see. You're just quoting Chomsky. No wonder it seemed like the text was coming from somebody who wasn't participating in this discussion. I fail to see what relationship you think these quotes have to the topic we are discussing.

[smk]

"If the Spartacist League cared about working people, poor people, people elsewhere in the world who suffer and so on, they would care about the large outcomes that follow from those small differences. If you don't care about what happens to those people and you want to live in some abstract seminar somewhere, then you don't care. But it's a fact, and we can't deny it."~Chomsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE

[Lucretia]

Once again, you can support grass roots politics, support whichever socialist party which you prescribe to, work for the revolution, but when voting day comes, and there's no revolution in site, you SHOULD vote for the best candidate who also actually has a chance. There isn't going to be some voting day when this one fourth of liberals randomly decide to vote for a third party candidate or sit out of the election. When that day is in site, THEN your cause becomes a reason to not participate in elections, etc. However, at this stage, when third party candidates get less than 1% of the vote, what you are proclaiming we should do is insignificant.

I am not implying that you think you have to choose between grassroots politics and electoral politics. I am saying that the most effective way to engage in electoral politics, in light of the rules of that game, is not to pledge your vote automatically to whatever party or candidate happens to be slightly less odious to your political sensibilities.

It's not like we're debating something in the abstract here. American leftists have taken the LOTE mindset into the voting booths for decades, and look at what it's gotten them: a democratic president to the right of Richard Nixon.

The one time when sizable numbers of liberals sat out an election, 1968, yielded the most left-wing Democratic presidential candidate in American history four years later (George McGovern).

[Lucretia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE

I admire Chomsky quite a lot, and think he's a very smart man. I agree with all the statements of his you've posted here. What I don't see is how you think Chomsky is arguing for a LOTE mindset in these quotes. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think he is.

[NGNM85]

Oh, I see. You're just quoting Chomsky. No wonder it seemed like the text was coming from somebody who wasn't participating in this discussion. I fail to see what relationship you think these quotes have to the topic we are discussing.

It goes to what you were saying about 'lesser evils', and, also, what you were saying in the other thread. Just because you vote one way or another, doesn't mean you have to succumb to any illusions. There's no shame in choosing the lesser evil, in fact, if you care about people, you're obligated to. No, it isn't going to overthrow the government, but to decline to make the choice simply because it doesn't satisfy the grand scheme of 'revolution' isn't saying; 'I care about the working class.', that says; 'Fuck the working class.' I'm saying let's get serious, let's get real. Anybody who says they're too pure to actually engage with the existing political system, is just a poser who wants to sit in cafes and appear 'radical.' Great. Vaya con Dios. This also goes back to my original post. The OP isn't offering any constructive ideas, or suggestions, it's just this vacuous, holier-than-thou macho rhetoric. We've got enough of that already, we're already up to our necks in horseshit. I also am highly skeptical that he could even produce a cogent definition of what a Liberal is, but now I'm going off on a tangent...

[smk]

I admire Chomsky quite a lot, and think he's a very smart man. I agree with all the statements of his you've posted here. What I don't see is how you think Chomsky is arguing for a LOTE mindset in these quotes. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think he is.

Chomsky is advocating voting for Kerry in this case over Bush because he is the lesser of two evils because "LARGE OUTCOMES CAN COME FROM SMALL DIFFERENCES". Later in the video, he affirms what I said about the change you advocate happening with far left politicians rising in popularity is not going to happen on voting day, but in the four years in between.

[Lucretia]

It goes to what you were saying about 'lesser evils', and, also, what you were saying in the other thread. Just because you vote one way or another, doesn't mean you have to succumb to any illusions. There's no shame in choosing the lesser evil, in fact, if you care about people, you're obligated to.

You are entitled to take this position, but you are not entitled to attribute this position to Chomsky when he says nothing of the sort. What Chomsky is saying is that you cannot ignore the state and wish it to go away. Even if you are an anarchist, you have to contend with it and sometimes that means playing by its rules in a way that makes it seem you are giving it support. That is not the same as a LOTE argument. In fact, his argument is one I totally agree with. I am not saying we should abstain from participating in elections. I am not even saying that it never makes strategic sense to vote for a candidate who is not a socialist. I am saying that the LOTE mindset is a guaranteed one-way ticket to political obsolescence. How do leftists think they can affect electoral politics with their vote if they unconditionally intend to vote for the LOTE as a matter of principle?

[Lucretia]

Chomsky is advocating voting for Kerry in this case over Bush because he is the lesser of two evils. Later in the video, he affirms what I said about the change you advocate happening with far left politicians rising in popularity is not going to happen on voting day, but in the four years in between.

Wait a second: Chomsky advocated voting for Kerry? Where did Chomsky say this?

I can recall him saying that sometimes minor differences are amplified in a powerful country, and can therefore have major consequences to people throughout the world. And I can recall a bunch of ideologically confused leftists using this quote as a justification for voting for John Kerry. But I do not ever recall Chomsky endorsing John Kerry. Care to provide a citation for this claim?

[NGNM85]

CHOMSKY: "It depends whether you care about human beings and their fate. If you care about human beings and their fate, you will support the lesser of the two evils, not mechanically, because there are other considerations. For example, there could be an argument for a protest vote if it were a step towards building a significant alternative to the choice between two factions of the business party, both of them to the right of the population on most issues. If there were such an alternative, there could be an argument either for not voting or for voting for the third alternative. But it's a delicate judgment. On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about voting for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes can lead to big consequences."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080910_2.htm

[smk]

Wait a second: Chomsky advocated voting for Kerry? Where did Chomsky say this?

I can recall him saying that sometimes minor differences are amplified in a powerful country, and can therefore have major consequences to people throughout the world. And I can recall a bunch of ideologically confused leftists using this quote as a justification for voting for John Kerry. But I do not ever recall Chomsky endorsing John Kerry. Care to provide a citation for this claim?

I dont think he was "endorsing" him, but he was saying that the small differences between Kerry and Bush will lead to a better society. Assuming that he advocates a better society, he is advocating Kerry in comparison to Bush.

EDIT: Nevermind, just look at the post above this.

[Lucretia]

CHOMSKY: "It depends whether you care about human beings and their fate. If you care about human beings and their fate, you will support the lesser of the two evils, not mechanically, because there are other considerations. For example, there could be an argument for a protest vote if it were a step towards building a significant alternative to the choice between two factions of the business party, both of them to the right of the population on most issues. If there were such an alternative, there could be an argument either for not voting or for voting for the third alternative. But it's a delicate judgment. On the other hand, there is nothing immoral about voting for the lesser of two evils. In a powerful system like ours, small changes can lead to big consequences."
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080910_2.htm

Yes, I agree with what Chomsky says here. He is explicitly disavowing the rationale that has been expressed here, when he says that support can be given to an evil "not mechanically, because there are other considerations." He then goes to make the exact point I did, which is that rejecting the lesser evil is an important step in long-term political strategy of building what he calls "a significant alternative" and shifting the political spectrum.

All people have done here is just repeat the one consideration about who, among the two major party candidates likely to win an election, is the lesser evil. Chomsky explicitly rejects this position. Thank you for quoting him.

[smk]

Yes, I agree with what Chomsky says here. He is explicitly disavowing the rationale that has been expressed here, when he says that support can be given to an evil "not mechanically, because there are other considerations." He then goes to make the exact point I did, which is that rejecting the lesser evil is an important step in long-term political activities of building what he calls "a significant alternative" and shifting the political spectrum.

You are completely skipping over the part where he says that there are other considerations. "IF there were a significant alternative...It's a delicate judgement". This is exactly what I have been saying. At this point, what you are saying is the "alternative" of not voting is not a viable response to the system. Sure, IF 1/4th of liberals decided not to vote, then you would have a case. BUT at the point where only 50 percent of the population votes anyways, and you and your "purist" friends decide to join the other 50%, it makes no difference.

[Lucretia]

You are completely skipping over the part where he says that there are other considerations. "IF there were a significant alternative...It's a delicate judgement". This is exactly what I have been saying. At this point, what you are saying is the "alternative" of not voting is not a viable response to the system. Sure, IF 1/4th of liberals decided not to vote, then you would have a case. BUT at the point where only 50 percent of the population votes anyways, and you and your "purist" friends decide to join the other 50%, it makes no difference.

How did I skip over the part where he says there are other considerations? I bolded that portion of his quote because it is a repudiation of the arguments people have presented here which suggest that people should always and mechanically vote for the lesser of two evils. By the way, he never says "IF there were a significant altnernative." He says in that portion that not voting for the two major parties could be justified it were a step toward building a significant alternative. Your misquote misrepresents what he is saying, implying that the alternative must already be significant rather than in its formative stages. Basically what Chomsky is saying here is that there is no mechanical credo to apply, and that sometimes there are some contexts in which voting for the LOTE makes sense. I agree with this. Of course I think both parties have come so far under the control of economic interests that we urgently need to build an alternative movement to replace LOTE democrat voting, so I am hard pressed to see a scenario in which I could support a LOTE candidate unless the greater evil were truly at risk of doing unspeakable things.

I would also like to mention the other key component of his interview:


BARSAMIAN: One of those institutional structures, particularly pertaining to elections, is the Electoral College, which seems by definition undemocratic. This is not talked about, which I find rather astonishing.


CHOMSKY: Basically, these technical changes wouldn't affect the core issue about American elections, which is that fundamentally they don't take place. The population is not misled about this. The press won't report it, but the polls these days show -- and have for a long time -- that about 80 percent of the population says the country is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, not for the benefit of the people. The latest polls I saw, by about 3 to 1, the population criticized the campaigns because they avoid issues and keep to personalities and marginal phenomena. The public is not misled, at least so the polls indicateThis demonstrates the important point that effecting political change usually occurs as a result of extra-electoral action. The reforms then come as a response to that grassroots activism.

By the way, you never answered my earlier question: is there a policy so egregious, or principle so odious, that a LOTE party or candidate would lose your vote for supporting it?

[smk]

By the way, you never answered my earlier question: is there a policy so egregious, or principle so odious, that a LOTE party or candidate would lose your vote for supporting it?

Interesting question. Yes, I'm sure there is a line somewhere. Then I think about what upholding even the Democrats means, besides the small changes which will lead to big differences. Allow me to bow out while I contemplate the question of "Is voting for the current LOTE parties upholding capitalism and does capitalism cross that line of a policy so egregious?" I think you may have won this debate. :closedeyes:

[Lucretia]

Interesting question. Yes, I'm sure there is a line somewhere. Then I think about what upholding even the Democrats means, besides the small changes which will lead to big differences. Allow me to bow out while I contemplate the question of "Is voting for the current LOTE parties upholding capitalism and does capitalism cross that line of a policy so egregious?" I think you may have won this debate. :closedeyes:

I am just curious because many, many years ago when I was a young lad I used to vote Democratic. Then, through the years (decades), the party basically came to repudiate every major position of theirs that impelled me to get involved and support them in the first place. Are they still in some sense a lesser of two evils? Yes, but not one that I am prepared to support in this context, especially in light of the present recession. This is a once-a-generation opportunity to build a left movement, and the democratic party and Obama are acting as pressure release valves for the capitalist system by actively subverting grassroots and left organizing while at the same time giving the appearance of supporting their issues. I think it's fair to say that at some point continuing to support them is just the opposite of pragmatism, and represents wishful thinking of the highest order.

[thesadmafioso]

I am not sure I understand the distinction you're making between support and vote, and why you think it's an important distinction. Why would somebody vote for a candidate they don't support? Isn't it tautological that if somebody is voting for a candidate that they are (at least electorally) supporting that candidate in that election?

In an electoral situation, the word vote is much stronger than support as it denotes a physical action. Support is a world which is not nearly as forceful with voters as it does not require as much actual effort on their behalf to simply say that they support a candidate. The fact that someone supports a candidate often times does not mean that they will make it to the polls on election day, otherwise the last bout of mid term elections would of likely had a much different result. The two words may at a quick glance appear to by interchangeable, but in a political context they are certainly far more nuanced than you seem to believe them to be. In regards to leftists who are voting for a candidate they do not necessarily support entirely, they are only doing do as the American electoral system allows them no other viable alternative to influence the eventual governmental outcomes which will result from the outcome here. It is an occurrence which is actually quite common within the US electoral system, as a lack of political plurality generally draws a wide range of voters together under a party which they often times are not in complete agreement with. The design of the US system essentially forces the nation into accepting a two party system, and many people are capable of realizing this and the ineffectiveness of third parties beyond their symbolic capacity which is created as a result of this.

I know that all of this is well beyond your level of knowledge, but I simply couldn't resist pointing out yet another amateur fault in your understanding of political science.

[Lucretia]

In an electoral situation, the word vote is much stronger than support as it denotes a physical action. Support is a world which is not nearly as forceful with voters as it does not require as much actual effort on their behalf to simply say that they support a candidate. The fact that someone supports a candidate often times does not mean that they will make it to the polls on election day, otherwise the last bout of mid term elections would of likely had a much different result. The two words may at a quick glance appear to by interchangeable, but in a political context they are certainly far more nuanced than you seem to believe them to be. In regards to leftists who are voting for a candidate they do not necessarily support entirely, they are only doing do as the American electoral system allows them no other viable alternative to influence the eventual governmental outcomes which will result from the outcome here. It is an occurrence which is actually quite common within the US electoral system, as a lack of political plurality generally draws a wide range of voters together under a party which they often times are not in complete agreement with. The design of the US system essentially forces the nation into accepting a two party system, and many people are capable of realizing this and the ineffectiveness of third parties beyond their symbolic capacity which is created as a result of this.

I know that all of this is well beyond your level of knowledge, but I simply couldn't resist pointing out yet another amateur fault in your understanding of political science.

Actually, the person who originally made this distinction already clarified what he meant, and made the exact opposite point as you. According to him, you can vote for a candidate without supporting him, as long as you cast your vote "through gritted teeth." So he clearly thinks that support is a much stronger word than vote.

I know that expecting you to pay attention to the thread is well beyond your facility, but I simply could not resist pointing out another instance of your being an idiot. :)

Now are you going to answer my question to you: why troll a revleft board if your only purpose is to berate people for not being "pragmatic" (liberal) enough?

[thesadmafioso]

Actually, the person who originally made this distinction already clarified what he meant, and made the exact opposite point as you. According to him, you can vote for a candidate without supporting him, as long as you cast your vote "through gritted teeth." So he clearly thinks that support is a much stronger word than vote.

I know that expecting you to pay attention to the thread is well beyond your facility, but I simply could not resist pointing out another instance of your being an idiot. :)

Now are you going to answer my question to you: why troll a revleft board if your only purpose is to berate people for not being "pragmatic" (liberal) enough?

So I presume that you got a sentence or two into that post and grew tired with it? Couldn't be bothered to make it to the end? I read all of the posts in the topic, and I did go on to clarify that the concept can work both ways. The primary point which I made was that the two notions are separate. I know that this sort of thing is a bit more complicated than the differences between a bill and a law, and I am trying to help guide you through this in the most effective manner possible. It would be useful to both of us if you could show a bit of civility and perhaps just take the lesson in political science for what it is, as you seem to be in dire need of this sort of information.

[DaringMehring]

I didn't even say support. I said vote. The democrats are not much different than the Republicans or even the Tea party, for that matter. But the little differences matter. If you don't care about the little differences which can have a huge impact on improving people's lives, I have no idea how you can possibly call your self a leftist.

You do realize that this is the exact line of the CPUSA?

Playing in the two Party system does make some small positive difference in the short run. In the long run, it makes a major negative difference because it implicitly legitimizes the bourgeois democracy, and prevents the development of revolutionary consciousness.

Failing to see that is the CPUSA's main error, and has led it to transform from the leading organized sector of the left, independent of the Democrats, through which a million people passed, in the 1930s, to a small collection of burnt out Democrat boosters.

The long term costs are just as "real" as the opportunistic short term gains, and in the end far outweigh them. It's not about caring or not caring about "little differences," the question is developing a movement independent of bourgeois politics. You can't get that, with an organizational or personal attitude oriented toward Democrats.

[MarxistMan]

You know simplistic people think that humans are free, and the more money humans have the more independence they have. But I think that even rich people are slaves and middle class are slaves and controlled by their friends, society and values of their own class in which they live.

And i think that the nature of the yuppy middle class lifestyle and middle class neighborhood and middle class friends is one of the main causes of why progressive liberal thinkers and celebrities like Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Paul Krugman, Alexander Cockburn, Michael Parenti, and the many other writters of progressive liberal alternative news sites like The Nation, Commondreams, Truthdig, Alternet, Counterpunch, Salon and others progressive liberal news websites, cannot raise the flag of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg and the other thinkers of Revolutionary-Communism.

Because these progressive celebrities i mentioned here, and the alternative progressive news sites have social bonds, relationships and love with people who own businesses, with business owners, like maybe restaurant owners, small business owners, upper middle class doctors, upper middle class lawyers, and even love and bonds with millionaires like The Kennedy Family, The Clinton Family etc.

So by their nature of their having love, bonds, and affection to people of the upper-classes who depend on the free market capitalist system, they (The progressive thinkers) cannot go all the way and proclaim the flag and basic ideolofy of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, Gramci and the other many writters and thinkers of the dictatorship of the proletariat and all businesses owned under workers-control.

Thanx i hope u like this comment about progressives, this is just a personal observation on why progressive liberal social-democrats never even mention the words: "Capitalism" "Socialism" "Karl Marx" "Che Guevara" and a are not in favor of a workers-government


.



Liberals today and in the past, have claimed to be opposed to the evils of this system, which are infact products of the system itself, not seperate problems that can be dealt with by reform, but rather can only be fully erradicated by a radical solution, changing society from the roots up.

We hear these psuedoleftists parrot worn out words like freedom and democracy, we also hear words like nonviolence and turning the other cheek.

According to some people of the liberal persuasion, it is wrong for the beaten and broken masses, to raise a fist and strike back at the oppressor, it is wrong to kill the oppressor, as this makes us just as bad.....

This kind of utopian reactionary ethos is what keeps large segments of workers from crossing the line between angry yet in line to Angry and armed.

Would it have been wrong for a black man to come upon a lynching and use violent force to free the black man or woman being lynched?

Is it wrong for an Indian peasant to see red at his conditions and join the Naxalites to fight those who force him into a life of destitution?

No.., the truth is, anyone who upholds non violence is actually supporting violence, as they are telling the unarmed out of power downtrodeen to stay defenseless and unarmed, which can only have one conclusion, the death of the people at the hands of the pig.

Speaking about the difference between real liberals and reactionary liberals Malcom X reminds us of one white liberal who stood on the side of the oppressed, rather than on the side of the oppressor looking down at the oppressed and preaching turn the other cheek.

He said:



There are many white people in this country, especially the younger generation, who realize that the injustice that has been done and is being done to black people cannot go on without the chickens coming home to roost eventually.



And those white people, even if they’re not morally motivated, their intelligence forces them to see that something must be done. And many of them would be willing to involve themselves in the type of operation that you were just talking about.

For one, when a white man comes to me and tells me how liberal he is, the first thing I want to know, is he a nonviolent liberal, or the other kind. I don’t go for any nonviolent white liberals.

If you are for me and my problems - when I say me, I mean us, our people – then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown did.
And if you’re not of the John Brown school of liberals, we’ll get you later – later.


It is all too easy to call for restraint and peacefull demonstrations when you are not on the extreme end of police brutality, if you are not a woman facing violent patriachal abuse, if your not a palestinian whose lost his whole family through Israels terrorist programme, it is easy to echo hollow words of unarmed and pascifist struggle, when your not in the firing line.

A brave man once said, it was not about wishing the victims of aggression success, but rather about struggling with them against oppression to victory, or death.

This is the dividing line that stands between liberals and socialists.

The liberal seeks to beg the aggressor for reform, they seek to bring change about peacefully at the speed the oppressor deems suitable, and they decry and victim of his oppression as a terrorist if they decide to fight back.

The socialist however seeks to unite and promote workers struggles, it wishes the people to fight, to break with the system and the false institutions it places before us, the communist says, do not vote, do not bow to a two party capitalist system, no, but rather shouts and bellows, free yourself from the chains of capital and end the oppression of us, by ending the rule of them!

[L.A.P.]

Hence the purpose of the Democratic Party of America; they stop you from revolting while members of the Republican Party oppress you.

[apawllo]

A libertarian socialist who thinks that Lawrence O'Donnell is also a socialist, and who think it's absolutely terrible that a requirement that everybody must purchase private insurance was ruled unconstitutional by a Florida court? It's a huge blow for libertarians everywhere, socialist or not, when people aren't being forced to donate their paychecks to corrupt health care monopolies. Let me guess, you're a "pragmatic" libertarian socialist. :laugh:

Don't forget, "idolizes the founding fathers" and "refers to materialism and class analysis as psychic revelations"

[Lucretia]

So I presume that you got a sentence or two into that post and grew tired with it? Couldn't be bothered to make it to the end? I read all of the posts in the topic, and I did go on to clarify that the concept can work both ways. The primary point which I made was that the two notions are separate. I know that this sort of thing is a bit more complicated than the differences between a bill and a law, and I am trying to help guide you through this in the most effective manner possible. It would be useful to both of us if you could show a bit of civility and perhaps just take the lesson in political science for what it is, as you seem to be in dire need of this sort of information.

So are you going to answer the question: why troll a revleft forum if you're just a liberal?

[DaringMehring]

So are you going to answer the question: why troll a revleft forum if you're just a liberal?

NGNM explained he was a libertarian socialist.

I have a feeling, his relationship to Democrats, is similar to that of most libertarian capitalists to Republicans.

[thesadmafioso]

So are you going to answer the question: why troll a revleft forum if you're just a liberal?

I am only a liberal in your narrow minded interpretation of the political. Your inability to grasp the finner points of the more abstract aspects of political thought is an issue which I cannot possibly hope to deal with in this restricted context. The spectrum of ideology is not something which is purely black and white nor is it something which can adeptly be described in the absolutist fashion through which you seek to do so with.

I also cannot help but notice the glaring omission of any response to my well developed defense of my original comments. Though once more, what else would I expect from someone of your limited intellectual capacity?

[Amphictyonis]

Just what we needed; more empty rhetoric and macho chest-thumping.

liberal scum. (Said in soldier voice from Return Of the Jedi)

9aspp1r0tS4

Really. Enough already.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes, and would you like to know the primary difference between our two arguments? The point which I expose is one which is actually designed around political reality, while yours is based solely in fiction. You show absolutely no regard for the current societal, economic, or political trends which are prevalent in modern western society, which inevitably leads you to conclusions which are simply inapplicable. And in politics, that is exactly the sort of thing that matters.

I for one am not operating under the delusion that a mass movement will form in advanced capitalist nations under the wing of a vanguard party while capitalism is still providing material needs in advanced capitalist nations. Anyhow, all reformists end up doing is excusing the system while the profits capitalists loose from your meager reforms are simply passed onto cuts in workers living standards in third/second world up and coming industrial nations where US regimes are in place.

Capitalism is a global system so fighting to 'reform' the American system is akin to pissing in the wind. Whats needed is a global struggle and this struggle will most likely take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis'. Ralph Nader or some third party or some liberal reform means doodley squat in the big picture. What does matter is spreading proper class awareness via struggle so when the time comes, when the system is screeching to a halt, a global socialist revolution can be facilitated. You're never going to get a 'moral' capitalist system or a soft smooth happy fun transition to socialism based on ideology alone.


Voting for a representative is a waste of time. It amounts to an erroneous admission that the current representative system works. In just about every major election the candidate who wins is the candidate who's backed by concentrated wealth. I'm willing to bet you voted for or at least supported Obama early on. THAT is whats wrong with the American left. They're mislead, naive and mailable like puddy in the hands of capitalists. You would think Obama would be teh straw that broke the camels back but you people will go on falling for teh same hat trick year after year.

[smk]

You do realize that this is the exact line of the CPUSA?

Playing in the two Party system does make some small positive difference in the short run. In the long run, it makes a major negative difference because it implicitly legitimizes the bourgeois democracy, and prevents the development of revolutionary consciousness.

Failing to see that is the CPUSA's main error, and has led it to transform from the leading organized sector of the left, independent of the Democrats, through which a million people passed, in the 1930s, to a small collection of burnt out Democrat boosters.

The long term costs are just as "real" as the opportunistic short term gains, and in the end far outweigh them. It's not about caring or not caring about "little differences," the question is developing a movement independent of bourgeois politics. You can't get that, with an organizational or personal attitude oriented toward Democrats.

yes, I have since been enlightened. thanks again Lucretia for that explanation. I was hoping no one would bring CPUSA into this though. :laugh:. It is horrible to be compared to them!

[Lucretia]

I am only a liberal in your narrow minded interpretation of the political.

Really? Let's set the record straight here. You support Obamacare, you think you think Lawrence O'Donnell's politics is the model of intelligent socialist politics, and in this thread you appear to be arguing that people should vote for Obama. Yet you expect us to believe that you are not a liberal?

Why exactly should any of us believe you when you make that claim?

You're a liberal, and yet you insist on trolling on revolutionary leftist forums.

Find a hobby or something. Or go knock doors for your local slimeball democrat party. Just stop being a blatant liberal on this forum.

[thesadmafioso]

Really? Let's set the record straight here. You support Obamacare, you think you think Lawrence O'Donnell's politics is the model of intelligent socialist politics, and in this thread you appear to be arguing that people should vote for Obama. Yet you expect us to believe that you are not a liberal?

Why exactly should any of us believe you when you make that claim?

You're a liberal, and yet you insist on trolling on revolutionary leftist forums.

Find a hobby or something. Or go knock doors for your local slimeball democrat party. Just stop being a blatant liberal on this forum.

Well it isn't exactly election season, now is it? I am not sure who I would even be canvassing for given that basic fact.

[Lucretia]

Well it isn't exactly election season, now is it? I am not sure who I would even be canvassing for given that basic fact.

Basic fact? All sorts of local campaigns go on all the time. I am sure you knew that, considering how your extensive knowledge of political theory and practice dwarfs the limited understanding of us peons. :rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

I for one am not operating under the delusion that a mass movement will form in advanced capitalist nations under the wing of a vanguard party while capitalism is still providing material needs in advanced capitalist nations. Anyhow, all reformists end up doing is excusing the system while the profits capitalists loose from your meager reforms are simply passed onto cuts in workers living standards in third/second world up and coming industrial nations where US regimes are in place.

Capitalism is a global system so fighting to 'reform' the American system is akin to pissing in the wind. Whats needed is a global struggle and this struggle will most likely take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis'. Ralph Nader or some third party or some liberal reform means doodley squat in the big picture. What does matter is spreading proper class awareness via struggle so when the time comes, when the system is screeching to a halt, a global socialist revolution can be facilitated. You're never going to get a 'moral' capitalist system or a soft smooth happy fun transition to socialism based on ideology alone.


Voting for a representative is a waste of time. It amounts to an erroneous admission that the current representative system works. In just about every major election the candidate who wins is the candidate who's backed by concentrated wealth. I'm willing to bet you voted for or at least supported Obama early on. THAT is whats wrong with the American left. They're mislead, naive and mailable like puddy in the hands of capitalists. You would think Obama would be teh straw that broke the camels back but you people will go on falling for teh same hat trick year after year.

Thank you for making my point. This argument displays an attitude towards the working class which is somewhere between indifference and contempt.

[thesadmafioso]

Basic fact? All sorts of local campaigns go on all the time. I am sure you knew that, considering how your extensive knowledge of political theory and practice dwarfs the limited understanding of us peons. :rolleyes:

They really don't though, at least in the middle of winter in upstate New York on an off year.

[Lucretia]

Thank you for making my point. This argument displays an attitude towards the working class which is somewhere between indifference and contempt.

At least he has an argument. You've just spent all of sixty seconds to just call somebody a name. How impressive. :lol:

[NGNM85]

At least he has an argument. You've just spent all of sixty seconds to just call somebody a name. How impressive. :lol:

I've made my argument, to no avail. I wasn't being antagonistic, or exaggerating, merely stating an empirical fact. That argument that he made fundamentally necessitates a total lack of interest in the well being of the working class.

[Ocean Seal]

The thought of the democrats will bring legitimate change to a greater extent than the republicans is not only silly, but its also dangerous. First, notice this, the democrats are not a workers party, they are not even a labor party. They don't even emphasize that they fight for the working class? Hell, tell me the last time that a democrat used the proper definition of working class? Or even dared to say those words? Tell me the wonderful things that democrats say about capitalism, and about business.

Real change
When the democrats drafted the stimulus package they negotiated with the republicans. The democrats said that they wanted to give the super rich some more money to make up for the billions that they had irresponsibly lost. The republicans said no, we won't allow it, unless of course you also give them tax cuts.
Democrats: Stimulus Money for the Rich
Republicans: Tax Cuts for the Rich
I was under the impression that these both accomplished the same thing.

Neither party is a worker's party, or even claims to be a workers party. Notice how Obama's SOTU blamed teachers for our education problems? Blame the workers for the economic problems, when they're at each other's throats they'll forget about getting rid of the ruling class.

In fact I should go further to state that if a socialist candidate causes a liberal to lose an election, it should be welcomed. Why? Because winning elections is all that our lovely candidates care about. So if a socialist has about 5% of the vote, a democrat 46%, and a republican 49%, we should welcome the defeat of the democrats. Losing an election will get them to listen to the people, and to incorporate socialist platforms. Is there evidence? Al Gore arguably lost the 2000 election because of Ralph Nader the Green Party candidate. Now every candidate talks about what they will do for green technologies. Al Gore himself even made a climate change documentary. Nader initiated a revolution without even posing as an electable candidate. A socialist could do the same. Cause a democrat to lose, and they know that they must at least give some thought to leftist ideas.
That's all for my rant comrades.

[DaringMehring]

I've made my argument, to no avail. I wasn't being antagonistic, or exaggerating, merely stating an empirical fact. That argument that he made fundamentally necessitates a total lack of interest in the well being of the working class.

You haven't proved any facts.

Democrats attack workers. They brag about it, and run on it in elections. In CA, Jerry Brown promised to fight the public employee unions -- we were supposed to be able to trust him, because he has got the experience to take them on. They call themselves pro-business. They push austerity.

You're saying, that working people should vote for people who promise to attack them. Or -- they should vote for people who lie about how they care about working people, but whose record is one of attacks, of being the velvet hand to go with Republican iron fist of capitalism.

Saying that the only people who really care about the working class, are those who vote for that kind of a political Party, is nutty. Or rather, it's the type of opinion you get from people from wealthy backgrounds in liberal states.

[NGNM85]

You haven't proved any facts.

Democrats attack workers. They brag about it, and run on it in elections. In CA, Jerry Brown promised to fight the public employee unions -- we were supposed to be able to trust him, because he has got the experience to take them on. They call themselves pro-business. They push austerity.

You're saying, that working people should vote for people who promise to attack them. Or -- they should vote for people who lie about how they care about working people, but whose record is one of attacks, of being the velvet hand to go with Republican iron fist of capitalism.

Saying that the only people who really care about the working class, are those who vote for that kind of a political Party, is nutty. Or rather, it's the type of opinion you get from people from wealthy backgrounds in liberal states.

I acknowledged one fact, the fact being that his argument necessitates disinterest or contempt for the working class.

[synthesis]

I acknowledged one fact, the fact being that his argument necessitates disinterest or contempt for the working class.

How so?

[Rocky Rococo]

I sign into RevLeft and it's like the Dailykos has broken out in here. The funniest part is that the "pragmatists" here make the exact same arguments, use the exact same guilt trips, that the Dailykos "pragmatists" do to justify and demand fealty to every Obama neoliberal "compromise". The whole, "you can't care about the workers, the Republicans held the unemployed hostage, Obama had to give them everything they wanted, how could you not care about the unemployed!" Pure "centrist Dem" BS guilt-tripping manipulative metaphysics and IMO has nothing productive to contribute to a revolutionary discourse. Which I thought was the purpose of this board?

[Lucretia]

I sign into RevLeft and it's like the Dailykos has broken out in here. The funniest part is that the "pragmatists" here make the exact same arguments, use the exact same guilt trips, that the Dailykos "pragmatists" do to justify and demand fealty to every Obama neoliberal "compromise". The whole, "you can't care about the workers, the Republicans held the unemployed hostage, Obama had to give them everything they wanted, how could you not care about the unemployed!" Pure "centrist Dem" BS guilt-tripping manipulative metaphysics and IMO has nothing productive to contribute to a revolutionary discourse. Which I thought was the purpose of this board?

This is what happens when you have a bunch of liberals running around on the forum, confused about what socialism and socialist politics are, trolling half the threads, accusing the socialists of not being pragmatic enough, then chronically thanking each other's posts. I'm surprised the offenders haven't been restricted by now.

[NGNM85]

How so?

Well, let’s start from the point of agreement, of which there probably aren’t very many. That the present political and economic system is fundamentally bad, by it’s nature. Presumably this objection has something to do with the human consequences. He’s saying, at least in the snapshot we’ve been given, that since it’s an intrinsically bad system, it’s a total waste of time to do anything to ameliorate or soften the existing harsh realities, we should devote ourselves entirely to violent revolution, in the most crude and simplistic sense. What that says to the welfare mothers, etc., is; ‘Your problems don’t matter right now, they are insignificant compared to the Grand Project.’ Assuming the individual in question is sincere in having this moral opposition to an inhumane system, his perscriptions are at complete cross-purposes with his stated objective. If we assume that this emotion is genuine, then this would be a classic Sub-Goal/Super-Goal conflict. I would also add that this kind of argumentation has historically led to some of the darker chapters in human history.

[Amphictyonis]

Thank you for making my point. This argument displays an attitude towards the working class which is somewhere between indifference and contempt.

Not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Fighting or struggling for better living conditions isn't the only goal of struggle - it's to raise consciousness concerning the conflict between capital and labor. The goal isnt to get American workers the highest paying service sector jobs at the expense of the non western industrial workers the goal is to expose the dynamics of the system to as many workers as possible. Shit, with your thinking you may as well go organize for capitalist controlled unions/unions that support capitalism. Who has contempt for workers? The person who would see us enslaved or the person who would see us free? The road to freedom isnt through the democrat party, reform or minor concessions given by capitalists.

Reforming capitalism is comparable to skinning a live grizzly bear by the tail. How do you think that works out? You get eaten alive. Look whats happening now to workers around the world. Obama is in office and we're being eaten alive. Now kindly go away as you're obviously stuck in the mainstream reformist mind frame. This is a HUGE problem on the left. OR stick around so we all can highlight this problem every time you post :)

[NGNM85]

This is what happens when you have a bunch of liberals..

I don't think you know what the word means.


..running around on the forum, confused about what socialism and socialist politics are,..

You have no idea what I think about socialism.


..trolling half the threads,..

Only if you mean it in some non-literal sense.


...accusing the socialists of not being pragmatic enough, then chronically thanking each other's posts.I'm surprised the offenders haven't been restricted by now.

Oh, it's not like the Leninists do that, or anything. Second, this is baseless. Sadmafioso hasn't thanked more than a dozen or so of my posts. I will also mention I thanked another post by Amphictyonis, earlier tonight, because it was a very good post, unlike this one.

Also, you could have the decency to own your convictions.

[Lucretia]

I don't think you know what the word means.



You have no idea what I think about socialism.



Only if you mean it in some non-literal sense.



Oh, it's not like the Leninists do that, or anything. Second, this is baseless. Sadmafioso hasn't thanked more than a dozen or so of my posts. I will also mention I thanked another post by Amphictyonis, earlier tonight, because it was a very good post, unlike this one.

Also, you could have the decency to own your convictions.


Where did I mention your name? Thou doth protest too much? :blushing:

[Lucretia]

Not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Fighting or struggling for better living conditions isn't the only goal of struggle - it's to raise consciousness concerning the conflict between capital and labor. The goal isnt to get American workers the highest paying service sector jobs at the expense of the non western industrial workers the goal is to expose the dynamics of the system to as many workers as possible. Shit, with your thinking you may as well go organize for capitalist controlled unions/unions that support capitalism. Who has contempt for workers? The person who would see us enslaved or the person who would see us free? The road to freedom isnt through the democrat party, reform or minor concessions given by capitalists.

Reforming capitalism is comparable to skinning a live grizzly bear by the tail. How do you think that works out? You get eaten alive. Look whats happening now to workers around the world. Obama is in office and we're being eaten alive. Now kindly go away as you're obviously stuck in the mainstream reformist mind frame. This is a HUGE problem on the left. OR stick around so we all can highlight this problem every time you post :)

I think you're giving his argument too much credence. Reforms do not and have not ever happened because people have mechanically pledged to support the lesser of two evils. When that happens, people in power just ignore you because you're a non-factor, a person whose support is in the bag instead of in need of being earned. Reforms happen because people either threaten to or actually do withhold their electoral support, and because they engage in direct action. These activities, and only these activities, are what force progressive reforms. The goal of the revolutionary socialist should be forcing reforms as a method of consciousness raising and solidarity building with the end objective of eliminating class divisions.

[Amphictyonis]

To add to what you said above he just PM'ed me a bunch of Chomsky quotes and in one of them- "as a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system". I'm advocating struggle not support for the representative system or some delusion that capitalists will let themselves be voted out of power. Too many people take some of Chomsky's words and twist them into meaning we should use the current system to make life better under capitalism. The goal is to end capitalism. This will not happen by the capitalists being voted out of power.


The day the bourgeoisie are voted out of power is the day my body internally combusts. No one is saying we're are against struggle. Chomsky is trying to show why the capitalists want workers to be suspicious of government he's not saying we should support the democrat party. "Smaller government" is a euphemism for lower taxes and no social programs. He's making the argument to anarchists who are adamantly against the state. He's saying, we can use the state to our benefit if we get out in the streets and make enough noise he's not condoning the representative system. All of the success American workers have had came FROM AMERICAN WORKERS not some representative of capitalism (politician). Capitalists want workers to be "right wing" small government types because it benefits the capitalists agenda.

Can you explain whats different with Obama in office? Whats different? How is throwing support behind that fraud benefit 'starving kids'?

(talking to numb3rs of course)


READ THIS PLEASE:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm

[synthesis]

it’s a total waste of time to do anything to ameliorate or soften the existing harsh realities

That's not really a fair representation of what he was saying, though. Under capitalism, the working class does not decide whether or not their own conditions will be ameliorated.

[sologdin]

Alexander Cockburn, Michael Parenti, and the many other writters of progressive liberal alternative news sites like The Nation, Commondreams, Truthdig, Alternet, Counterpunch, Salon and others progressive liberal news websites, cannot raise the flag of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg and the other thinkers of Revolutionary-Communism.


the suggestion that cockburn and parenti are mere liberals is erroneous, though they do have something of a rockstar status for the left, sure.

is it productive to lump them in with liberals simply because they do not quote marx every other sentence or fall into lockstep with the mantras of soviet marxism?

[Lucretia]

To add to what you said above he just PM'ed me a bunch of Chomsky quotes and in one of them- "as a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system".

Here we have yet another Chomsky quote being misunderstood. This one makes it abundantly clear that extensive popular struggle is the reason there are reforms, not mechanically supporting the lesser of two evils, not shilling for democrats when they have moved way to the right on practically all the major issues and are preparing a major assault (austerity) on the working class. This is the second time that a democrat liberal has tried to use a Chomsky quote to make his point, but ends up quoting an excerpt that makes the exact opposite argument of the one the poster tried to make.

[DaringMehring]

Wasn't it Chomsky who said, that the left-right spectrum in US politics is a heavily controlled and limited discourse -- that allowing "freedom," but only within narrowly defined parameters, is a trick the bourgeoisie use to preserve their domination by creating illusions of democratic discourse?

It seems to me, that Chomsky himself provides a trenchant critique of the limits of bourgeois democracy.

[NGNM85]

That's not really a fair representation of what he was saying, though. Under capitalism, the working class does not decide whether or not their own conditions will be ameliorated.

In China? Certainly not. However, this is not the case in the present-day US. This is why political institutions, and corporations expend so much energy molding and manipulating public opinion, why they have such intricate and complex processes of indoctrination. In a police state, propaganda doesn’t have to be terribly sophisticated, Vladimir Putin recently made a public announcement warning protestors if they didn’t pipe down they were going to get the living shit beat out of them. (I think his exact phrase translated to; ‘bludgeon with truncheons.’) That doesn’t need any complex justification. This was the reasoning behind the paper published by the Trilateral Commission in the mid-70’s; The Crisis of Democracy. What was the Crisis of Democracy? It was that the people were demanding things, and, thus, they were getting them.

[NGNM85]

Here we have yet another Chomsky quote being misunderstood. This one makes it abundantly clear that extensive popular struggle is the reason there are reforms, not mechanically supporting the lesser of two evils, not shilling for democrats when they have moved way to the right on practically all the major issues and are preparing a major assault (austerity) on the working class. This is the second time that a democrat liberal has tried to use a Chomsky quote to make his point, but ends up quoting an excerpt that makes the exact opposite argument of the one the poster tried to make.


It is definitely being misunderstood, however, you are the one who does not understand it. However, unfortunately, it seems most people here don't understand it. This was the subject of a very popular thread fairly recently, it went one for sixteen pages and most of the participants were, similarly, unable to grasp it. So, you're hardly alone.

[NGNM85]

To add to what you said above he just PM'ed me a bunch of Chomsky quotes and in one of them- "as a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system".

…which you have no interest in preserving.


I'm advocating struggle not support for the representative system or some delusion that capitalists will let themselves be voted out of power.

This is both an oversimplification and a mischaracterization of what I was saying.


Too many people take some of Chomsky's words and twist them into meaning we should use the current system to make life better under capitalism. The goal is to end capitalism. This will not happen by the capitalists being voted out of power.

Incidentally, capitalism doesn’t exist.

I didn’t ‘twist’ his quotes. I meant them be understood as the were written/spoken. Admittedly, this was unrealistic of me.


The day the bourgeoisie…

If you want to be taken seriously, you won’t use words like this. It’s like Scientology lingo, it’s jargon that carries no value outside a marginal subculture. To everyone else, it signifies that you are not to be taken seriously. It also implies a dogmatic and reductionist worldview.



… are voted out of power is the day my body internally combusts.

Honestly, if that was possible, I still think you wouldn’t vote for it.


No one is saying we're are against struggle. Chomsky is trying to show why the capitalists want workers to be suspicious of government he's not saying we should support the democrat party. "Smaller government" is a euphemism for lower taxes and no social programs. He's making the argument to anarchists who are adamantly against the state.

It was against ‘Anarchists’ who say the exact same things you, recently, said.


He's saying, we can use the state to our benefit if we get out in the streets and make enough noise he's not condoning the representative system. All of the success American workers have had came FROM AMERICAN WORKERS not some representative of capitalism (politician). Capitalists want workers to be "right wing" small government types because it benefits the capitalists agenda.

Clearly, you still don’t get it. Although, again, you are hardly alone.


Can you explain whats different with Obama in office? Whats different? How is throwing support behind that fraud benefit 'starving kids'?

(talking to numb3rs of course)

Well, first of all we have to clarify that the word ‘support’ is being stretched to it’s absolute limits. Specifically, ‘support’ in terms of, providing it makes sense, voting for some candidate. That doesn’t require one to succumb to any illusions. In terms of foreign policy, there doesn’t seem to be much difference, on domestic policy, there’s a little difference. The impact is also greater in local elections, the farther you move up the ladder the more complicated things get, the slower they move, etc.



READ THIS PLEASE:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm


Oh, Jesus. Just a piece of advice, never use Lenin to bolster your argument, not if you are actually trying to make a point. Lenin was no more of a socialist than Alan Greenspan.

[DaringMehring]

Oh, Jesus. Just a piece of advice, never use Lenin to bolster your argument, not if you are actually trying to make a point.

Oh, Jesus. Just a piece of advice, never dismiss a man who led a proletarian revolution in the classical Marxist tradition, not if you're actually trying to talk about socialism.

[NGNM85]

Oh, Jesus. Just a piece of advice, never dismiss a man who led a proletarian revolution in the classical Marxist tradition, not if you're actually trying to talk about socialism.

Actually, a number of contemporaneous Marxists would have disagreed with that. However, it makes little difference, as I never claimed to be a Marxist.

[Lucretia]

It is definitely being misunderstood, however, you are the one who does not understand it. However, unfortunately, it seems most people here don't understand it. This was the subject of a very popular thread fairly recently, it went one for sixteen pages and most of the participants were, similarly, unable to grasp it. So, you're hardly alone.

I am waiting to hear your argument on how I misunderstood the quote. Please explain to me how when Chomsky talks about reforms resulting from struggle, he means what you say he means: reforms resulting from voting for the lesser of two evils.

[NGNM85]

I am waiting to hear your argument on how I misunderstood the quote. Please explain to me how when Chomsky talks about reforms resulting from struggle, he means what you say he means: reforms resulting from voting for the lesser of two evils.

I don’t know what to do, except suggest you re-read the quotes I cited. For what it’s worth, I’ll offer one last example;

David Barsamian: Every four years Americans, those who vote, are faced with what is often called the lesser of two evils as their presidential options. Dave Dellinger, who passed away in May, used to call it "the evil of two lessers." You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position.

Noam Chomsky: There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.

On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference–it’s not huge–but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.

There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative. (My emphasis.)

[Lucretia]

I don’t know what to do, except suggest you re-read the quotes I cited. For what it’s worth, I’ll offer one last example;

David Barsamian: Every four years Americans, those who vote, are faced with what is often called the lesser of two evils as their presidential options. Dave Dellinger, who passed away in May, used to call it "the evil of two lessers." You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position.

Noam Chomsky: There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn’t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.

On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference–it’s not huge–but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.

There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they’re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you’ve got to make them think you’re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don’t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they’re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don’t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see much difference between them." That’s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative. (My emphasis.)

You seem to be confused. You told me I misinterpreted a quote Chomsky was making about political struggle, and instead of telling me how I misinterpreted quotes, you're just dumping more quotes from Chomsky without showing how those quotes relate to my supposed misinterpretation.

Please explain to me where in your latest dump Chomsky says anything remotely similar to the idea that voting for the LOTE is what precipitates reforms. He only says that different factions of the one capitalist party have slightly different consequences for voters. But this can easily mean (and knowing Chomsky's political views, probably does mean) that the Democrats will do less rolling back of hard-fought reforms than Republicans. It does not mean that Democrats will spontaneously wake up on the right side of the bed and pass new reforms out of the kindness of their hearts. That's not how reforms are won.

[Amphictyonis]

Oh, Jesus. Just a piece of advice, never use Lenin to bolster your argument, not if you are actually trying to make a point. Lenin was no more of a socialist than Alan Greenspan.

You don't understand socialism. Of course Lenin didn't set up "communism". You cant just jump into communism without first industrializing under some form of capitalism. Lenin was also wrong in thinking a global socialist revolution was about to manifest (especially in advanced capitalist nations). If advanced capitalist nations had gone socialist Russia could have skipped the capitalist phase but they didn't so....we got what you saw in Russia which was not communism. This doesn't make him a capitalist it makes him human. You need to read more than Chomsky. Good god. Your TOTAL lack of understanding the capitalist system is so obvious it hurts. You have much to learn before you go about being so snide.

[DaringMehring]

It's funny that anyone would cite Chomsky on how to build a mass movement, a guy who, for all his brilliance and his trenchant critiques of US foreign policy, has never been a leader in or a part of the building of a mass movement -- while at the same time, dismissing Lenin, who helped lead the activated workers and peasants of the Russian Empire to power in one of the greatest working class outbursts of all time.

[NGNM85]

You seem to be confused. You told me I misinterpreted a quote Chomsky was making about political struggle, and instead of telling me how I misinterpreted quotes, you're just dumping more quotes from Chomsky without showing how those quotes relate to my supposed misinterpretation.

Please explain to me where in your latest dump Chomsky says anything remotely similar to the idea that voting for the LOTE is what precipitates reforms. He only says that different factions of the one capitalist party have slightly different consequences for voters. But this can easily mean (and knowing Chomsky's political views, probably does mean) that the Democrats will do less rolling back of hard-fought reforms than Republicans. It does not mean that Democrats will spontaneously wake up on the right side of the bed and pass new reforms out of the kindness of their hearts. That's not how reforms are won.

First of all, you’re using the word ‘reform’ in a non-literal sense that is loaded with emotional baggage, which is only clouding the issue.

I think there are a number of misconceptions here, and I don’t just mean you, in particular, that I’m trying to address. Again, Amphictyonis said all voting, anything that isn’t specifically, and directly related to instigating violent revolution is a waste of time. This is justified by a number of reasons, all of which are false;

That voting or participating in the political system negates or undermines other forms of activism.

That voting or any other participation in the existing political system has, literally, no effect, whatsoever, or that the effect is so marginal we shouldn’t care.

Lastly, and this is implicit, because the ‘real’ radicals don’t do it because they’re too pure to soil themselves with such things.

I was trying to demonstrate that not only are these assertions wrong, they’re philosophically inconsistent with socialism, the last part being the most important, in my opinion. When that failed, I attempted to use topical Chomsky quotes hoping that perhaps a different phrasing might make this more comprehensible.

[NGNM85]

You don't understand socialism.

No, I’m just not a Marxist, or a Marxist-Leninist, etc.



Of course Lenin didn't set up "communism". You cant just jump into communism without first industrializing under some form of capitalism.

Ok, so you’re using socialism specifically in the Marxist context. According to Marxist dogma, that is correct. However, I don’t subscribe to that dogma.


Lenin was also wrong in thinking a global socialist revolution was about to manifest (especially in advanced capitalist nations).

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.


If advanced capitalist nations had gone socialist Russia could have skipped the capitalist phase but they didn't so....we got what you saw in Russia which was not communism. This doesn't make him a capitalist it makes him human.

It depends, to my way of thinking, and all Anarchists, as well as a number of Marxists, workers’ democracy is an essential, inseparable component of socialism. This is something to which Lenin was bitterly opposed his entire life. However, we’re not here to dissect the history of the Soviet Union, there are other threads for that, this isn’t one of them.



You need to read more than Chomsky.

I read lots besides Chomsky, I just finished reading Neuromancer, for the second time. However, that has absolutely no bearing on the conversation at hand. The Chomsky quotes were really just to bolster my point.


Good god. Your TOTAL lack of understanding the capitalist system..

Capitalism still doesn’t exist.


…is so obvious it hurts. You have much to learn before you go about being so snide.

This is a non-argument. Again, I have articulated my disagreements very clearly, several times, in several different ways. If you have anything constructive to add, be my guest.

[Amphictyonis]

A problem witha few younger anarchists these days (and I hardly consider you an anarchist) is the refusal to use Marx/Engels critique of capitalism. Most serious anarchists do in fact look to Capital and other works from Marx when critiquing the system. Marxist 'dogma' as you put it came well after his death with the various interpretations and the obvious distinction between anarchists and Marxists as I'm sure you know is concerning the state or how to abolish capital.

Anyhow, I'm willing to bet you think we have a sort of "corporatism" as most liberals say. Capitalism as a system accumulates and concentrates wealth. Corporations are simply the modern advanced manifestation of concentrated wealth. If you're going to use some free market definition of capitalism to say "well corporations aren't suppose to be a part of capitalism" I suggest you read 'The Great Transformation' by Karl Polanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi)

The modern state and capitalism came to being at the same time. The modern state has always been the capitalists tool and they used it to form 'trusts' or corporations in order to monopolize the market. Of course capitalism exists. Western nations are in the advanced stages of capitalism. One key ingredient for a successful global socialist revolution. Again you wouldn't know this seeing all you're interested in is lobbying the democrat party for reforms.


EDIT:

and for you to say "I'm not interested in keeping the gains workers have made over the last century" is absurd as absurd gets. Quote me as saying that and I'll delete my RevLeft account. The be all end all goal of struggle isn't to win concessions it's to spread class awareness in order to eventually overthrow the system when the time is right. You'd be better off just admitting you're a social democrat.

[Lucretia]

First of all, you’re using the word ‘reform’ in a non-literal sense that is loaded with emotional baggage, which is only clouding the issue.

I think there are a number of misconceptions here, and I don’t just mean you, in particular, that I’m trying to address. Again, Amphictyonis said all voting, anything that isn’t specifically, and directly related to instigating violent revolution is a waste of time. This is justified by a number of reasons, all of which are false;

That voting or participating in the political system negates or undermines other forms of activism.

That voting or any other participation in the existing political system has, literally, no effect, whatsoever, or that the effect is so marginal we shouldn’t care.

Lastly, and this is implicit, because the ‘real’ radicals don’t do it because they’re too pure to soil themselves with such things.

I was trying to demonstrate that not only are these assertions wrong, they’re philosophically inconsistent with socialism, the last part being the most important, in my opinion. When that failed, I attempted to use topical Chomsky quotes hoping that perhaps a different phrasing might make this more comprehensible.

I am not using 'reform' to mean anything other than a progressive concession, short of the overturning of class relations, that the workers have extracted from the bourgeoisie. How is this clouded with emotionalism?

You might be arguing with amphic. about whether reforms are necessary or desirable, but I am not challenging the importance of reforms at all. I (like Chomsky) think reforms are desirable and necessary, but I (like Chomsky) understand that mechanical LOTE does not create reforms. Political struggle by the working class AGAINST the ruling classes, whatever political faction they belong to, creates reform.

[NGNM85]

A problem witha few younger anarchists these days...

I’m not that much younger than you.


(and I hardly consider you an anarchist)..

I’m fairly skeptical of that conclusion.


..is the refusal to use Marx/Engels critique of capitalism.

You say that as if it was just obstinacy, that isn’t the case. First, in terms of my personal influences, Marx is really a minor figure. Second, there are a number of issues of philosophical disagreement.


Most serious anarchists do in fact look to capital and other works from Marx when critiquing the system.

That entirely depends on the, highly dubious, criteria of ‘serious Anarchist.’


Marxist 'dogma' as you put it came well after his death and the obvious distinction between anarchists and Marxists as I'm sure you know is concerning the state.

There’s more to it than that, but that’s absolutely a major point of contention.


Anyhow, I'm willing to bet you think we have a sort of "corporatism" as most liberals say. Capitalism as a system accumulates and concentrates wealth. Corporations are simply the modern advanced manifestation of concentrated wealth. If you're going to use some free market definition of capitalism to say "well corporations aren't suppose to be a part of capitalism I suggest you read "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi)


The modern state and capitalism came to being at the same time. The modern state has always been the capitalists tool and they used it to form 'trusts' or corporations in order to monopolize the market. Of course capitalism exists.

It’s not just liberals who say that. We could argue the merits of various words, there are a number of contenders; ‘neoliberalism’, ‘corporate mercantilism’, or, very simply, modifying capitalism with the prefix; ‘state.’ I’m not sure there is a universally accepted term. Of course the biggest proponents of ‘free markets’, etc., are actually bitterly opposed to anything of the sort, so the official discourse can take on a kind of ‘black-is-white, up-is-down’ Orwellian character.

Again, this is all beside the point.

[Amphictyonis]

Through gritted teeth, you can vote for a candidate because you know that voting for them means SOME good things, while voting for [insert fringe lefty politician] would result in nothing.

Fringe (definition):


1. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe.

[Amphictyonis]

Again, this is all beside the point.

Not really. I'm showing how astoundingly ignorant you are concerning socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't be so rude if not for your...well, sorry. I'm usually rude to liberals when debating politics/economics. Nothing personal :)

[NGNM85]

Not really. I'm showing how astoundingly ignorant you are concerning socialism and capitalism.

Then you've failed miserably. Really all you’ve done is argue for, what, I think, is an overly expansive definition of ‘capitalism’, and not very persuasively.


I wouldn't be so rude if not for your...well, sorry. I'm usually rude to liberals when debating politics/economics. Nothing personal

Well, it’s nice to know age and maturity don’t necessarily go hand in hand. If the appellation ‘liberal’, as disingenuously as you use it, is based solely on that fact that, unlike yourself, I actually care about the working class, fine.

[synthesis]

I actually care about the working class, fine.

It's sort of silly, the way you repeat this phrase; with your usage of it, pretty much any proponent of any political ideology could argue that they alone "actually care about the working class." It's really pretty spurious.

[NGNM85]

It's sort of silly, the way you repeat this phrase; with your usage of it, pretty much any proponent of any political ideology could argue that they alone "actually care about the working class." It's really pretty spurious.

How so?

[Amphictyonis]

Then you've failed miserably. Really all you’ve done is argue for, what, I think, is an overly expansive definition of ‘capitalism’, and not very persuasively.

No what I've done rather quickly is show you don't understand the nature of capitalism. I already knew you were going to focus on the state/corporations and preemptively swept that erroneous bunkum aside with just a few sentences without using Marx seeing you accused me of 'dogmatism' or something silly of that nature . Anyone who has an inkling of knowledge concerning socialism/capitalism see's how utterly silly you are to say capitalism doesn't exist.




Well, it’s nice to know age and maturity don’t necessarily go hand in hand. If the appellation ‘liberal’, as disingenuously as you use it, is based solely on that fact that, unlike yourself, I actually care about the working class, fine.

Being mature or immature has nothing to do with my dislike of liberals, people who I see as more of a detriment to socialism than actual fascists. Fascists are such a small minority they couldn't effect the political landscape in Road Island. Liberals on the other hand are the majority of Americans under 50. The future is in your hands it seems and the future looks like more capitalism. I don't like that. I don't like you and people like you. It's not immature to be honest about it in fact it's something thats killing the socialist movement in America. Too many of us put up with you. There's a very very thin line separating liberals and 'conservatives' as far as policy goes. Most of the economic policy stays the same.

Is a list in order? A list of continuity from Republican to Democrat administrations? A list of wars started by Democrat administrations? A list of attacks on welfare by Democrats? A list of clandestine foreign intervention by democrats? A list of strike breaking by Democrats? Hell, Obama will give us a few pages of 'structural adjustments' to point out alone. You tell me, how is the working class better off now that Obama is in in lieu of McCain or Bush? Be specific please and save the culture war wedge issue bullshit . We're talking about economic policies and thus the true material conditions under whatever piss poor party is in power.

Also- How do you envision capitalism being replaced by socialism (if at all)? Opps, I should have said our current system seeing capitalism doesn't exist!

[Kalifornia]

Whats happening with people seeing the corporations as the thing thats wrong with the system nowadays?

People do not seem to recognise it is the nature of capitalism to end in monopoly capitalism.

[NGNM85]

No what I've done rather quickly is show you don't understand the nature of capitalism

You did not do that. You simply made one or two blanket statements which you present as if they were self-evident.


... I already knew you were going to focus on the state/corporations and preemptively swept that erroneous bunkum aside with just a few sentences without using Marx seeing you accused me of 'dogmatism' or something silly of that nature.

I think it’s quite apt.


Anyone who has an inkling of knowledge concerning socialism/capitalism see's how utterly silly you are to say capitalism doesn't exist.

This is not an argument.


Being mature or immature has nothing to do with my dislike of liberals, people who I see as more of a detriment to socialism than actual fascists.

This is a psychologically interesting phenomena, however it is hardly new, and I have commented on this, myself, quite recently.


Fascists are such a small minority they couldn't effect the political landscape in Road Island.

Thankfully, yes.


Liberals on the other hand are the majority of Americans under 50.

I’d be interested to see some figures and how that breaks down.


The future is in your hands…

If only…


..it seems and the future looks like more capitalism.

Setting aside the differences on language for the moment, you don’t have to be Miss Cleo to make that prediction.


I don't like that.

It isn’t my fault.

I don’t like anthropogenic climate change, I don’t like genocide in Sudan, I don’t like the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, I don’t like nuclear proliferation, etc., etc. We could compile lists of grievances until we both die of exhaustion.


I don't like you and people like you.

Right back at you.


It's not immature to be honest about it in fact it's something thats killing the socialist movement in America.

For reasons I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think you’re in any position to point the way for the socialist movement in America. At best, you have a serious and fundamental contradiction between your imperatives.


Too many of us put up with you. There's a very very thin line separating liberals and 'conservatives' as far as policy goes. Most of the economic policy stays the same.

When you say ‘Liberals’ are you speaking of modern –day Liberals; individuals who self-identify as Liberals, or Democrats, or, perhaps, classical Liberals which includes both the Left, and the right, but not the far right??? I think, perhaps, this is too nuanced.


Is a list in order? A list of continuity from Republican to Democrat administrations? A list of wars started by Democrat administrations? A list of attacks on welfare by Democrats? A list of clandestine foreign intervention by democrats? A list of strike breaking by Democrats? Hell, Obama will give us a few pages of 'structural adjustments' to point out alone. You tell me, how is the working class better off now that Obama is in in lieu of McCain or Bush? Be specific please and save the culture war wedge issue bullshit . We're talking about economic policies and thus the true material conditions under whatever piss poor party is in power.

First of all, I can’t possibly make any definitive conclusions about a McCain administration because I’m not psychic and I don’t have a time machine.

Second, since you’re interested in economic policies, and ‘true material conditions.’ I will refer you to this excellent, non-partisan, study published in 2004 by professor Bartels from Princeton University;

http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)

Quote:

“Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) under Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U. S. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+distribution) have experienced identical income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=GDP+growth) (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=GDP+growth) have much stronger effects on income growth (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+growth) at the bottom of the income distribution (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=income+distribution) than at the top.”</SPAN>

Here’s another, similar, non-partisan, study from 2008, which also covering GDP growth, Employment/Unemployment, Inflation, Income Inequality, etc., complete with charts;

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html (http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html)

Quote:
“…Democrats have a clear edge on GDP growth: 4.4% vs. 2.6%.
…The comparative partisan performance on employment is similar to GDP growth. Under Democratic administration, employment has grown an average of 3.0% a year (2.9% if you start in 1949); under Republicans, 1.3%.
… With only few exceptions, Republican administrations have presided over increases in unemployment, and Democrats over declines. On average, the jobless rate has risen by 1.0 points under the GOP, and fallen by 1.9 points under Dems (–1.3 points if you start in 1949). The only exceptions to the partisan pattern were Reagan (–2.1), the Roosevelt–Truman joint term (+3.2), and Carter (no change).
… Over the long sweep of history, the distribution of income in the U.S. became more equal from the early 1930s through the late 1960s, and has been growing more unequal ever since. But there are some partisan patterns to this story. On average, inequality has risen in Republican administrations, and fallen in Democratic ones. Bucking the long-term trend, inequality rose slightly during the Eisenhower years. And while not quite bucking the trend, it rose more slowly in the Carter and Clinton years than it did under Nixon, Reagan, or George H.W. Bush.”

Those are clear, observable differences. Now, I don’t want to be misunderstood, here, (Although, it’s virtually inevitable.) I’m not singing the praises of the Democrats. The Democratic party is simply one half of the Business party. However, they serve different elite constituencies, and, thus, have slightly different policies. The bigger differences are in domestic policies, over international policy, where there is a much more minimal difference. Therefore, in some circumstances, it makes sense to vote for a Democrat. Also, I am in no way suggesting that this should, in any way, negate, or impede other forms of organizing and activism. We should be doing both.

Now , let’s zoom out to the macro-scale, the big picture. Socialists do not oppose the existing state, or child labor, or the occupation of Afghanistan (Etc., etc., etc.) simply for the hell of it. This position is rooted in a moral and ethical opposition. As secular humanists, and utilitarians , we shouldn’t just regurgitate tired dogma, we don’t get our ethics from a tablet that fell out of the sky, the opposition to these things is rooted in the empirical, observable, and irrefutably harmful consequences of these things. Otherwise, it’s just completely arbitrary. Now, if you actually care about the struggles of working class people you don’t fret about getting your dainty, ideologically pure little paws dirty. You do everything, even if it means merely choosing the slightly less harmful option, the ‘lesser evil.’ In fact, this is the only responsible thing to do. Otherwise; you don’t give a shit. If that’s the case, you might as well get yourself a business degree and head off to Wall Street.


Also- How do you envision capitalism being replaced by socialism (if at all)? Opps, I should have said our current system seeing capitalism doesn't exist!

First, I don’t see Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism so much as a goal, but, rather, a process, an infinite line. Oscar Wilde said history is the progress from utopia to utopia. The best of all worlds we can imagine, very likely, is not the best of worlds imagined by the first generation reared in it. I mean, I could see a point where we’ve turned a corner, so to speak, but no fixed endpoint, except, perhaps, some kind of Technological Singularity, or something. In short, through workers’ democracy, real democracy; masses of people, from the ground-up, working together for social change. It isn’t like Quantum Physics, or Calculus, or something.

[Amphictyonis]

You did not do that. You simply made one or two blanket statements which you present as if they were self-evident.

It's evident you don't understand capitalism yes and quit evident I already knew your sophomoric views on our current system which center around "state corporatism" which is why I pointed you towards an enlightening book entitled 'The Great Transformation' which assuredly you will never read nor understand just as you've never actually read or understand Marx.






This is not an argument.

No it's not an argument. You chose to ignore my rather brief brushing aside of your silly view that capitalism doesn't exist. I'll say it again, the modern state and capitalist system emmerged together. They have never been separate. It's the very nature of capitalism to accumulate and concentrate wealth (monopolize) - corporations are simply the capitalists modern monopolies or 'trusts'. Your childish critique of the supposed "non system" of capitalism doesnt take much more of an argument than the couple words above ^ It's that simple.




This is a psychologically interesting phenomena, however it is hardly new, and I have commented on this, myself, quite recently.

Commented on the fact that fascists or NAZI's are so marginal it's almost absurd to fight them in the streets or commented on the fact that teh real issue facing the left is people like you? I'm not comparing your idiology to that of a fascist of course what I am saying is people like you have existed for over a century from the Fabians to the social democrats who are well, how did Tony Blair work out? Gordon Brown? Lets look at your prized democrat in California Jerry Brown. What's he been up to since in office? You spoke earlier of "feeding the children"....you must be aware the democrat governor is massively cutting school programs, welfare programs, medical benefits, disability benefits, jobs etc....


(can a mod tell me why you're keeping this guy around?)







I’d be interested to see some figures and how that breaks down.

It doesn't even really matter because one of my main points is there is no difference between 'conservative' candidates and 'liberal' candidates. There's hardly any difference between 'conservative' and 'liberal' voters. They're all stuck paying attention to debates that have been pre framed to not make a damn bit of difference. You act as if we actually have a democracy. Our political system is plutocratic but people like you keep the illusion of "change" or democracy going. I'd have better luck spare changing in the streets. The gains we've made haven't been from voting they've been from dying in the streets. You actually piss all over the legacy of the labor movement when you put so much stock in people like Obama.



If only…

Yes teh future is in "liberal" hands. Look who's hands it's in right now. Obama's. What's that doing for workers? Give me a list (you won't because you have nothing).



Setting aside the differences on language for the moment, you don’t have to be Miss Cleo to make that prediction.
If people like you remain the norm on the left and keep on capitulating to democrats capitalism will go on into the future until it collapses on itself from crisis....who knows what system would be put in place after that global disaster. (Here's where you highlight your ignorance surrounding the nature of capitalism and global crisis).






I don’t like the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
And yet you'll support democrats








For reasons I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think you’re in any position to point the way for the socialist movement in America. At best, you have a serious and fundamental contradiction between your imperatives.

The way forward for the socialist movement in America is to organize and form bonds of solidarity between students, workers and all peoples of all colors while capitalists wage war on workers during this crisis. The way forward isnt to let the democrat part co op our struggle and water it down into meaningless drek as has been happening for decades.




When you say ‘Liberals’ are you speaking of modern –day Liberals; individuals who self-identify as Liberals, or Democrats, or, perhaps, classical Liberals which includes both the Left, and the right, but not the far right??? I think, perhaps, this is too nuanced.
Reformists, social democrats, democrats and even Ralph Nader types. I would consider the 'green party liberal and the democrat party/republican party conservative. I'd probably be less harsh with you if you were gung ho about the green party rather than the democrat party. Lets just switch the term liberal with useless. Somewhat like Benedict Arnold.





First of all, I can’t possibly make any definitive conclusions about a McCain administration because I’m not psychic and I don’t have a time machine.

Second, since you’re interested in economic policies, and ‘true material conditions.’ I will refer you to this excellent, non-partisan, study published in 2004 by professor Bartels from Princeton University;

http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)

Quote:
democrats are Jesus



You just quoted a democrat party intellectual who Bill Clinton loves to tote as proof Democrats are the Jesus. High GDP = more money for workers? What did Clinton actually do when in office? He rode the .com boom into a wall while cutting social programs, signing NAFTA into law and stealing food from starving poor American childrens mouths by slashing welfare. I can't believe you just posted Larry Bartels as "proof" Democrats make capitalism 'better' for workers. I don't even know where to begin. A very long post is coming your way. In the future try not to post information from Democrat party sycophants as 'objective' or non partisan. How about some actual information from socialists?


Shall I post some concerning the nature of the democrat party and material conditions for workers over the least 60 years? Indeed I will since my words are invisible to you. Larry Bartels...LOL. What are you doing on a revolutionary socialist web site?

[NGNM85]

It's evident you don't understand capitalism yes and quit evident I already knew your sophomoric views on our current system which center around "state corporatism" which is why I pointed you towards an enlightening book entitled 'The Great Transformation' which assuredly you will never read nor understand just as you've never actually read or understand Marx.

I don’t think you know what my views are.

I have read the Communist Manifesto, and various assorted quotes, and passages. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between understanding Marxism, and disagreeing with Marxism. Although, given your belief that Marx’s writings are Bible law, and encompass the sum total of all wisdom, on all subjects, that is, at least, consistent.


No it's not an argument. You chose to ignore my rather brief brushing aside of your silly view that capitalism doesn't exist. I'll say it again, the modern state and capitalist system emmerged together. They have never been separate. It's the very nature of capitalism to accumulate and concentrate wealth (monopolize) - corporations are simply the capitalists modern monopolies or 'trusts'. Your childish critique of the supposed "non system" of capitalism doesnt take much more of an argument than the couple words above ^ It's that simple.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a system, I just said it should be classified as a different kind of system.


Commented on the fact that fascists or NAZI's are so marginal it's almost absurd to fight them in the streets or commented on the fact that teh real issue facing the left is people like you? I'm not comparing your idiology to that of a fascist of course what I am saying is people like you have existed for over a century from the Fabians to the social democrats who are well, how did Tony Blair work out? Gordon Brown? Lets look at your prized democrat in California Jerry Brown.

I have never endorsed this person.


What's he been up to since in office?

I have no idea. I’m from Boston.


You spoke earlier of "feeding the children"....you must be aware the democrat governor is massively cutting school programs, welfare programs, medical benefits, disability benefits, jobs etc....

You’re being disingenuous.


It doesn't even really matter because one of my main points is there is no difference between 'conservative' candidates and 'liberal' candidates.

That is factually incorrect.


There's hardly any difference between 'conservative' and 'liberal' voters. They're all stuck paying attention to debates that have been pre framed to not make a damn bit of difference. You act as if we actually have a democracy.

We presently have a Constitutional Republic, with degrees of democracy.


Our political system is plutocratic but people like you keep the illusion of "change" or democracy going.

Again, we have degrees of democracy. I‘m not responsible for your obstinate refusal to participate. That’s your malfunction.


I'd have better luck spare changing in the streets. The gains we've made haven't been from voting they've been from dying in the streets. You actually piss all over the legacy of the labor movement when you put so much stock in people like Obama.

I don’t put any stock in Obama.


Yes teh future is in "liberal" hands. Look who's hands it's in right now. Obama's. What's that doing for workers? Give me a list (you won't because you have nothing).


]If people like you remain the norm on the left and keep on capitulating to democrats..

That is a strawman argument.


…capitalism will go on into the future until it collapses on itself from crisis....who knows what system would be put in place after that global disaster. (Here's where you highlight your ignorance surrounding the nature of capitalism and global crisis).


And yet you'll support democrats..

Only if by ‘support’ you mean voting for them, occasionally. That doesn’t mean I buy into the rhetoric, or that I even like them.


The way forward for the socialist movement in America is to organize and form bonds of solidarity between students, workers and all peoples of all colors while capitalists wage war on workers during this crisis.

Beyond the philosophical inconsistency in your arguments; How do you honestly expect to be able to build any kind of movement with this message? You are effectively saying to poor people that they just need to suffer right now, their present problems are totally irrelevant. They just need to tough it out, and throw whatever energy or resources they have left into supporting your Grand Design. Simply from a marketing perspective; that’s a bad pitch.


The way forward isnt to let the democrat part co op our struggle and water it down into meaningless drek as has been happening for decades.

I really don’t think you're qualified to lead the way.


Reformists, social democrats, democrats and even Ralph Nader types. I would consider the 'green party liberal and the democrat party/republican party conservative. I'd probably be less harsh with you if you were gung ho about the green party rather than the democrat party. Lets just switch the term liberal with useless. Somewhat like Benedict Arnold.

I’m anything but ‘gung-ho’ about the Democratic party. I vote tactically. When elections come around there are several basic formulae that one should apply;

What kind of election is it? State, or National? Is it a Primary?
Who’s winning? What do the Poll numbers say?
What are the demographics of where you live? Is it a Red State? Is it a Blue state?

Based on the formula I have voted, alternately, for Greens, the Socialist Party, and the Democrats, dependent on the circumstances.


You just quoted a democrat party intellectual who Bill Clinton loves to tote as proof Democrats are the Jesus. High GDP = more money for workers? What did Clinton actually do when in office? He rode the .com boom into a wall while cutting social programs, signing NAFTA into law and stealing food from starving poor American childrens mouths by slashing welfare. I can't believe you just posted Larry Bartels as "proof" Democrats make capitalism 'better' for workers. I don't even know where to begin. A very long post is coming your way. In the future try not to post information from Democrat party sycophants as 'objective' or non partisan. Shall I post some concerning the nature of the democrat party and material conditions for workers over the least 60 years? Indeed I will since my words are invisible to you. Larry Bartels...LOL.

More hot air and bullshit. Do you have a legitimate methodological complaint with this study? Do you have conflicting data? Of course, you don’t. Therefore, this is all bullshit.


How about some actual information from socialists?

If you simply dismiss everything that does not come from vetted ‘ideologically pure’ sources you’re going to live in a bubble of ignorance. You should question everything, including the articles in Revolution, or whatever it is you subscribe to.


What are you doing on a revolutionary socialist web site?

I was looking for a decent Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist forum. I’ve since come to realize they/we are more of a tolerated minority.

While we’re asking questions, I will simply return to my initial objection; Why don’t you care about the working class? Also, since you don’t care about the working class, what is it that attracts you to socialism?

[Amphictyonis]

I have read the Communist Manifesto, and various assorted quotes, and passages. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between understanding Marxism, and disagreeing with Marxism. Although, given your belief that Marx’s writings are Bible law, and encompass the sum total of all wisdom, on all subjects, that is, at least, consistent.

(Acronym for laughter) The communist manifesto? You need to read Grundrisse, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm) and Capital before you go professing you understand Marx's critique of capitalism. Even then considering the dense nature of your prior posts you'd need study guide for Capital. You simply don't understand capitalism OR socialism (anarchism being a part of the broader socialist tradition).

The rest of your post was bunkum drek not even worthy of response. What I responded to wasn't even worthy of response. I will respond to your claim to be an anarchist and your claim anarchists are hardly 'tolerated' around here. If you had any idea of my views and my prior posts concerning anarchism you'd feel silly for typing that. I struggle hand in hand with actual anarchists. Don't mind them at all, in fact they have much to offer concerning their critique of centralized power/hierarchy. You on the other hand aren't an anarchist, not in the revolutionary sense. Like Albert Meltzer said Tolstoy was no anarchist just because he was against private property and authority.


Here , he'll help you understand the basics of capitalism-the system that doesn't exist!

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

[Amphictyonis]

A very long post concerning the idiocy of your Larry Bartels gibberish is still coming your way.

[synthesis]

How so?

You can just say that anyone who disagrees with your political positions "doesn't care about the working class" but you do everything possible to avoid principled support of working class power.

[synthesis]

That's not really a fair representation of what he was saying, though. Under capitalism, the working class does not decide whether or not their own conditions will be ameliorated.In China? Certainly not. However, this is not the case in the present-day US. This is why political institutions, and corporations expend so much energy molding and manipulating public opinion, why they have such intricate and complex processes of indoctrination. In a police state, propaganda doesn’t have to be terribly sophisticated, Vladimir Putin recently made a public announcement warning protestors if they didn’t pipe down they were going to get the living shit beat out of them. (I think his exact phrase translated to; ‘bludgeon with truncheons.’) That doesn’t need any complex justification. This was the reasoning behind the paper published by the Trilateral Commission in the mid-70’s; The Crisis of Democracy. What was the Crisis of Democracy? It was that the people were demanding things, and, thus, they were getting them.

Sorry, I'm an idiot and I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. Rephrase?

[NGNM85]

You can just say that anyone who disagrees with your political positions "doesn't care about the working class"..

You can say that, but simply saying it does not make it so. I am not just idly throwing this out there. This post;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2009576&postcount=54

and the argument in it, display an attitude of contempt or indifference towards the working class. What does it mean to say we care about someone? If you care about someone, first, you don’t deliberately hurt them, as a general rule. You also don’t stand idly by, indifferent, and allow them to come to harm. You do everything you can, even if, sometimes, all you can do is lessen the pain. That’s consistent. If you care about the working class you don’t tell the welfare mothers that they’ve just got to deal right now, because their problems aren’t important enough. That isn’t what ‘caring’ means.


… but you do everything possible to avoid principled support of working class power.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2009576&postcount=54

and the argument in it, display an attitude of contempt or indifference towards the working class. What does it mean to say we care about someone? If you care about someone, first, you don’t deliberately hurt them, as a general rule. You also don’t stand idly by, indifferent, and allow them to come to harm. You do everything you can, even if, sometimes, all you can do is lessen the pain. That’s consistent. If you care about the working class you don’t tell the welfare mothers that they’ve just got to deal right now, because their problems aren’t important enough. That isn’t what ‘caring’ means.




The argument shows I'm not a nationalist and could care less about the sham that is the American political system. You seem to be under the illusion that the aim of the struggle is to make capitalism more comfortable. With that view one could justify all manner of atrocity so long as material conditions improved. At the risk of breaking Godwins Law I'll bring up a relevant analogy which by no means indicates I'm "loosing" this debate. Were German workers better off under NAZI rule? I think they were. Granted the complete privatization of healthcare is not comparable to the horrible ongoings during ww2 but I'd like to know where that fits into the socialist agenda? It's the exact opposite of what we NEED and want. The law is shit. You're making excuses for it. Why? Because you're a liberal or 'progressive'.

[NGNM85]

Sorry, I'm an idiot and I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. Rephrase?

I don’t know what exactly is causing you trouble, so you’ll have to bear with me a bit.

You were saying that the American public have no recourse, whatsoever, to improve, or change their conditions, this is simply (Thankfully.) untrue. Unlike China, (Or Russia, Indonesia, etc.) the United States is not a police state. We actually do have degrees of democracy, although, I will be the first to point out, we have a significant democratic deficit. This should be painfully obvious, however, as I have often noted, it is one of the peculiar pathologies of the radical Left that the painfully obvious becomes the subject of intense debate. This is the reason why the United States has such sophisticated systems of opinion management, why political and economic institutions expend so much time and energy obfuscating and indoctrinating, to borrow the phrase; ‘Manufacturing Consent.’ (Which Chomsky and Herman’s book explore in detail.) This degree of sophistication is totally absent in police states, because it’s unnecessary. I gave the example of the recent comments by Vladimir Putting towards nonviolent pro-democracy protestors, he essentially said; ‘We’re going to beat the shit out of you.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/vladimir-putin-im-tired-o_n_699330.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/vladimir-putin-im-tired-o_n_699330.html)

He doesn’t have to justify that, or put together a public relations team to craft his message, he’s got a metaphorical gun in their backs. They are going to do what he says, or suffer the consequences. End of discussion. That doesn’t work in the United States. This is the so-called ‘problem of democracy’, trying to get people to accept what they clearly don’t want without the overt threat of violence. This was a pressing issue in the 60’s and early 70’s when, in the United States (As well as other parts of the world.) the people, especially groups that had been historically marginalized (Blacks, women, gays, Native Americans, etc.) were getting up and demanding change, and they were getting it. This prompted a report by the Trilateral Commission, in 1973, entitled; ‘The Crisis of Democracy.’ Again, the ‘crisis’ was that democracy seemed to be working. So, there is absolutely no doubt on behalf of the powers that be that we can instigate change, in fact, they are extremely concerned about it.

[thesadmafioso]

The argument in it shows I'm not a nationalist and could care less about the sham that is the American political system.

Firstly, by saying that you could care less you are implying that you do have an interest in the American political system. I presume that you meant to say that you couldn't care less as your current comment conveys contradictory messages.

But the larger point beyond that is still just as flawed, the American political system is something which we need to work within regardless of our level of agreement with its methodology. You use the dated talking points of centuries past to try and justify your lack of meaningful political participation, but the fact remains that they are just that, dated. The historical writings of leftism do hold a great deal of significance, but at the same time they are also limited by their context. For instance, concepts like the vanguard party are simply not applicable to most western style democracies at this point in time. I don't think this point needs to be argued in depth, as you obviously wouldn't have much of a political impact in a nation like the US if you tried to apply the fiery rhetoric of smashing the bourgeois state apparatus and replacing it with a state of the proletariat. Given the current circumstances, your ideological line is unrealistic and it is blatantly reckless. Do you honestly think that through defending this sort of thought that you are helping the workers in any substantial way? Of course you are not, as leftist needs to evolved with the changing nature of the political if it hopes to remain relevant.

Nationalism has nothing to do with it, the question is one of dealing with political constructs that are unavoidable given the situation.

This is one of the major problems which cripples any potential that the left could have in the west, the dated style of its rhetoric. The notion of a modern leftist movement apparently seems alien to individuals like yourself, and that is a real issue for people who actually hold the interests of the working class in their minds.

[Amphictyonis]

So, there is absolutely no doubt on behalf of the powers that be that we can instigate change, in fact, they are extremely concerned about it.

No they're not. They have no worries we can 'instigate change' by voting. The only thing that can change the system is outright taking to the streets/organizing/protest. The political system is their framework. Actual reality is ours.


What has Obama "changed"? And the Chomsky references are getting old. One not need read Manufacturing Consent to understand how the sham of democracy was set up in America. From day one 'the opulent' were meant to rule. I can drop some John Jay quotes on you if you'd like? After industrialization Edward Bernays and the industrial barons took the traditional baton of control and modernized it.

[Amphictyonis]

The notion of a modern leftist movement apparently seems alien to individuals like yourself, and that is a real issue for people who actually hold the interests of the working class in their minds.

How does the almost total privatization of healthcare hold the interests of the working class in mind? Explain this to me.

[thesadmafioso]

No they're not. They have no worries we can 'instigate change' by voting. The only thing that can change the system is outright taking to the streets/organizing/protest. The political system is their framework. Actual reality is ours.


What has Obama "changed"? And the Chomsky references are getting old. One not need read Manufacturing Consent to understand how the sham of democracy was set up in America. From day one 'the opulent' were meant to rule. I can drop some John Jay quotes on you if you'd like? After industrialization Edward Bernays and the industrial barons took the traditional baton of control and modernized it.

The actual reality you speak of is the political system with you loath so very much. It would appear that quite the opposite is true, the American people operate within the framework of both reality and of the political system. I will be quick to point out that their actual understanding of this political system is often quite skewered and flawed, but the fact still remains that a majority believe in the basic notion of its potential to bring about change.

[thesadmafioso]

How does the almost total privatization of healthcare hold the interests of the working class in mind? Explain this to me.

Government subsidies and regulation amongst other measures make it anything but total privatization. The law you speak of dramatically limits the predatory nature of these private health care providers and it provides the working class with an affordable option for health care, something that millions of poverty stricken Americans will surely benefit from. I would obviously prefer the matter to be handled by the State and for it to be taken entirely out of the private sector, but at the same time I prefer some progress to none at all.

[Amphictyonis]

Firstly, by saying that you could care less you are implying that you do have an interest in the American political system. I presume that you meant to say that you couldn't care less as your current comment conveys contradictory messages.

The working class can hardly at all effect change via the political system. This is my entire point. Your man Obama is in now, whats going on? Attacks on the working class on a magnitude not seen in our lifetime. The gains we have won have been made in the streets fighting tooth and nail.


But the larger point beyond that is still just as flawed, the American political system is something which we need to work within regardless of our level of agreement with its methodology. You use the dated talking points of centuries past to try and justify your lack of meaningful political participation, but the fact remains that they are just that, dated.

The democrat party has been co-opting our efforts for decades now. A great example is our current situation. Look how the Obama presidency has marginalized the left. We should be in the streets! This isnt a dated view my view has always been a mass movement is necessary to sweep capitalism aside not reforms or some minority vanguard. In fact, if anyone is acting like the vanguard it's you saying we need to organize within the current political system. When Lenin spoke of a vanguard he was also more so talking about people who help organize/educate along socialist lines.



The historical writings of leftism do hold a great deal of significance, but at the same time they are also limited by their context. For instance, concepts like the vanguard party are simply not applicable to most western style democracies at this point in time. I don't think this point needs to be argued in depth, as you obviously wouldn't have much of a political impact in a nation like the US if you tried to apply the fiery rhetoric of smashing the bourgeois state apparatus and replacing it with a state of the proletariat.

There is no democracy in America and every period of revolution there was people saying revolution is impossible. Today it's reformists like you. Revoloution is possible and if it happens it will be from a mass movement during one of capitalism's worsening crisis. If you had any idea of my views you'd know I don't advocate some purley ideological revolution. Material causes will be at it's foundation. Capitalists aren't going to be voted out of power no matter how much you wish it so. What are you doing on this site?




Given the current circumstances, your ideological line is unrealistic and it is blatantly reckless. Do you honestly think that through defending this sort of thought that you are helping the workers in any substantial way? Of course you are not, as leftist needs to evolved with the changing nature of the political if it hopes to remain relevant.

Given the current circumstances now is a great time to organize people along socialist lines as capitalists attack our material needs. Now isn't the time to pray and beg democrats will save us. Given the circumstances capitalism is being shown to be the unstable system that it is. Given the circumstances now is the time to stop the silly cycle of letting Democrats co-op our struggle.


Nationalism has nothing to do with it, the question is one of dealing with political constructs that are unavoidable given the situation.
Political constructs? Like voting for Clinton so he can sign NAFTA into law? Since you seem to have tunnel vision and only 'care' about American workers how do you think that impacted American workers? Political constructs? Like Obama deregulating World Bank loans so they can further exploit the third world?



This is one of the major problems which cripples any potential that the left could have in the west

Thats what I said when the idiot Micheal Moore threw his support behind Obama.

[NGNM85]

The argument shows I'm not a nationalist and could care less about the sham that is the American political system.

You couldn’t care less about the working class.


You seem to be under the illusion that the aim of the struggle is to make capitalism more comfortable.

The point is to help people who need it. There are many Americans right now in real serious need, we should care about that. If you care you do something, you don’t wait for some theoretical future, you act, today. The social welfare system is under attack, that means real suffering for working class people. Your answer is; ‘Tough shit.’ I reject that answer.


With that view one could justify all manner of atrocity so long as material conditions improved.

No, you really can’t.


At the risk of breaking Godwins Law I'll bring up a relevant analogy which by no means indicates I'm "loosing" this debate.

You are absolutely. Mostly, because you are wrong.


Were German workers better off under NAZI rule? I think they were.

True as that may be, that is not an accurate comparison. Moreover, it merely clouds the debate with emotionality. However, if we were transported to Berlin in 1940, we would hopefully, be consistent in our ethics. Just because your primary focus is toppling the Nazi regime, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hide Jews in your basement. You’re saying that because the system is objectionable, we shouldn’t bother doing anything to ameliorate, or relieve the cruelties of that system. This makes no sense because the cruelties of that system are the only legitimate reasons for being against it. If you care, you act. If you want poor kids to eat you (At least.) protect the welfare system.


Granted the complete privatization of healthcare..

You have no interest in the privatization of healthcare. Giving Americans medical care is not ‘revolutionary’, therefore, it is insignificant, to you.


…is not comparable to the horrible ongoings during ww2 but I'd like to know where that fits into the socialist agenda? It's the exact opposite of what we NEED and want.

What we need is to help people, today, not in some imagined future. We need to be philosophically, and ethically consistent. The socialist agenda should include, primarily, improving the living conditions of working class people. You’re saying that it doesn’t matter if poor kids can’t eat because feeding them isn’t ‘revolutionary.’ That’s appalling. This is also an inch away from ‘The worse, the better’ arguments which say that it’s actually good that more Americans are homeless and hungry because that, theoretically, makes political violence more likely. If you are any kind of real socialist you can’t make arguments like that.


The law is shit. You're making excuses for it. Why? Because you're a liberal or 'progressive'.

Which law?

I’m not making any excuses for anything.

You are not a Socialist.

[thesadmafioso]

The working class can hardly at all effect change via the political system. This is my entire point. Your man Obama is in now, whats going on? Attacks on the working class on a magnitude not seen in our lifetime. The gains we have won have been made in the streets fighting tooth and nail.


The democrat party has been co-opting our efforts for decades now. A great example is our current situation. Look how the Obama presidency has marginalized the left. We should be in the streets! This isnt a dated view my view has always been a mass movement is necessary to sweep capitalism aside not reforms or some minority vanguard. In fact, if anyone is acting like the vanguard it's you saying we need to organize within the current political system. When Lenin spoke of a vanguard he was also more so talking about people who help organize/educate along socialist lines.




There is no democracy in America and every period of revolution there was people saying revolution is impossible. Today it's reformists like you. Revoloution is possible and if it happens it will be from a mass movement during one of capitalism's worsening crisis. If you had any idea of my views you'd know I don't advocate some purley ideological revolution. Material causes will be at it's foundation. Capitalists aren't going to be voted out of power no matter how much you wish it so. What are you doing on this site?





Given the current circumstances now is a great time to organize people along socialist lines as capitalists attack our material needs. Now isn't the time to pray and beg democrats will save us. Given the circumstances capitalism is being shown to be the unstable system that it is. Given the circumstances now is the time to stop the silly cycle of letting Democrats co-op our struggle.


Political constructs? Like voting for Clinton so he can sign NAFTA into law? Since you seem to have tunnel vision and only 'care' about American workers how do you think that impacted American workers? Political constructs? Like Obama deregulating World Bank loans so they can further exploit the third world?




Thats what I said when the idiot Micheal Moore threw his support behind Obama.

Lenin also spoke of destroying the bourgeoisie State as it is an implement of class rule, I don't think his rhetoric would be too applicable to what I am arguing for at the moment. I understand his position and I happen to agree that in its time period that it was entirely justifiable, the issue is the matter of historical context. Given the vastly different circumstances of the modern political system, what Lenin was calling for over a century ago would not work.

As for the supposed co-opting of the leftist movement in America, for that to happen you presume that there was once an actual movement to subsidize which there hasn't been for decades in any forceful sense of the word.

I hate to have to try and shatter your lovely view of the glorious revolution, but as you seem to be far too entrenched into your position here that shouldn't be much of a problem. There is no mass movement in America, no protests are looming over the horizon which will promise revolution, and even if the circumstances for revolution did miraculously come into existence the American left would fail to take advantage of the situation. I am not arguing that the Democrats are an ideal political party from most any standpoint, but rather that they are the best hope for the working class for the current time. They offer an outlet for labor to express itself politically and for it to gain some representation in the system. American democracy is terribly flawed and I never said anything to the contrary, but at the same time it is still democratic in a limited sense. The fact that it is democratic and that a great deal of the American populace participate in it as a means of electing a government means that as respectable leftists, it is our duty to work within the constructs presented here. It matters not how fraudulent or corrupt a system it is, the fact remains that we have no other option of influencing government and that democratic principles are still to be found within the fray. Nothing is going to ideal in western politics for leftists, and ignoring that fact will not have any profound effect on the people and their state of wellbeing.

[Amphictyonis]

You couldn’t care less about the working class.


How so? Because I want us to stop throwing away our efforts into the garbage can that is the Democrat party?


The point is to help people who need it. There are many Americans right now in real serious need, we should care about that. If you care you do something, you don’t wait for some theoretical future, you act, today. The social welfare system is under attack, that means real suffering for working class people. Your answer is; ‘Tough shit.’ I reject that answer.

Help people who need it? No shit there are many Americans out there in serious need and thats because the Democrat party is attacking them. The social welfare system is under attack because people were stupid enough to throw support behind democrats once again just as when Clinton attacked social welfare. We help ourselves and we do that by DEMANDING change not voting for change.




No, you really can’t.

Then why are you trying to justify the move to privatize healthcare? We may as well privatize schools and roads and fire service in the name of whats best for the working class.







True as that may be, that is not an accurate comparison. Moreover, it merely clouds the debate with emotionality. However, if we were transported to Berlin in 1940, we would hopefully, be consistent in our ethics. Just because your primary focus is toppling the Nazi regime, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hide Jews in your basement. You’re saying that because the system is objectionable, we shouldn’t bother doing anything to ameliorate, or relieve the cruelties of that system. This makes no sense because the cruelties of that system are the only legitimate reasons for being against it. If you care, you act. If you want poor kids to eat you (At least.) protect the welfare system.
The Democrats law doesn't protect the welfare system it privatizes it while cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare/Medicaid. What don't you understand about this? You justify it by saying "at least workers will have health insurance now" THAT IS IDIOCY!





You have no interest in the privatization of healthcare. Giving Americans medical care is not ‘revolutionary’, therefore, it is insignificant, to you.

I don't even know what to say to that.




What we need is to help people, today, not in some imagined future. We need to be philosophically, and ethically consistent. The socialist agenda should include, primarily, improving the living conditions of working class people. You’re saying that it doesn’t matter if poor kids can’t eat because feeding them isn’t ‘revolutionary.’ That’s appalling. This is also an inch away from ‘The worse, the better’ arguments which say that it’s actually good that more Americans are homeless and hungry because that, theoretically, makes political violence more likely. If you are any kind of real socialist you can’t make arguments like that.

I never once said it doesn't matter if poor kids don't eat I said the people attacking the poor are the very people you think we should throw our support behind. The disingenuous word play coming from you is making me nauseous. I said a revolution is most likely to take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis' I didn't say we shouldn't be taking to the streets demanding a halt on the current attacks we are suffering. You're quite simple minded.




Which law?

I’m not making any excuses for anything.

You are not a Socialist.

Anyone reading this thread can see through that line of rubbish.

[Amphictyonis]

As for the supposed co-opting of the leftist movement in America, for that to happen you presume that there was once an actual movement to subsidize which there hasn't been for decades in any forceful sense of the word.

Why do you think that is Mr Democrat?


I hate to have to try and shatter your lovely view of the glorious revolution, but as you seem to be far too entrenched into your position here that shouldn't be much of a problem. There is no mass movement in America, no protests are looming over the horizon which will promise revolution, and even if the circumstances for revolution did miraculously come into existence the American left would fail to take advantage of the situation.
Because perhaps too many people are sucked into the political framework provided for them by Democrats and Republicans? Do you know the number one reason we aren't in the streets in America right now as we are in Europe? Because of some naive loyalty to Obama. People like you are holding us back. This is my whole point. I've made many posts on this site concerning the lack of a substantial movement in America and when explaining why I always point out how the democrat party co-ops our efforts. Snap out of it already. I've also said on numerous occasions a revolution isnt likely until the crisis within capitalism worsen and worsen and I've also said we're dropping the ball during this current crisis as far as spreading class awareness/fighting the austerity measures.

It's simple. You think reform can end capitalism. It's that simple.

[thesadmafioso]

Why do you think that is Mr Democrat?


Because perhaps too many people are sucked into the political framework provided for them by Democrats and Republicans? Do you know the number one reason we aren't in the streets in America right now as we are in Europe? Because of some naive loyalty to Obama. People like you are holding us back. This is my whole point. I've made many posts on this site concerning the lack of a substantial movement in America and when explaining why I always point out how the democrat party co-ops our efforts. Snap out of it already.

So now you are essentially blaming the Democratic party for subsidizing the left? They are the only reason that riots are not engulfing the nation right now? The lack of a substantial movement is more a result of decades of cultural conditioning, relatively decent living conditions when speaking comparatively to the rest of the word, a lack of class consciousness caused by mediocrity in education and through a relatively decent economy or a multitude of other more forceful reasons. No one reason explains this complex enigma, and there is hardly even a primary reason upon which all others flow into. You are just being foolish in ascribing all of the lefts woes to President Obama, this is nothing more than a mediocre ploy with the intent of aiding you in your unfounded and blatantly incorrect bashing of the Democratic Party.

[Amphictyonis]

So now you are essentially blaming the Democratic party for subsidizing the left? They are the only reason that riots are not engulfing the nation right now? The lack of a substantial movement is more a result of decades of cultural conditioning, relatively decent living conditions when speaking comparatively to the rest of the word, a lack of class consciousness caused by mediocrity in education and through a relatively decent economy or a multitude of other more forceful reasons. No one reason explains this complex enigma, and there is hardly even a primary reason upon which all others flow into. You are just being foolish in ascribing all of the lefts woes to President Obama, this is nothing more than a mediocre ploy with the intent of aiding you in your unfounded and blatantly incorrect bashing of the Democratic Party.

Of course material conditions have something to do with it. Why do you think I said a revolution is most likely to take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis'?

You're going to honestly say if Bush was in office and tried to privatize health care, cut hundreds of billions from medicare/medicade, expand the wars in the middl east, expand the state's ability to spy on citizens, arrested and charged activists in Chicago, sent troops to Columbia to intimidate Venezuela,deregulated World Bank funding, kept Guantanamo Bay open, kept on supporting rendition, gave trillions more to Wall St, expanded tax cuts for the rich, waged massive attacks on education, massive attacks on social welfare programs (etc and so on for pages) people on the left wouldn't be taking to the streets? We were beging to do so until Obama came along. Now he's doing the same if not more than Bush and the left is *crickets* silent. Democrats have co-opted our struggle. Yes.

Wake up man. What happened to the anti war movement that was going on while Bush was in? That alone is proof positive Obama has marginalized the left and of course there's other reasons so many people are sitting at home doing nothing. Yes I bash the Democrat party. No shame in that.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/pers-n06.shtml
(Saves me some typing)

The apologists for Obama and the Republican “resurgence”

6 November 2010

The outcome of the 2010 midterm elections is an indictment of the apologists for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
As a result of the November 2 elections, in which the Republican Party regained control of the House of Representatives and picked up seats in the Senate, the entire political system in the US has shifted farther to the right. The consequences for millions of working people will be severe, as the attack on social conditions and democratic rights is intensified and military violence is employed even more aggressively around the world.
Two years ago, a variety of “left” and liberal forces strove to convince those sections of the population over whom they had influence that the Obama campaign represented a watershed in American politics and that under his administration the policies of war, attacks on jobs and social programs, and the shredding of Constitutional rights would come to an end.
The Nation magazine and others painted Obama, a thoroughly conventional bourgeois politician with a track record of subservience to the Democratic Party machine in Illinois and to big business, as a “progressive” who would turn America around. This effort, which combined self-deception and deliberate falsification, helped generate illusions in Obama and lull the population to sleep.
What are the results? Obama, given a free hand by his left-liberal apologists, steered a right-wing, pro-big business course from his first day in office (and even before). In the face of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, the administration bailed out Wall Street while doing nothing for the millions of unemployed and impoverished workers and the legions of families facing the loss of their homes.
Every major action taken by Obama and the Democrats has guaranteed the resurgence of the right. In November 2008, millions of working people went to the polls to repudiate the Bush administration. The Republican Party suffered a humiliating defeat, resulting in Democratic control of the White House and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
One could not imagine more favorable political conditions for the smashing of the Republican right, assuming the victorious president and party had any desire to do so. None of those who are now insisting that working people and youth devote their efforts to pressuring Obama to “stand up to the right” address an obvious question: If he was unable and unwilling to do it in 2008, why should anyone believe he will do it now?
As it turned out, the Obama administration worked assiduously to provide a breathing space for, not an alternative to, the Republican Party and the extreme right.
Has any party or any administration in US history ever done so much in so short a time to demoralize their base of supporters as the Democrats and Obama have done between 2008 and 2010?
The upper-middle class liberal apologists for Obama, in the face of the Democratic debacle, continue to deny reality. They are incapable of drawing a single critical conclusion from what has happened. Their comments veer from despair to clutching at political straws, all of it, as always, impressionistic and superficial.
The mainstream pundits claim that the population punished Obama for his “extreme liberalism.” This is false and absurd.
Thirty million fewer people voted for the Democratic congressional candidates in 2010 than in 2008 out of disgust with the party’s right-wing policies. Whatever the inevitable political confusion given such an enormous betrayal of campaign promises and hype and the complete lack within the political system of a genuine alternative on the left, millions of people who stayed away from the polls are moving to the left, not the right.
A few liberal columnists have acknowledged the obvious: that Obama failed to advance any sort of aggressive reform program to tackle the economic crisis. However, their explanation of the causes of this “failure” is utterly banal and unconvincing.
The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel, writing in the Wall Street Journal, complains that voters “were alienated because they didn't believe his [Obama’s] team had fought aggressively enough for the interests of working- and middle-class citizens… The inadequacy of the recovery program—largely a result of concessions to the GOP—became a political catastrophe for the White House.”
Pathetically, she concludes, “All of this presents an opportunity for Mr. Obama to show he stands with working people and the middle class.” In other words, the working class should extend even more political credit to this right-wing administration!
What did vanden Heuvel say in November 2008? In a piece headlined, “Transformational Presidency,” she wrote, comparing the 2008 election result to that of 2004 (when George W. Bush won re-election), “Four years later, our offices are filled with editors, writers, interns, and colleagues—some crying, this time with joy—all jubilant about the new era of possibility opened up by Barack Obama’s victory…
“Obama’s election marks a remarkable moment in our country’s history—a milestone in America’s scarred racial landscape and a victory for the forces of decency, diversity and tolerance.”
Robert Scheer, longtime left journalist and a contributing editor to the Nation, claimed this week in “Payback at the Polls” that “Barack Obama deserved the rebuke he received at the polls for a failed economic policy that consisted of throwing trillions at Wall Street but getting nothing in return.”
But in November 2008, Scheer was also in the mood to celebrate. He wrote then: “It’s time to gush! Later for the analysis of all the hard choices faced by our next president, Barack Obama, but for now, let’s just thrill, unabashedly, to the sound of those words.”
He went on: “Politics will never be the same. The fat cats and back-office politicos are out, and grass roots—youthful and Internet-connected—will dominate in the future, as they did on Tuesday. President-elect Obama knows that, and, at least on this night, I fully expect him to be true to those who took him on this journey.”
These people foresaw nothing and have learned nothing.
The Nation’s Eric Alterman is even more brazen, blaming the population for its failure to understand Obama’s supposedly far-reaching social agenda. “Well, this being America,” he writes, “a great deal of easily exploitable ignorance is fueling the fire. Obama’s healthcare reform, his financial reform, the stimulus, the saving of the auto industry, etc. make these two years among the most consequential in the past half-century.”
In reality, all those initiatives were carefully crafted anti-working class measures which have strengthened the most powerful sections of the ruling elite and worsened conditions for broad layers of the population.
Alterman is typical of the well-heeled liberal element that makes a profession of spreading illusions in the Democrats. A 2003 piece in the New York Observer described an encounter with the Nation journalist at a fashionable Manhattan restaurant. “Mr. Alterman reeked of success,” the author wrote. The Observer went on to note that Alterman “ordered foie gras, the Kobe beef and a glass of pinot noir. Earlier, he’d said he liked his lunches ‘expensive.’”
The response of the upper-middle class left to the Democrats’ defeat underlines the chasm that exists between that social layer and the working class. The questions of jobs, living standards, poverty, retirement, homes and education, as well as current and future wars, mean nothing to the Vanden Heuvels, Scheers and Altermans. They are as callous about the conditions of the American working class as Obama himself. Their interests hinge on “cultural” issues—the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
These left-liberals help police the strangulating capitalist two-party system in the US, with its firewall against a socialist alternative.
The danger exists that if mass anger remains bottled up within the present set-up, unable to find a genuinely anti-capitalist outlet, it will turn malignant. The continued subordination of the working class to the Democratic Party creates conditions for the emergence and growth of extreme right-wing and fascistic movements.
The critical issue is that the political lessons of the 2008 and 2010 elections and the experience of the Obama administration be drawn. Everything depends on a political rupture by the mass of working people with the rotten, bankrupt Democratic Party and the establishment of the political independence of the working class on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program.
David Walsh

[gorillafuck]

Are you the type of leftist who wastes their vote on some obscure socialist candidate when you could vote for the Democrats who actually stand a chance at creating SOME change in this world socially?How will voting for the democrats advance socialist politics?

[Amphictyonis]

Are they being 'immature revolutionaries' who need to just be 'pragmatic' and use the political system?

Z8LZjNNUbI4

A general strike is bad for the working class! Think of all the people who will miss work! If anything I'm more of an anarchist than the both of you combined.

[NGNM85]

How will voting for the democrats advance socialist politics?

First of all, you'd have to define; What are socialist politics? (This presupposes agreement on what Socialism means.) I would argue that any kind of legitimate socialist would want to improve conditions for the working class, or, at the very least, to ameliorate the harm suffered by the working class, at the very least. Sometimes, voting for a Democratic candidate makes sense, in this context.

[NGNM85]

How so? Because I want us to stop throwing away our efforts into the garbage can that is the Democrat party?

The last time I went to the polls I was in and out in 15 minutes. There is no legitimate reason why this would, in any way, interfere with any other type of activism.

What constructive ideas do you offer? Candidates are still going to run for office, and propositions will get passed, simply not participating achieves nothing. We could vote for ‘third parties’, like the Greens and the Socialists, I have, and I certainly will, again. However, in our system, that isn’t always the best idea. Unfortunately, the system is engineered in such a way that it is very hard for ‘Third parties’ to win anything. First, they have to run as ‘Third Parties.’ Also, many Americans are concerned about ‘wasting’ their vote. The Citizens United ruling doesn’t make it any easier for them. These things don’t have to be that way. There could be a local or national movement for a Transfer Voting system, that is used in England, and other countries, and is, actually, used right here in Cambridge, and in Minneapolis, which would allay fears about ‘wasting’ votes and would certainly be a boon to Third Parties like the Greens and the Socialists. Also, Citizens United never would have happened if more Americans had voted for a Democrat a few years earlier, we only would have needed one more Democrat-appointed judge. Theoretically, it could be overturned in the future, but it will probably cause all sorts of problems for years to come. Of course, it’s irrelevant, because you aren’t interested in doing anything to change these things in any immediate sense.



Help people who need it? No shit there are many Americans out there in serious need and thats because the Democrat party is attacking them.

No, it’s because the business party is attacking them. However, there are different factions of the business party, which behave somewhat differently.


The social welfare system is under attack because people were stupid enough to throw support behind democrats once again just as when Clinton attacked social welfare.

…Which was a significant break from his party and passed because it was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans, who controlled congress. Also, the House Democrats passed the public option, and a provision that would fix tax laws which unfairly force gay couples to pay higher taxes on their medical coverage. Of course, nobody knew at the time that the president had already made a deal on this. Nobody is more critical of that than I am, it was total bullshit.


We help ourselves and we do that by DEMANDING change not voting for change.

We can sit-in, march, protest, strike, sign petitions, trash a Starbucks (If you’re into that sort of thing.), and vote, we just can’t do them all at the exact same moment.


Then why are you trying to justify the move to privatize healthcare?

Healthcare is already privatized. As for the minimal welfare state, the Republicans want to completely destroy it, the administration wants to shrink it down, the rest of the Democratic party is spread out, there is a range of opinion, Obama is more to the right of his party.


We may as well privatize schools and roads and fire service in the name of whats best for the working class.

The Republican party is trying very hard to privatize the education system. Most Democrats oppose these initiatives.


The Democrats law doesn't protect the welfare system it privatizes it while cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare/Medicaid. What don't you understand about this? You justify it by saying "at least workers will have health insurance now" THAT IS IDIOCY!

More Americans have more coverage than they did before. That’s it. That’s enough. I don’t like the Bill, I think the Bill is watered-down crap, and so do most of the American people. However, again, more Americans have more coverage than they did before. I certainly wouldn’t be happier if less Americans had less medical coverage. My position is that we should have a national healthcare plan, just like every other industrialized nation. If we actually get our shit together, we could make that happen.


I never once said it doesn't matter if poor kids don't eat..

If you care, you do something about it. You don’t want to do that, therefore, you do not care. You can sit in a café and declare your ideological purity to whomever is interested in listening, I want to get things done.


I said the people attacking the poor are the very people you think we should throw our support behind.

This is partially accurate if you stetch the word ‘support’ near the limit of absurdity. I didn’t like John Kerry when I voted for him, and I still don’t, but I had a pretty good idea that his policies would be less destructive than the radical reactionaries in the Bush camp. I also wasn’t in love with the Proposition to decriminalize Cannabis in my state, I want to legalize it. However, I, and a majority of my fellow citizens did vote for the Proposition, and now less kids are going to jail for no good reason. Is that ideal? Of course not. But I had a choice. On the basis of that choice, less kids go to jail for no reason. I have a lot of regrets, but that isn’t one of them.


The disingenuous word play coming from you is making me nauseous.

I’m not engaging in any wordplay. If you’re consistent in your ethics, and you care; there’s no other way to see it.


I said a revolution is most likely to take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis' I didn't say we shouldn't be taking to the streets demanding a halt on the current attacks we are suffering. You're quite simple minded.

No, you’re just saying we shouldn’t do everything we can against it, which isn’t much better.

[thesadmafioso]

Of course material conditions have something to do with it. Why do you think I said a revolution is most likely to take place during one of capitalism's worsening crisis'?

You're going to honestly say if Bush was in office and tried to privatize health care, cut hundreds of billions from medicare/medicade, expand the wars in the middl east, expand the state's ability to spy on citizens, arrested and charged activists in Chicago, sent troops to Columbia to intimidate Venezuela,deregulated World Bank funding, kept Guantanamo Bay open, kept on supporting rendition, gave trillions more to Wall St, expanded tax cuts for the rich, waged massive attacks on education, massive attacks on social welfare programs (etc and so on for pages) people on the left wouldn't be taking to the streets? We were beging to do so until Obama came along. Now he's doing the same if not more than Bush and the left is *crickets* silent. Democrats have co-opted our struggle. Yes.

Wake up man. What happened to the anti war movement that was going on while Bush was in? That alone is proof positive Obama has marginalized the left and of course there's other reasons so many people are sitting at home doing nothing. Yes I bash the Democrat party. No shame in that.

Bush did not propose comprehensive health care legislation that will eventually cover millions of currently uninsured Americans, he did not even try to close Guantanamo Bay and actually defended it on multiple occasions, he did not end combat operations in Iraq or set a timetable for departure from Afghanistan, he passed the infamous unfunded mandate of no child left behind, he passed the patriot act, and the list goes on. George W. Bush is most certainly is not comparable to President Obama in absolute manner which you seem to this that he is. Yes there is obviously going to be some overlap on foreign policy and in economic policy, but what would you expect from the American system really? The point here is not that of the Democratic party being an ideal voice for the working class, but rather that they are simply the best available option.

Your suggestions of rioting in the streets would simply be a useless and hollow gesture which would not do them any good. This is not Russia in 1917, the rhetoric and nature of the political has changed a great deal since then. What do you honestly think would come out of this sort of action? Do you think that it would bring the Democratic party over to the far left or that it could be used as the foundation for physical revolution? That thought has no place in modern politics and it just deprives your points of any of there deserved legitimacy. We do not need to willingly drape our points of argument in this veil of leftist rhetoric, for such will only damage what we argue far more than it will help.

[DaringMehring]

Same old stuff

What you do in the ballot box, is between you and [irrelevant].

The problem comes, when you try to convince people that voting for politicians who attack them, is good, or that capitalism can be reformed into a workable system, or that working people can rely on other classes -- like "friendly" bourgeoisie -- for their emancipation. When you do that, you work against the development of revolutionary consciousness, and become objectively reactionary.

The Democrats are class enemies; capitalism is class oppression; the working class has to take power. Other positions are liberal, Menshevik, or Stalinist drivel proved false through and through by history.

[DaringMehring]

Bush did not propose comprehensive health care legislation that will eventually cover millions of currently uninsured Americans, he did not even try to close Guantanamo Bay and actually defended it on multiple occasions, he did not end combat operations in Iraq or set a timetable for departure from Afghanistan, he passed the infamous unfunded mandate of no child left behind, he passed the patriot act, and the list goes on. George W. Bush is most certainly is not comparable to President Obama in absolute manner which you seem to this that he is. Yes there is obviously going to be some overlap on foreign policy and in economic policy, but what would you expect from the American system really? The point here is not that of the Democratic party being an ideal voice for the working class, but rather that they are simply the best available option.

Your suggestions of rioting in the streets would simply be a useless and hollow gesture which would not do them any good. This is not Russia in 1917, the rhetoric and nature of the political has changed a great deal since then. What do you honestly think would come out of this sort of action? Do you think that it would bring the Democratic party over to the far left or that it could be used as the foundation for physical revolution? That thought has no place in modern politics and it just deprives your points of any of there deserved legitimacy. We do not need to willingly drape our points of argument in this veil of leftist rhetoric, for such will only damage what we argue far more than it will help.

Looks like the CPUSA found its first new recruit in 10 years.

[NGNM85]

What you do in the ballot box, is between you and [irrelevant].

I was using a specific example to prove a point.


The problem comes, when you try to convince people that voting for politicians who attack them, is good,

There’s a couple of problems, here. First, this is not what I was saying. Again, non-participation changes nothing. I’m saying, since we don’t live in a police state, and we can vote, that we should do so, in a way that is philosophically consistent. Specifically, you should use it to vote for the politicians and propositions that, at best, improve conditions for the working class, or, at least, are the least harmful to the working class. That doesn’t require you to subscribe to any illusions. Also, for the billionth time, this, in no way, replaces or undermines other forms of activism.


..or that capitalism can be reformed into a workable system,..

State capitalism/corporate mercantilism works very well, at least, in a number of applications. However, clearly, it is not ideal for the vast majority of people, myself included.


..or that working people can rely on other classes -- like "friendly" bourgeoisie -- for their emancipation.

That’s not what I was saying.


When you do that, you work against the development of revolutionary consciousness, and become objectively reactionary.

Well, I guess it’s good I didn’t, then.


The Democrats are class enemies; capitalism is class oppression; the working class has to take power. Other positions are liberal, Menshevik, or Stalinist drivel proved false through and through by history.

That’s one way of looking at it. I mean, it’s obvious we have extremely different views and probably disagree about a great number of things, but I’d really just like to keep this on topic.

[thesadmafioso]

Looks like the CPUSA found its first new recruit in 10 years.

Not at all. They are a political party, for them to win my support they would actually have to start acting like one by putting up some candidates. Third parties serve an entirely symbolic role in American politics, a role which the CPUSA does not seem to be fulfilling in any substantial fashion. Of course a multitude of other issues surround the CPUSA as well, but that is the most striking and practical problem with their structure that comes to mind.

[thesadmafioso]

What you do in the ballot box, is between you and [irrelevant].

The problem comes, when you try to convince people that voting for politicians who attack them, is good, or that capitalism can be reformed into a workable system, or that working people can rely on other classes -- like "friendly" bourgeoisie -- for their emancipation. When you do that, you work against the development of revolutionary consciousness, and become objectively reactionary.

The Democrats are class enemies; capitalism is class oppression; the working class has to take power. Other positions are liberal, Menshevik, or Stalinist drivel proved false through and through by history.

How exactly to you plan on ending capitalism and the class enemies which are the Democrats? Your rhetoric is quite fiery, but at the same time it is devoid of any forceful meaning. Its content is certainly radical, but the issue is that there is no practical route for it to be transformed from simple rhetoric into action. By action I do not mean some short lived anti war protest or what have you, I refer to lasting change and progress for the working class. As leftists, can we not agree that our objective here is to better the existence of those very people? Is the underlying motivation of actual revolution not one of improving the living conditions of the lower stratas of society? It may not be the most desirable option for us or the people which we wish to serve, but the fact stands that it is the only option which allows for immediate and reliable political action on behalf of the workers.

[southernmissfan]

Not at all. They are a political party, for them to win my support they would actually have to start acting like one by putting up some candidates. Third parties serve an entirely symbolic role in American politics, a role which the CPUSA does not seem to be fulfilling in any substantial fashion. Of course a multitude of other issues surround the CPUSA as well, but that is the most striking and practical problem with their structure that comes to mind.

Really? The most striking problem with the CPUSA is the fact that they aren't running candidates? And not the fact that they have given up working class revolution as even a goal?

In fact you and the CPUSA seem to be pretty similar. You both advocate a "lesser of two evils", vote for Democrat strategy. And neither of you are members of the revolutionary left. Match made in heaven.

And no, I'm not some "ideological puritan". I understand that sometimes elections do matter. Occasionally, voting for a Democrat will yield slight improvement for maybe a section of the working class. Of all elections, that is probably least true with presidential elections (look at how right wing Clinton was and Obama is). However, you sound like the burned out old radical who gave up on the struggle and now just votes Democrat. You are probably one of the Bill Mahr types who say "if only the Democrats would grow some balls and not give in!!!".

The problem is capitalism. We will not solve the problem through elections. If you want to deal with reforms then you should be pressing for more and more legitimate reforms. And when it fails it will be made clear that the age of reform is over. Whatever small gains were possible by working within the system fifty years ago is no longer possible. Sadly, for you "pragmatism" means voting for Democrats and watching MSNBC. Instead of asking what can be done to improve class consciousness and shift the political climate, you accept defeat and desire to play mainstream politics. For you, being "pragmatic" means accepting the ruling political climate instead of working to shift it to the left. I'm reminded of how the far right loves to warp and shift the frame of debate to the right. Then you will see some liberal invited on Fox who tries to argue on their terms. And of course he doesn't win. You will never win at their game. For you, being "pragmatic" means abandoning the revolutionary left and voting for Democrats and that's sad. Of course that raises the question of how pragmatic it really is to be playing in a rigged game.

[thesadmafioso]

Really? The most striking problem with the CPUSA is the fact that they aren't running candidates? And not the fact that they have given up working class revolution as even a goal?

In fact you and the CPUSA seem to be pretty similar. You both advocate a "lesser of two evils", vote for Democrat strategy. And neither of you are members of the revolutionary left. Match made in heaven.

And no, I'm not some "ideological puritan". I understand that sometimes elections do matter. Occasionally, voting for a Democrat will yield slight improvement for maybe a section of the working class. Of all elections, that is probably least true with presidential elections (look at how right wing Clinton was and Obama is). However, you sound like the burned out old radical who gave up on the struggle and now just votes Democrat. You are probably one of the Bill Mahr types who say "if only the Democrats would grow some balls and not give in!!!".

The problem is capitalism. We will not solve the problem through elections. If you want to deal with reforms then you should be pressing for more and more legitimate reforms. And when it fails it will be made clear that the age of reform is over. Whatever small gains were possible by working within the system fifty years ago is no longer possible. Sadly, for you "pragmatism" means voting for Democrats and watching MSNBC. Instead of asking what can be done to improve class consciousness and shift the political climate, you accept defeat and desire to play mainstream politics. For you, being "pragmatic" means accepting the ruling political climate instead of working to shift it to the left. I'm reminded of how the far right loves to warp and shift the frame of debate to the right. Then you will see some liberal invited on Fox who tries to argue on their terms. And of course he doesn't win. You will never win at their game. For you, being "pragmatic" means abandoning the revolutionary left and voting for Democrats and that's sad. Of course that raises the question of how pragmatic it really is to be playing in a rigged game.

There is no revolutionary left in America. Their frame of reference for the direction of political discourse and government is quite literally the only frame upon which we can impose our ideology. There is simply not way around the fact that the current situation in America is not open to the sort of revolutionary politics that so many on this site would love to see, and that if we wish to see any progress be made in the name of the working class acceptance of this sort of reconciliation is necessary.

[Lucretia]

The liberal clowns still haven't been blocked? Amazing.

[synthesis]

First of all, you'd have to define; What are socialist politics? (This presupposes agreement on what Socialism means.) I would argue that any kind of legitimate socialist would want to improve conditions for the working class, or, at the very least, to ameliorate the harm suffered by the working class, at the very least. Sometimes, voting for a Democratic candidate makes sense, in this context.

You have far too much faith in the extent to which capitalist democracy is actually democratic, in case you were wondering why this line of argument is generally met with hostility on this forum.

[Amphictyonis]

It goes to what you were saying about 'lesser evils', and, also, what you were saying in the other thread. Just because you vote one way or another, doesn't mean you have to succumb to any illusions. There's no shame in choosing the lesser evil, in fact, if you care about people, you're obligated to. No, it isn't going to overthrow the government, but to decline to make the choice simply because it doesn't satisfy the grand scheme of 'revolution' isn't saying; 'I care about the working class.', that says; 'Fuck the working class.' I'm saying let's get serious, let's get real. Anybody who says they're too pure to actually engage with the existing political system, is just a poser who wants to sit in cafes and appear 'radical.' Great. Vaya con Dios. This also goes back to my original post. The OP isn't offering any constructive ideas, or suggestions, it's just this vacuous, holier-than-thou macho rhetoric. We've got enough of that already, we're already up to our necks in horseshit. I also am highly skeptical that he could even produce a cogent definition of what a Liberal is, but now I'm going off on a tangent...

K73nW4fPEwk

Anything this man says is irrelevant. These 'guardians of the left' have been shepherding the working class into a ditch for far too long. People like you are the result. A marginalized working class is the result. Continuity is the result, not simply continuity but longer hours, less pay, less benefits, higher rent, higher interest rates, spiking food costs, spiking energy costs, perpetual war and on and on. Enough is enough already. Stop suffering from Micheal Moore syndrome. What did Obama's gaining office do for us? Tell me please.

[NGNM85]

You have far too much faith in the extent to which capitalist democracy is actually democratic,..

First of all, there’s certain hypocrisy in people who never vote complaining about the lack of democracy. As far as I can see, those on you’re side of the argument are supremely unqualified to make that assessment.

I do not deny that there is a significant democratic deficit in this country. However, again, unlike any number of police states, we actually do have mechanisms to influence the political system. Even if these differences are small, on the national scale, small differences have big impacts. A one or two percent difference in unemployment, or income inequality could mean the world of difference for thousands of Americans who sink or swim based on that fluctuation. Contrary to what some might say, if you actually comprehend what I’m saying, you’ll see I do not personally succumb to any illusions, nor am I suggesting anyone else do so. All I am suggesting is that we act in an intelligent, and ethically consistent manner.


…in case you were wondering why this line of argument is generally met with hostility on this forum.

Yes, an overwhelming amount of hostility, because it challenges what are, essentially, religious beliefs.

[Robocommie]

Haha, Left Communists vs Reformists.

I need popcorn.

[NGNM85]

[YOUTUBE]K73nW4fPEwk[/YOUTUBE
Anything this man says is irrelevant.

I do not take my cues from Michael Moore. I have never quoted Michael Moore. This has nothing to do with anything.


These 'guardians of the left' have been shepherding the working class into a ditch for far too long.

Who the hell are you talking about?

What evidence is there that any significant segment of the working class takes it's cues from Michael Moore?


People like you are the result.

Fail, again.


A marginalized working class is the result. Continuity is the result, not simply continuity but longer hours, less pay, less benefits, higher rent, higher interest rates, spiking food costs, spiking energy costs, perpetual war and on and on.

I'm saying, let's actually do something about it. I'm saying we aren't doing enough.


Enough is enough already. Stop suffering from Micheal Moore syndrome.

I don't remember seeing that in the DSM.


What did Obama's gaining office do for us? Tell me please.

Simply the fact that he took the oath of office? Not much. However, it is a sign of social progress that a black man could actually be elected President of the United States. Without a time machine or psychic powers we can't be positive, but based on historical evidence, which I have offered, and other metrics, we can conclude that if McCain had won the election, things would probably be worse, as he represented the more brutal wing of the business party. I didn't say it was good choice. It was a lousy choice. However, we don't get to ignore reality just because we don't like it.

This has nothing to do with anything, you continue to evade my arguments and state your opinion as if it were self-evident.

[NGNM85]

Haha, Left Communists vs Reformists.

I need popcorn.

The 'Christian Leftist' speaks.

[x359594]

...we can conclude that if McCain had won the election, things would probably be worse, as he represented the more brutal wing of the business party...

I'm not sure about that. During the campaign McCain announced that he would reduce the deficit by freezing all government spending expect for the military, and Obama has recently offered a similar plan. Obama certainly keeps a velvet glove over the mailed fist for the people at home, but his use of predator drones exceeds that of the Bush/Cheney regime, and his foreign policy decisions are entirely consistent with said regime, about as brutal as you can get.

From past experience the Dem wing of the business party tends to move to the left by a few degrees when the president is a Republican, but when a president of their own party courts the ruling elites they go with the flow.

[Robocommie]

The 'Christian Leftist' speaks.

:rolleyes:


Seriously, are you this much of a snot in real life? Was high school that fucking hard?

I just honestly don't have anything else to say to that. I already know you're a close-minded bigot, so it's not going to matter what I say to you.

[Amphictyonis]

I do not take my cues from Michael Moore. I have never quoted Michael Moore. This has nothing to do with anything.


His basic message is what you're reverberating. The working class doesn't need to be living in a Democrat party echo chamber as we have for decades since the fall of the real left in America. Part of why we're so marginalized isnt because of some 'strong right wing' it's because people like you (who are quit common) keep the mirage of 'democracy' going. You won't be honest but sit with yourself and ask yourself why you celebrated Obama's victory. Other than the obvious progress in race relations why did you, as Micheal Moore did, think an Obama administration was good politically for the working class? The boy has cried wolf all too many times and there are many of us who are fed up. Fed up with Democrats and fed up with people like you who propagate the myth. You should, as should Micheal Moore go home with your tail between your legs and stay there.



Who the hell are you talking about?
When I say guardians of the left I mean the idiots who have influenced your thinking. Shall I make a list of people who have been a detriment to the working class by consolidating our efforts under the Democrat party flag? Many are like you, they think they're socialists.


What evidence is there that any significant segment of the working class takes it's cues from Michael Moore?

Both Micheal Moore and the Republican guy in the video below are idiots. I see no real difference between them.
mubczRltg1E

0VR0oZnm9dU

My personal favorite since I was there calling all of you idiots for thinking anything would change:

oM6PsTium3Q




Fail, again.

As if you weren't out in the streets screaming "Obama" Obama". I don't mind if you lie to yourself but don't try it with me.




I'm saying, let's actually do something about it. I'm saying we aren't doing enough.
More would get done if people weren't so brainwashed by the current political paradigm which you support. Since you've at least read Chomsky you should know how our political system manufactures consent. The result is cities and states full of idiots like the ones in the videos I posted above. What makes it worse is some of these idiots are my friends and don't think I don't make fun of their naivete every time economics/politics comes up. And don't think I'm "hating the working class" because I think people who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome are idiots. I am working class and am being held hostage by people like you.




I don't remember seeing that in the DSM.Stockholm Syndrome. Look it up.





Simply the fact that he took the oath of office? Not much. However, it is a sign of social progress that a black man could actually be elected President of the United States.

Obama may as well have been Allan Keys. What difference did it make in the economy, wars, attacks on the working class? Policy in general. What? Of course Obama was a symbol of "change" one naive people fell for. Of course it's great people can now ellect a person of color but you need to see beyond that. That got old during the campaign and is still being used by much of the left (as you just did) to excuse why we arent out in the streets demanding a stop to the wars and attacks on the working class. Obama was the bourgeoisie man and he's doing a mighty fine job of facilitating continuity while manufacturing consent for the same old Republican policies. And yes I said bourgeoisie which for some reason you think is absurd. I think your term "corporatism" is absurd and shows your almost total lack of understanding capitalism. As if a capitalist class doesnt exist. As if there aren't actual men who own these corporations.

What difference would it have made if McCain had won? What specifically is Obama doing that separates Obama from Bush?

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C01/C0114100) /ˈkæphttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtlˌɪzhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


also, corporatism is capitalism.

Fascism is capitalism.

Social Democracy is capitalism.

liberal democracies are capitalist.

Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.

Finance-Capitalism is capitalism.

Monopoly Capitalism is capitalism.

neo-classical economics are capitalism

neo-liberalism is capitalist.

so long as the economic system promotes private ownership of the means of production in a given society to extract wealth from it, for private interests, by paying a person who does NOT own that means of production a wage in return for their labor-time then i say:

CAPITALISM IS ALIVE AND KICKING

[Amphictyonis]

:rolleyes:

Seriously, are you this much of a snot in real life? Was high school that fucking hard?

I'm not a 'left communist' in the sense you're thinking. Orthodox Marxism is somewhat attractive, the original writings of Marx/Engels (mainly the critique of capitalism and historical materialism) but my position is simple, take Marx/Engels original works and apply them to today's political conditions mixing it with Anarchism's critique of hierarchy and centralized power in order to make any transition to socialism (revolution) as democratic as possible. I take a little from a lot of past revolutionaries but don't necessarily fetishize any of them. I'm big on crisis theory and direct action to spread class consciousness during capitalisms decline. Another thread perhaps.

[Robocommie]

I'm not a 'left communist' in the sense you're thinking. Orthodox Marxism is somewhat attractive, the original writings of Marx/Engels (mainly the critique of capitalism and historical materialism) but my position is simple, take Marx/Engels original works and apply them to today's political conditions mixing it with Anarchism's critique of hierarchy and centralized power in order to make any transition to socialism (revolution) as democratic as possible. I take a little from a lot of past revolutionaries but don't necessarily fetishize any of them. I'm big on crisis theory and direct action to spread class consciousness during capitalisms decline. Another thread perhaps.

Yeah, no offense intended really. I just thought it was funny because frankly, you guys are on such radically diametric poles on these issues, I don't think you will ever see eye to eye.

[Amphictyonis]

But the larger point beyond that is still just as flawed, the American political system is something which we need to work within regardless of our level of agreement with its methodology. You use the dated talking points of centuries past to try and justify your lack of meaningful political participation

So my actions over the past 15 years haven't been political? Define political please.

[synthesis]

Contrary to what some might say, if you actually comprehend what I’m saying, you’ll see I do not personally succumb to any illusions, nor am I suggesting anyone else do so.
I completely comprehend what you're saying. I used to argue that same kind of shit myself. The problem is that you are willfully ignoring who has power and who does not.


Yes, an overwhelming amount of hostility, because it challenges what are, essentially, religious beliefs.
:lol:

[MarxistMan]

Is it true that Chomsky is a closet-capitalist? I have another question about Noam Chomsky, why did he say in a video speech that Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers and fascists. I don't understand why Chomsky didn't like the Bolshevik Government, because the Bolshevik short-lived government wasn't 100% socialist, and at the same time he supports the Bolivarian Revolution when only 30% of the corporations of Venezuela are nationalized and 70% are privately owned.

.



It's funny that anyone would cite Chomsky on how to build a mass movement, a guy who, for all his brilliance and his trenchant critiques of US foreign policy, has never been a leader in or a part of the building of a mass movement -- while at the same time, dismissing Lenin, who helped lead the activated workers and peasants of the Russian Empire to power in one of the greatest working class outbursts of all time.

[MarxistMan]

Indeed, a Marxist professor from allexperts told me that the whole world is still in the grip of the right-wing, and that Venezuela, Ecuador and left-leaning governments of Latin America are still anomalies. He said that the whole world is still in the control of the right-wing global elites



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
also, corporatism is capitalism.

Fascism is capitalism.

Social Democracy is capitalism.

liberal democracies are capitalist.

Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.

Finance-Capitalism is capitalism.

Monopoly Capitalism is capitalism.

neo-classical economics are capitalism

neo-liberalism is capitalist.

so long as the economic system promotes private ownership of the means of production in a given society to extract wealth from it, for private interests, by paying a person who does NOT own that means of production a wage in return for their labor-time then i say:

CAPITALISM IS ALIVE AND KICKING

[Amphictyonis]

Is it true that



Don't let this thread divert into some anarchist/marxist debacle it's about a couple posters in here making excuses for the democrats and the move to completley privatize healthcare in the name of "whats good for the working class" :)

[NGNM85]

I completely comprehend what you're saying. I used to argue that same kind of shit myself. The problem is that you are willfully ignoring who has power and who does not.

This is meaningless. I offer you specifics and you can't provide anything except platitudes, which you present as facts. Until you can produce something more substantive I can't evaluate this.


:lol:


I was being quite serious. Many, if not most of the people here are so rigidly dogmatic, so fundamentalist in their beliefs as a Born-Again Christian. In this case, a binary, reductionist worldview. I've commented sveral times that it's one of the unique pathologies of the Left that the painfully obvious becomes the subject of such impassioned debate.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was being quite serious. Many, if not most of the people here are so rigidly dogmatic, so fundamentalist in their beliefs as a Born-Again Christian. In this case, a binary, reductionist worldview. I've commented sveral times that it's one of the unique pathologies of the Left that the painfully obvious becomes the subject of such impassioned debate.

come again?

[NGNM85]

Don't let this thread divert into some anarchist/marxist debacle..

I agree that there are enough threads devoted to this, already. I also don't think Marxism is the major malfunction, here.


..it's about a couple posters in here making excuses for the democrats..

That isn't what I'm doing.


...and the move to completley privatize healthcare in the name of "whats good for the working class" :)

You can't privatize healthcare in the US because healthcare in the US has always been private. What can happen, and what is happening, is a slow dismantling of the welfare state, such as it is. However, again, considering you have repeatedly and emphatically stated your obstinate refusal to do anything about this, I don't see why you keep bringing it up. This point, misspoken as it was, works in my favor, not yours.

[NGNM85]

come again?

I thought it was self-explainatory. What are the hallmarks of religious faith? The two major characteristics that spring to mind are the intensity to which people cling to the belief, and that this belief supersedes reason. There are perfectly comperable secular allegories. Nazism, for example, had almost all the hallmarks of a religion.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i said come again in reference to your claim that there are a lot of born again christians on here.

i dont think there is even a single born again christian on here outside of OI.

[NGNM85]

Is it true that Chomsky is a closet-capitalist?

No, he's an Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist.


I have another question about Noam Chomsky, why did he say in a video speech that Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers and fascists.

He did not say Lenin and Trotsky were 'fascists.' He said Leninism was a right-wing mutation of Socialism.


I don't understand why Chomsky didn't like the Bolshevik Government, because the Bolshevik short-lived government wasn't 100% socialist,and at the same time he supports the Bolivarian Revolution when only 30% of the corporations of Venezuela are nationalized and 70% are privately owned.


I'm not sure it was 1% socialist. His objection, and what has also been, historically, the Anarchist criticism, as well as the position of a number of contemporaneous Marxists; that one of the most basic, fundamental elements of socialism is workers' democracy. Lenin was always fundamentally opposed to workers' democracy, and worked to dismantle it.

However, rather than getting all of this second-hand. I suggest you watch the video, again, I believe this is the one;

yQsceZ9skQI

I would also suggest you read some of what Chomsky has written about Lenin and the Soviet Union.
Like this;

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

If you click the link on the bottom you can go to the main hub and scan through the largest internet archive of interviews, essays, etc. You can find plenty of material discussing the Russian Revolution, and Venezuela.

If you have trouble finding anything, or if you have any more questions, shoot me a PM.

[NGNM85]

i said come again in reference to your claim that there are a lot of born again christians on here.

i dont think there is even a single born again christian on here outside of OI.

No, I'm saying they are like Born-Again Christians, in terms of their dogmatism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, I'm saying they are like Born-Again Christians, in terms of their dogmatism.
ironic.

[NGNM85]

His basic message is what you're reverberating.

It’s not even close.


The working class doesn't need to be living in a Democrat party echo chamber..

Virtually nothing that I advocate will be heard from Democratic politicians anytime soon. I think we should get rid of nation-states, I think we should get rid of religion, etc., etc. There aren’t any visible candidates of any party that really speak to my ideas.


…as we have for decades since the fall of the real left in America.

There are degrees of Leftism, but I don’t think anyone necessarily has proprietorship of the Left.


Part of why we're so marginalized isnt because of some 'strong right wing'..

Don’t kid yourself, the number one reason people on this site are so marginalized, is because they marginalize themselves.


..it's because people like you (who are quit common) keep the mirage of 'democracy' going.

First of all, how would you know? You, apparently, have no personal experience. From the sounds of it you don’t get much input outside of ‘radical’ literature.

This is a perfect example of your religious thinking. I’m sorry for you that we don’t live in a police state. If you had ever been to one you wouldn’t make absurd statements like this. You have this binary, reductionist meta-narrative that is like a blindfold. It’s a common condition around here, but it’s extremely debilitating. As much as you hate it, we do have degrees of democracy. That is a good thing. We want more democracy, not less. Also, participating in the existing mechanisms of democracy don’t require us, or anyone else, to subscribe to any illusions.


You won't be honest but sit with yourself and ask yourself why you celebrated Obama's victory.

I didn’t. I was merely relieved that we got the lesser evil, as opposed to eight years of the greater evil.


Other than the obvious progress in race relations why did you, as Micheal Moore did, think an Obama administration was good politically for the working class?

There is no equivalency between myself and Michael Moore. My opinion, which is based on historical evidence, was that the working class would suffer less under an Obama administration. If that sounds like a ringing endorsement you, you need to get your ears checked.


The boy has cried wolf all too many times and there are many of us who are fed up. Fed up with Democrats and fed up with people like you who propagate the myth.

I’m not propagating any myths.


You should, as should Micheal Moore go home with your tail between your legs and stay there.

I have no affiliation with Michael Moore, if you have any further statements regarding Michael Moore, please go to his website. I’m done with this.


When I say guardians of the left I mean the idiots who have influenced your thinking.

My thinking? My thinking, in terms of politics, is largely shaped by classical Anarchist thinkers; Bakunin, Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, and some more contemporary thinkers like Daniel Guerin, etc. However my biggest influences, politically, would have to be Emma Goldman, and Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, in terms of his politics, is really just a more modern version of Goldman, or Kropotkin. That isn’t to say I don’t have other influences, but if we’re talking about core political ideas, those are the big ones.


Shall I make a list of people who have been a detriment to the working class by consolidating our efforts under the Democrat party flag?

That isn’t remotely what I was suggesting.


Many are like you, they think they're socialists.

I don’t think I’m a socialist, I know I’m a socialist.


Both Micheal Moore and the Republican guy in the video below are idiots. I see no real difference between them.

This is irrelevant.


My personal favorite since I was there calling all of you idiots for thinking anything would change:

As if you weren't out in the streets screaming "Obama" Obama". I don't mind if you lie to yourself but don't try it with me.

I was at home, and I certainly didn’t react like that.


More would get done if people weren't so brainwashed by the current political paradigm which you support.

I really don’t think you understand what I support. However, the present political system isn’t even close.


Since you've at least read Chomsky

I am quite familiar.


.. you should know how our political system manufactures consent.

Yes, I have read the book and I own the documentary, I was referencing it, earlier, along with Chomsky on Anarchism.


The result is cities and states full of idiots like the ones in the videos I posted above. What makes it worse is some of these idiots are my friends and don't think I don't make fun of their naivete every time economics/politics comes up. And don't think I'm "hating the working class" because I think people who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome are idiots. I am working class and am being held hostage by people like you.

That isn’t what’s happening. From what I can gather, the people you describe have illusions about the government, and how the world works. I don’t. They are going to have to be disabused of those illusions.

This is another example, I haven’t praised Obama once, not once. Quite the contrary. However, you can’t hear that. I can only control what I say, I don’t control what you allow yourself to hear.


Stockholm Syndrome. Look it up.

Ha ha. Actually, I don’t have a copy, but I scanned the index online and I couldn’t find it. (Although it is an accepted psychological disorder, and is included in other texts, like FBI manuals, etc.) However, psychopathy isn’t covered either, although, supposedly it will be included in the next version.


Obama may as well have been Allan Keys.

I don’t see Allen Keys getting the Democratic Party nomination.


Of course Obama was a symbol of "change" one naive people fell for.

His campaign won advertizing campaign of the year, deservedly so. A lot of people bought into the illusion, that’s unfortunate.


Of course it's great people can now ellect a person of color but you need to see beyond that.

I have no problem ‘seeing beyond that.’


That got old during the campaign and is still being used by much of the left (as you just did) to excuse why we arent out in the streets demanding a stop to the wars and attacks on the working class.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. We should be protesting more often, as well as educating, organizing, etc. I have never suggested otherwise, again, this seems to be a disconnect.


Obama was the bourgeoisie man and he's doing a mighty fine job of facilitating continuity while manufacturing consent for the same old Republican policies. And yes I said bourgeoisie which for some reason you think is absurd.

I think it implies an unsophisticated worldview. I also think it’s in-group lingo that carries no currency in the wider world. It’s like Scientology jargon, like using ‘misunderstood’ as a noun. It actually turns other people off. This is another example of self-marginalization.


I think your term "corporatism" is absurd and shows your almost total lack of understanding capitalism. As if a capitalist class doesnt exist. As if there aren't actual men who own these corporations.

I didn’t say ‘corporatism’, because I don’t say it. I would say 'State Capitalism' or 'Corporate Mercantilism.'


What difference would it have made if McCain had won? What specifically is Obama doing that separates Obama from Bush?

I can only speculate on a McCain presidency. I would essentially expect all the bad things that are going on right now, but slightly worse. Again, according to historical evidence, we have every reason to believe this. For example, I gave you the two impeccable, independent studies. (You have yet to offer substantive counter evidence.) The bigger difference would be on domestic issues, especially social issues, the DADT repeal definitely would not have happened, etc., etc. One extremely important factor is the Supreme Court. McCain would have gotten two more Supreme Court Justices on the bench. This, alone, is reason enough to have voted against him. Without a doubt, he would have appointed another Scalia, another Thomas. Like I said, if there had only been one more Democrat-appointed judge, Citizens United, which was a significant blow to the working class, wouldn’t have gone the way it did. There are already five radical right wing Justices on the bench. I cannot adequately emphasize how important this is. One could actually argue that the Supreme Court is actually the most powerful branch of government, and they sit there forever. That is absolutely a big deal.

[NGNM85]

ironic.

'Unfortunate', is the word I'd use.

[Rusty Shackleford]

this thread needs to die.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is the dumbest thread I've ever read. Votes not for the "lesser evil" in the U.S. electoral system are votes for the Greater Evil. There is no credible left alternative to cast your vote for if there's a close election. I do not see some magic virtue on selling working people on some abstract theoretical argument for why they should throw their (admittedly near-useless) votes down the toilet so as to pursue what is called "working class independence", but is in practice just another slogan to advertise for the sect. Can anyone name any third party which has ever managed to carve its way from activists' insurgency to government? The Republican Party in the Civil War. And that's not going to get repeated a la socialism today.

Maurice Duverger explained this decades ago. The United States almost needs a completed bourgeois revolution, before it can move on, is how backward our system is. The best works on the electoral dynamics and how rigid they are in the U.S. are Robert Dahl's How Democratic Is the U.S. Constitution? and also I recommend G. William Domhoff on "why third parties don't work". We need some kind of responsible executive, instant run-off or STV - PR would be nice.

[PhoenixAsh]

Short of revolution I do not see how we can get rid of the current system. In that current system day to day reality is dominated by the politicians. As such I do like to have a say in that.

I think its a fair assumption that when I will get a fist shoved up my ass anyways I want it to have something to say about who is doing the fisting...and p[erhaps have it lubricated a bit.

So with that thought in mind I absolutely give a fuck who runs the show. And I do vote for a party which would in my opinion be a lesser evil....since there rarely is a party which would express my ideology on the voting lists.

That in no way is an endorsement of the current system but a realistic analysis and realisation that it makes very much of a difference if there is a right-wing capitalist party or a left-wing capitalist party shafting you.

[Jeraldi]

There is one thing that we need to remember when we discuss the merits of voting in the US, the people who are really in control. That is the top of the corporate pyramid.
No handful of elected officials can do any permanent damage to these corporate thugs.
Those people can and always have forced the hands of governments. I for one did not vote in the midterm elections since the republicans in their arrogance will do far more damage to this structure come April.

When this happens we must be ready to do whatever is necessary to take advantage of the possibility of a US government shut down as most corporations need the government to keep them from failing.

[Lucretia]

This is the dumbest thread I've ever read. Votes not for the "lesser evil" in the U.S. electoral system are votes for the Greater Evil. There is no credible left alternative to cast your vote for if there's a close election. I do not see some magic virtue on selling working people on some abstract theoretical argument for why they should throw their (admittedly near-useless) votes down the toilet so as to pursue what is called "working class independence", but is in practice just another slogan to advertise for the sect. Can anyone name any third party which has ever managed to carve its way from activists' insurgency to government? The Republican Party in the Civil War. And that's not going to get repeated a la socialism today.

Maurice Duverger explained this decades ago. The United States almost needs a completed bourgeois revolution, before it can move on, is how backward our system is. The best works on the electoral dynamics and how rigid they are in the U.S. are Robert Dahl's How Democratic Is the U.S. Constitution? and also I recommend G. William Domhoff on "why third parties don't work". We need some kind of responsible executive, instant run-off or STV - PR would be nice.

You're basically just restarting the conversation that has been dragging on across multiple pages. About a half dozen people, if not more, have already responded to the argument you're making here. Why ignore them and pretend you're offering up some novel, decisive argument about pragmatism? :rolleyes:

Very few people these days are raised to be rev leftists. Instead the revolutionary leftists who come here are already familiar with these arguments, have examined them, and rejected them. This is why liberals are usually blocked on this forum. They tend to just troll the board with LOTE arguments everybody is already familiar with, acting like they're providing some kind of profound intellectual breakthrough people just need to hear. In fact it's neither original nor breathtaking. But it is hurting the left.

[Amphictyonis]

You can't privatize healthcare in the US because healthcare in the US has always been private. What can happen, and what is happening, is a slow dismantling of the welfare state, such as it is. However, again, considering you have repeatedly and emphatically stated your obstinate refusal to do anything about this, I don't see why you keep bringing it up. This point, misspoken as it was, works in my favor, not yours.

I'm doing plenty just not what you think is effective. What you and the sadmafioso have been saying is the new law 'is good for the working class' because now we will have medical coverage. You're justifying the cutting of hundreds of billions from Medicare/Medicaid and a mandate to buy private insurance (the complete privatization of healthcare) by saying "I don't care for the working class because if I did I would see this new law as helping families and children". The drek coming through your key board has no business on this site. It's that simple.

Here ya go, have fun over here:

http://www.dailykos.com/

[thesadmafioso]

I'm doing plenty just not what you think is effective. What you and the sadmafioso have been saying is the new law 'is good for the working class' because now we will have medical coverage. You're justifying the cutting of hundreds of billions from Medicare/Medicaid and a mandate to buy private insurance (the complete privatization of healthcare) by saying "I don't care for the working class because if I did I would see this new law as helping families and children". The drek coming through your key board has no business on this site. It's that simple.

Here ya go, have fun over here:

http://www.dailykos.com/

How does one go about privatizing something which is already privatized? It is not as if Medicare and Medicade are being stricken from the system entirely, it is just that the demand for the services which they provide will be reduced when this law takes full effect in 2014. This law marks a dramatic improvement in the state of American health care, as it provides individuals of the working class access to cheap and affordable health care. If they don't choose to participate in the new health care system then they will have to pay a minimal fee which will likely cost less than the actual health care, which hardly sounds like an absolute individual mandate.

You act as if healthcare is something that people should not have access to, and as if people being given incentive to purchase it is somehow against the interests of the working class. Yes, they are being forced to buy a necessary commodity at an affordable price in a more heavily regulated market where they will be ensured rights previously unknown to many individuals in regards to their relations with their healthcare providers. There is nothing inherently wrong with that given the situation which existed before the passage of this law. It is certainly not as desirable as a public option would of been, but it is still an improvement on the current system.

[Amphictyonis]

How does one go about privatizing something which is already privatized? It is not as if Medicare and Medicade are being stricken from the system entirely, it is just that the demand for the services which they provide will be reduced when this law takes full effect in 2014. This law marks a dramatic improvement in the state of American health care, as it provides individuals of the working class access to cheap and affordable health care. If they don't choose to participate in the new health care system then they will have to pay a minimal fee which will likely cost less than the actual health care, which hardly sounds like an absolute individual mandate.



I have no more patience for this. Some one else can play with these people.

[thesadmafioso]

You're a fucking idiot. I have no more patience for this. Some one else can play with these people.

Well what a lovely display of civility.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Medicare and Medicaid are programs worth defending because they are actually some sort of public program. the problem is that you still have to pay.

the issue is reform versus revolution..

reforms should be fought for because if a reform is won, and capitalists try to take it back (which they inevitably will try) it pisses a whole hell of a lot of people off.

Social Security - defend it
Medicare Medicaid - defend it
Public education - defend it
veterans benefits - defend it


but, besides merely defending it, because these programs are obviously unsatisfactory, we must demand MORE or TAKE IT by revolution. the protesters in Tahrir Square are demanding the resignation of Mubarak and the elimination of the NDP. they were given concessions but they want a revolution.


reform = capitalism never goes away with this strategy, and ultimately, any progress can be reversed.

revolution = annihilation of capitalism, very hard to reverse.

[DaringMehring]

The pro-Democrat side are hearing the words, but its obvious they're not understanding the meaning.

Sure -- one of the bourgeois options will be better than the other. Maybe, one will even be consistently better than the other. By how much? If you have two serial killers, one might be "better" than the other... but you'd want to send both to jail.

Honestly, I don't think the pro-Democrat posters have that much experience dealing with Democrats -- at least not in states that aren't solid blue. In my local area, the Democrats are under control of the local magnates -- you can see that just by looking up their donors, and also by judging their actions.

Heck, here in CA, the Democrats have paved the way for something way worse -- the Tea Party. The fact that the Democrats have a corporate program, and can't connect with people, has led to the Tea Party winning, at least in my area. Voting those stuffed suits in, has led to a whiplash that has brought in some of the worst crazies.

So some pro-Democrats say, you can still do other things, while supporting Democrats. I haven't seen that. CPUSA is my main case in point: they ritualistically assert the need to do non-electoral work, but in the end all they come down to is commentary on bourgeois politics.

This is what they call "real" politics. Sad, from a Party who, never exceeding 100,000 people, managed to organize the CIO and others (unionizing tens of millions), create the Lincoln battalion, lead the fight against racism, and generally punch way above their weight. Nowadays, their "real" politics is playing along with the fake charade of bourgeois democracy.

It's not about a 3rd party. No Party is going to make socialism by the ballot box. The bourgeois democracy is inherently limited. As Lenin said, it is democracy for a small minority, for the rich. What it's about is breaking with the illusions of the bourgeois democracy.

Workers & militants have to create an independent social and cultural base. That is when the bourgeois democracy will come crawling to them as in the 30s, trying to buy them out with opportunism. Why? Because the workers have an independent power base. That is what it is all about, the key point: not relying on Parties of the bourgeoisie, the class enemy, who represent the rich & attack workers, for salvation. Workers have to take their destinies into their own hands rather than relying on the some savior from above.

[PhoenixAsh]

We all know what is theoretically supposed to happen and what should happen. But we also know that it is not happening. Wether you live in the US or in Europe...there is one very pressing truth: there is no pending revolution likely to happen anytime soon. I hope I will see one in my life time...I work towards it...but I doubt that will be the case.

In the mean time however...I do live in this world, I do have to pay taxes, I do have to work, I do have to abide by laws and I do have to keep in mind that I, my family and loved ones need to survive. I know I can get sick, I know I can get disabled and I know that social security is needed.

All these things are decided by the politicians that rule the economic theater. They make the laws, they decide on taxes, they decide on price policies, they decided on tarifs, decide on war and the expenditure of my tax money.

They maybe sympthoms of the disease...but there is no cure available any time soon.

So if I can cast a vote for a party which taxes me 99% rather than 100% I vote for them. I get shafted either way...but at least I get shafted a little less.

Or...more to the current situation...If every politician says we need budget cuts...at least I can vote for party that cuts the budget on topics I do not agree with or find less essential than others.

I will continue doing so untill I can garner as much support as needed to a final revolution....in the mean time we have to survive.

[NGNM85]

The pro-Democrat side are hearing the words, but its obvious they're not understanding the meaning.

You have it backasswards.

Also, nobody here is singing the praises of the Democratic party.


Sure -- one of the bourgeois options will be better than the other.Maybe, one will even be consistently better than the other. By how much?

I provided two excellent scientific studies which answer this question.


If you have two serial killers, one might be "better" than the other... but you'd want to send both to jail.

The better comparison, one that Chomsky makes, between two slaveowners. If you care about the slave, and you have no other immediate choice, you choose the one that beats them less. This doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the system is illegitimate, or that you don’t try and dismantle it. If you care, and you’re consistent, you do both.


Honestly, I don't think the pro-Democrat posters..

Who are these people? I have repeatedly, and quite accurately, described the Democratic party as the ‘lesser evil.’ If you interpret that as an endorsement, that’s your malfunction. I can only be responsible for what I say, I am not responsible for what you allow yourself to hear.


…have that much experience dealing with Democrats -- at least not in states that aren't solid blue.

I have always lived in Massachusetts, however, this is really beside the point.


In my local area, the Democrats are under control of the local magnates -- you can see that just by looking up their donors, and also by judging their actions.

So are the Republicans.


Heck, here in CA, the Democrats have paved the way for something way worse -- the Tea Party. The fact that the Democrats have a corporate program, and can't connect with people, has led to the Tea Party winning, at least in my area. Voting those stuffed suits in, has led to a whiplash that has brought in some of the worst crazies.

You can’t honestly lay the blame for the Tea Party ‘movement’ on the Democrats. There’s the billionaires like the Koch brothers, the PACS who’ve been building and funding this beast. There’s Murdoch’s news empire. We also have to take some of the blame, ourselves. Obviously, we didn’t reach those people. No one person, or organization is to blame.


So some pro-Democrats say,…

This is a phantom of your imagination.


you can still do other things, while supporting Democrats. I haven't seen that. CPUSA is my main case in point: they ritualistically assert the need to do non-electoral work, but in the end all they come down to is commentary on bourgeois politics.

This is what they call "real" politics. Sad, from a Party who, never exceeding 100,000 people, managed to organize the CIO and others (unionizing tens of millions), create the Lincoln battalion, lead the fight against racism, and generally punch way above their weight.

First of all, nobody is suggesting we ‘support’ the Democratic party. I’m suggesting it sometimes makes sense to vote for them, while recognizing they are just the less abhorrent wing of the business party, and the state is an illegitimate institution. You call that an endorsement, which is complete bullshit.


Nowadays, their "real" politics is playing along with the fake charade of bourgeois democracy.

From the sounds of it you don’t sound particularly qualified to make that determination. This is just a brick wall of dogma.


It's not about a 3rd party. No Party is going to make socialism by the ballot box.

I didn’t say otherwise. However, if you take this bogus position of saintly ideological purity you effectively say; ‘I don’t give a shit about the working class.’ That’s the problem.


The bourgeois democracy is inherently limited.

You don’t achieve anything by not participating.


As Lenin said, it is democracy for a small minority, for the rich. What it's about is breaking with the illusions of the bourgeois democracy.

Lenin hated democracy.

[QUOTE=DaringMehring;2016641]Workers & militants have to create an independent social and cultural base. /QUOTE]

Beyond the rhetoric and horseshit; what does that actually mean?

[DaringMehring]

I didn’t say otherwise. However, if you take this bogus position of saintly ideological purity you effectively say; ‘I don’t give a shit about the working class.’ That’s the problem.


You continue to assert that but it is false. I, and millions down through history like me, who have not voted for Democrats, have made huge gains for the working class. Just look at the labor movement 1870-1940, and the gains that they made through struggle, not through the ballot box.

And my "ideological purity" --- has a definite material basis, in my experience.



You don’t achieve anything by not participating.
You mean "by not voting for the Democrats." And either way, wrong.



Lenin hated democracy.
Wrong.


Workers & militants have to create an independent social and cultural base.


Beyond the rhetoric and horseshit; what does that actually mean?

So here we have the crux of it. Despite claiming
The better comparison, one that Chomsky makes, between two slaveowners. If you care about the slave, and you have no other immediate choice, you choose the one that beats them less. This doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the system is illegitimate, or that you don’t try and dismantle it. If you care, and you’re consistent, you do both. you apparently have no idea of what building independent working class power consists of. Therefore, much like on this forum, you end up reducing to a liberal.

Here's a hint: study the history of the labor movement. Look in particular, at the activities of the early CP, say 1919-1935 for the highest level attained.

[Amphictyonis]

We all know what is theoretically supposed to happen and what should happen. But we also know that it is not happening. Wether you live in the US or in Europe...there is one very pressing truth: there is no pending revolution likely to happen anytime soon. I hope I will see one in my life time...I work towards it...but I doubt that will be the case.
"Pragmatism". No stage is being set for mass global class consciousness? Really? Maybe it's time you stop living in the pre framed political arena and join the working class in the struggle. The struggle doesn't mean letting the democrat party co-op our efforts. Thats called surrendering.



In the mean time however...I do live in this world, I do have to pay taxes, I do have to work, I do have to abide by laws and I do have to keep in mind that I, my family and loved ones need to survive. I know I can get sick, I know I can get disabled and I know that social security is needed.
How is this healthcare law in any way a "social security net"? Explain this to me please. They're actually cutting the social security net that is medicare/medicaid/veterans benefits/and disability.


All these things are decided by the politicians that rule the economic theater. They make the laws, they decide on taxes, they decide on price policies, they decided on tarifs, decide on war and the expenditure of my tax money.



Bush tax cuts/Obama tax cuts. Bush's war/Obama's war. Democratic house perpetual war. Republican house perpetual war. Democrat govoner massive budget cuts (which is always education, halthcare and welfare programs). Republican govoner massive budget cuts (which is always education, halthcare and welfare programs). You're living under the illusion of democracy. The gains the labor movement has made over the last 100 years has not been by supporting the democrat party. When we started doing that is when we lost the battle.

[Amphictyonis]

You have it backasswards.

Also, nobody here is singing the praises of the Democratic party.





Why do you think the new healthcare law is good for the working class? Whats keeping you from seeing it's simply part of a massive structural adjustment program to transfer wealth from workers to capitalists? Could it be your blind allegiance to the democrat party?

[NGNM85]

You continue to assert that but it is false.

Not only is it true, there’s no other way to see it. Again, what does it mean to say you care about someone? First, you don’t try to deliberately harm them. Second, you’d try to protect them from harm. At worst, if you cared about someone, you would try to minimize they harm they have to endure to the greatest extent of your ability. We don’t have to read someone’s mind, (Which is good, because we can’t.) we can make this determination by judging behavior. Now, there are two wings of the business party, they serve different constituencies and behave slightly differently. One the national scale, these differences impact thousands, if not millions of people, specifically, working class people. Now, if you don’t take fifteen minutes to check a box to choose the lesser evil, we can very correctly confirm that you do not care. There is no other way to see it.


I, and millions down through history like me, who have not voted for Democrats, have made huge gains for the working class. Just look at the labor movement 1870-1940, and the gains that they made through struggle, not through the ballot box.

First of all, I’m speaking in terms of contemporary circumstances. In the early 1800’s, at least, coming from a Left-wing perspective, it would probably have made more sense to vote Republican. John Boehner is not Abraham Lincoln, these parties have changed over time. Also, this is disingenuous. None of these historical persons’ achievements were achieved by virtue of not voting.

You keep making a number of false assertions. First, that voting negates other forms of activism, it doesn’t, and I certainly haven’t suggested that it should. Second, that voting requires one to unquestioningly support the candidate or party chosen, it doesn’t, and I don’t. Third, that I ever suggested a fully realized Libertarian Socialist society would be achieved simply by voting, which I didn’t say. I mean, if you want to go find somebody who says those things and argue with them, go right ahead.


And my "ideological purity" --- has a definite material basis, in my experience.

No, it’s simply bullshit rhetoric which seems to impress other ‘professional radicals’ who aren’t interested in actually doing anything.


You mean "by not voting for the Democrats." And either way, wrong.

No, I mean by not voting, ever. I don’t always vote for the Democratic party because it doesn’t always make sense to vote for the Democratic party.


Wrong.

Right. Lenin did everything he could to dismantle the existing democratic institutions, and prevent new ones from forming. He could not have been more opposed to it. Get yourself a new hero.


So here we have the crux of it. Despite claiming you apparently have no idea of what building independent working class power consists of. Therefore, much like on this forum, you end up reducing to a liberal.

No, you’re just throwing around vague rhetoric. In English, what do you propose?

I don’t think you understand Liberalism.


Here's a hint: study the history of the labor movement. Look in particular, at the activities of the early CP, say 1919-1935 for the highest level attained.



I can only conclude this is just empty rhetoric.

[Amphictyonis]

The better comparison, one that Chomsky makes, between two slaveowners. If you care about the slave, and you have no other immediate choice, you choose the one that beats them less. This doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the system is illegitimate, or that you don’t try and dismantle it. If you care, and you’re consistent, you do both.[/QUOTWThe better comparison, one that Chomsky makes, between two slaveowners. If you care about the slave, and you have no other immediate choice, you choose the one that beats them less. This doesn’t mean you don’t recognize the system is illegitimate, or that you don’t try and dismantle it. If you care, and you’re consistent, you do both.


How is the new healthcare law anything but what the capitalist class wanted? How was Clintons "welfare reform" anything but a massive attack on poor families? How was Clintons NAFTA anything but a massive attack on American and South American workers? There's a difference between rhetoric and action. The democrat parties rhetoric may differ from Republican rhetoric but their actions are the same. This video is the result of your "pragmatism" being practiced on a nationwide scale-

cgYgBCibOM4

They're not dancing in the streets now are they? Ya reality has kicked in. Obama is no different than Bush but in another 4 years people like you will be more than willing to recreate this political spectacle....over and over into the dystopian future.

[Amphictyonis]

I can only conclude this is just empty rhetoric.

Yes. The Democrat party platform is 100% empty rhetoric.

[PhoenixAsh]

"Pragmatism". No stage is being set for mass global class consciousness? Really? Maybe it's time you stop living in the pre framed political arena and join the working class in the struggle. The struggle doesn't mean letting the democrat party co-op our efforts. Thats called surrendering.

Maybe you should tone down that high hearted arrogance there a little bit....seeing as you do not know me, have no idea what I am and have been involved in...and I am pretty damned sure it is a lot more than you have been involved in.

Setting a stage is a far cry from actual performance. And so far I am NOT seeing any angry crowds running the streets in organised political violence overthrowing the regime in the US yet....nor do I see it in the comming decade.
Now you are gladly invited to prove me wrong there.

But until you, and the ones in Holland/Europe do...we do face a reality where we have to be pragmatic because the real world is not, unfortunately, put on hold for us to eventually realize our goals. The real world is not a fluffy nice place where you can afford to live on some pink clowd saying how much we detest the system.

Your talk about "surrendering" is incredibly pathetic. we are fastly superior in our political and economic believes. However...we do NOT have a say in the day to day running of our respective countries and the economy.

It seems as you are suggesting here to actually let things get worse so that there will be more acceptance of our policies...and I reject that out of hand.




How is this healthcare law in any way a "social security net"? Explain this to me please. They're actually cutting the social security net that is medicare/medicaid/veterans benefits/and disability. I am not going to comment on that specific issue....as you are ignoring the context of what I said and this IMO is not a recap of the debate in the other thread. However...I do want to point out to you that the Republicans also want to cut back that program.




Bush tax cuts/Obama tax cuts. Bush's war/Obama's war. Democratic house perpetual war. Republican house perpetual war. Democrat govoner massive budget cuts (which is always education, halthcare and welfare programs). Republican govoner massive budget cuts (which is always education, halthcare and welfare programs).

You're living under the illusion of democracy. The gains the labor movement has made over the last 100 years has not been by supporting the democrat party. When we started doing that is when we lost the battle.You are living on the illusion that ideology buys food and pays the rent.

You also live under the illusion that things are mutually exclusive. You either work for furthering the revolution or you vote is your argument. Sorry...but that is absurd.

[DaringMehring]

I think it is funny that self-professed anarchists are the ones leading the ballot box charge.

Look at the quote in above poster's signature: "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." --- if anything is empty rhetoric, it is a statement like that from someone who argues what he does...

Maybe it stems, from not understanding the power of mass organization, and thus feeling trapped in a world where the only "real" politics are in bourgeois democracy. That in turn, would stem from anarchism's fetishization of the individual.

So people aren't on the streets in the USA right now for revolution... it's not Tahrir square right now. So what? Organize people to bring that situation about, or to ensure that when that situation arrives, there will be social forces that can take it to a victorious conclusion.

[Amphictyonis]

Maybe you should tone down that high hearted arrogance there a little bit....seeing as you do not know me, have no idea what I am and have been involved in...and I am pretty damned sure it is a lot more than you have been involved in.
Voting. I applaud your revolutionary efforts. Been alive for 30 plus years and am damn sure not throwing my support behind liberal polices in the name of pragmatism. You may as well support capitalist unions. Go fight for a 'happier more humane capitalism'. You completley miss the entire point of socialist struggle.


Setting a stage is a far cry from actual performance. And so far I am NOT seeing any angry crowds running the streets in organised political violence

Violence? You mean direct action don't you? OI wonder why that is? I wonder why the American left isn't out in the streets? Could it be....could it be....my Oh my could it be because of a naive misplaced loyalty to Obama and the democrat party?


But until you, and the ones in Holland/Europe do...we do face a reality where we have to be pragmatic
Your talk about "surrendering" is incredibly pathetic. we are fastly superior in our political and economic believes. However...we do NOT have a say in the day to day running of our respective countries and the economy.
Because of your "pragmatism". Because of this lame subservience to the bourgeois political framework.



It seems as you are suggesting here to actually let things get worse so that there will be more acceptance of our policies...and I reject that out of hand. I've shot this idiocy down in 5 different threads. I'll come back to this post and provide a link so I don't have to live in Gropundhog day.





I am not going to comment on that specific issue....
Then reply in the other thread where these two liberals are defending the health care law. You're posting in that one as well.





You are living on the illusion that ideology buys food and pays the rent.

^ This is what it looks like to surrender. This is why there's no mass movements in advanced capitalist nations. Capitulation and subservience to the bourgeois political parties/ideology.



You also live under the illusion that things are mutually exclusive. You either work for furthering the revolution or you vote is your argument. Sorry...but that is absurd.

The people who defend Democrat party policy are the ones who add momentum to their platform.

THIS SHIT NEEDS TO END

cgYgBCibOM4

[DaringMehring]

I can only conclude this is just empty rhetoric.

Uh, ok. Quick question --- do you know any of the history of the US labor movement 1870-1940 (Knights of Labor, IWW, SP, CPUSA) -- or anything about the 1930s labor struggles (Flint, Minneapolis, Ford, SF general strike) or anything about labor-populist culture (Joe Hill, Woodie Guthrie, Little Red Songbook)?

[NGNM85]

Uh, ok. Quick question --- do you know any of the history of the US labor movement 1870-1940 (Knights of Labor, IWW, SP, CPUSA) -- or anything about the 1930s labor struggles (Flint, Minneapolis, Ford, SF general strike) or anything about labor-populist culture (Joe Hill, Woodie Guthrie, Little Red Songbook)?

You continue to prove my point. I asked you, in plain english, to explain your strategy to, quote; ‘build independent working class power’, and this is what you come up with. Try again.


So people aren't on the streets in the USA right now for revolution... it's not Tahrir square right now. So what? Organize people to bring that situation about, or to ensure that when that situation arrives, there will be social forces that can take it to a victorious conclusion.

Nobody is arguing against political organizing, or protests, or what-have-you. This is a false argument.

[PhoenixAsh]

So people aren't on the streets in the USA right now for revolution... it's not Tahrir square right now. So what? Organize people to bring that situation about, or to ensure that when that situation arrives, there will be social forces that can take it to a victorious conclusion.

Gonna do this one first.

You argue mutual exclusivity here. You can not seriously believe that checking a ballot box means you do not do anything else now do you?

The second comment I am going to make is the fact that revolutionaries have been saying the exact same thing as you do here...for decades.




I think it is funny that self-professed anarchists are the ones leading the ballot box charge.

Look at the quote in above poster's signature: "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." --- if anything is empty rhetoric, it is a statement like that from someone who argues what he does...

That statement does not exclude the fact that years of experience have not also taught us that it infinately more preferable to have a social democrat in power than a liberal (in the European sense) in lieu of a revolution.

And however you want to look at the issue...you know this to be a fact.



Maybe it stems, from not understanding the power of mass organization, and thus feeling trapped in a world where the only "real" politics are in bourgeois democracy. That in turn, would stem from anarchism's fetishization of the individual.

I think you do indeed not understand the power of mass organisation in its current state. Because mass organisation does NOT make policy that affects me here and now.

Does not mean I work to that end. Does not mean that I do not do anything to bring about revolution...but doing that work does not make me somehow immune to day to day policy.

[DaringMehring]

You continue to prove my point. I asked you, in plain english, to explain your strategy to, quote; ‘build independent working class power’, and this is what you come up with. Try again.



Sorry, but I'm not going to give a 100,000 word essay on the history of US labor radicalism, the wins, losses, and lessons learned, for you -- something it took myself a process of several years of independent study just to get the basics of.

The history is out there, if you want to engage with it.

Otherwise, continue floating in a historical vacuum while criticizing others for their "purist ideology."

Just don't pretend to be revolutionary, without a knowledge of the history of revolutionary praxis, of how millions got in motion, trading blood for lead with the bosses thugs & military, in this very country.

[DaringMehring]

That statement does not exclude the fact that years of experience have not also taught us that it infinately more preferable to have a social democrat in power than a liberal (in the European sense) in lieu of a revolution.


So you can't trust the management of your life to "to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners" but you can to a social democrat?

Or, you should vote for people you can't trust? That way, when they screw you, it is legitimized by your consent.

[NGNM85]

Sorry, but I'm not going to give a 100,000 word essay on the history of US labor radicalism, the wins, losses, and lessons learned, for you -- something it took myself a process of several years of independent study just to get the basics of.

That’s great because I’m not asking for it.


The history is out there, if you want to engage with it.


Otherwise, continue floating in a historical vacuum while criticizing others for their "purist ideology."

This claim of being a-historical is just bullshit. However, my comment about being a ‘professional radical’ is completely legitimate. If you care, you do everything within your power, if you don’t act, you don’t care. At best, you are horribly inconsistent in the application of your professed ethics.


Just don't pretend to be revolutionary, without a knowledge of the history of revolutionary praxis, of how millions got in motion, trading blood for lead with the bosses thugs & military, in this very country.

I’m perfectly aware of the Ludlow Massacre, etc, I’ve read People’s History. This is not an argument. At this point I’m starting to think you’re being intentionally dense.

[southernmissfan]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what happened to the "left" activist movement the last couple years? Why did the anti-war movement and the rest of the left-wing activists suddenly disappear once Obama was elected?

I agree with some of the people in this thread that there are some legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans. On the other hand, while there might be some slight material advantage to the working class if Democrats are in power over Republicans, there is also significant damage to consciousness, as too many buy into the illusions. I also think it's significant that the left is a shadow of what it used to be a few years ago simply because Obama was elected. I think it reveals that a lot of what passes itself off as the "left" are really just interested in bourgeois politics. They weren't anti-capitalism or even anti-imperialism, they were anti-Bush. They were anti-war when you can flip on the tv and see that American troops were dying everyday. We are for the self-liberation of the working class and those of us who are revolutionary left don't go home content simply because a Democrat was elected.

[PhoenixAsh]

Voting. I applaud your revolutionary efforts. Been alive for 30 plus years and am damn sure not throwing my support behind liberal polices in the name of pragmatism. You may as well support capitalist unions. Go fight for a 'happier more humane capitalism'. You completley miss the entire point of socialist struggle.

Yeah...so have I. And I have sure been in a lot more direct action than you appear to be in according to your arguments in this thread. So again...tone down your unwarranted high hearted arrogance which makes you look like a little kid.

You completely miss the point of reality.

Also you continue to argue mutual exclusivity...which is...still absurd.



Violence? You mean direct action don't you? OI wonder why that is? I wonder why the American left isn't out in the streets? Could it be....could it be....my Oh my could it be because of a naive misplaced loyalty to Obama and the democrat party?

Than you are not getting anywhere with your mass class consiousness now are you? So actually you have been talking shit in your earlier post....and what you are doing is not amounting to anything effective on any political level that affacts the here and now of paying taxes.

Now...forget your two party system in the US....and acknowledge my actual location.

Now...explain to me why I should not vote for the last party....if there is a choice

* between a party that wants to effect racial and ethnical discrimination,
* a party that wants to scrap any form of social welfare and lower taxes for the corporations and increase taxes for the lower and middle class.
* a party that wants more rights for animals
* a parfty that believes women should not be active in politics and reliion should be the basis of judicial law.
* a party that wants to cut back on military expenditure, wants to tax bankers, wants increased taxes for the wealthy and lower taxes for the poor...but still believes in the capitalist mode of production.

Your position is that I should not take 5 minutes of my time off from revolutionary work to vote.




Because of your "pragmatism". Because of this lame subservience to the bourgeois political framework. yeah...but we live in this burgeois political and econoic reality now do we? So if there is a choice between the parties above...I am sure as hell going to vote....because some parties suck less than others.



I've shot this idiocy down in 5 different threads. I'll come back to this post and provide a link so I don't have to live in Gropundhog day. If this is not what you mean...then I suggest you stop arguing it.



Then reply in the other thread where these two liberals are defending the health care law. You're posting in that one as well. Yeah...I have started the thread. And I have answered in that thread.



^ This is what it looks like to surrender. This is why there's no mass movements in advanced capitalist nations. Capitulation and subservience to the bourgeois political parties/ideology. Yet...you claimed earlier:


No stage is being set for mass global class consciousness? Really? Maybe it's time you stop living in the pre framed political arena and join the working class in the strugglePerhaps you answered your own question here.





The people who defend Democrat party policy are the ones who add momentum to their platform.

THIS SHIT NEEDS TO END
well...what is the alternative? Really...tell me...what is the alternative to the democrat party?

[DaringMehring]

This claim of being a-historical is just bullshit. However, my comment about being a ‘professional radical’ is completely legitimate. If you care, you do everything within your power, if you don’t act, you don’t care. At best, you are horribly inconsistent in the application of your professed ethics.



Ok. Where there's a disconnect, is that I do all kinds of actions -- you don't know the degree to which my life is oriented around taking action against capitalism -- but I don't consider voting for Democrats to be an action that helps the working class. Democrats have explicit anti-working class policies that they don't even attempt to hide. Look at Obama's SOTU or his latest comment that the White House & CEOs can and should work together. I do not think it is a valid tactic for pro-worker people to vote for anti-worker people, even if they are the lesser of two evils --- which I also think is far from proved, given the historical role of Democrats in putting the "seal of good housekeeping" on reactionary politics.

Nonetheless, since you openly and strenuously protest, that you are working to overthrow capitalism by other means and that voting for Democrats is some kind of a minimal-effort band-aid attempt -- we can leave it at that. We each have our own methods. I look forward to seeing if yours have any success.

[DaringMehring]

well...what is the alternative? Really...tell me...what is the alternative to the democrat party?

Spoken like a true revolutionary.

[Amphictyonis]

well...what is the alternative? Really...tell me...what is the alternative to the democrat party?
why are you on this site?

[Amphictyonis]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what happened to the "left" activist movement the last couple years? Why did the anti-war movement and the rest of the left-wing activists suddenly disappear once Obama was elected?



Thats the trillion dollar question.

[southernmissfan]

Thats the trillion dollar question.

I guess because they thought they had won. But I guess that's what happens if resistance is organized from a liberal perspective with liberal goals.

[PhoenixAsh]

So you can't trust the management of your life to "to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners" but you can to a social democrat?

Or, you should vote for people you can't trust? That way, when they screw you, it is legitimized by your consent.

Look...I am counting to 10 here because you are obviously to fucking obtuse to get the fucking point...

1). short from revolution there is always going to be a king, priest, politican, general, county commisionar...or...if you want social democrat....managing our lives.

2). we do not have a choice than to be managed unless you are suggesting exile which will land you in the same shit different place...or jail...which is managed as well.

3). there is no revolution yet...and there likely is not going to be one in the next decade no matter what I do or how hard I work to bring it about.

4). given that exit point....that fact...that undeniable truth...I prefer the lesser of evils to actually do the managing.

[PhoenixAsh]

why are you on this site?



Perhaps you have problems understanding? temporary intelligence dip?? What is the alternative RIGHT NOW for the democrat party?
(see..I can use font size too)

[PhoenixAsh]

Spoken like a true revolutionary.

Spoken like a true idiot who does not want to read comprehensively.

See post above...

[DaringMehring]

Look...I am counting to 10 here because you are obviously to fucking obtuse to get the fucking point...

1). short from revolution there is always going to be a king, priest, politican, general, county commisionar...or...if you want social democrat....managing our lives.

2). we do not have a choice than to be managed unless you are suggesting exile which will land you in the same shit different place...or jail...which is managed as well.

3). there is no revolution yet...and there likely is not going to be one in the next decade no matter what I do or how hard I work to bring it about.

4). given that exit point....that fact...that undeniable truth...I prefer the lesser of evils to actually do the managing.

So your quote then, is by your thinking, completely idealistic, impossible, in a word false. If someone came up to you and said that to you, you'd reply: "can't you see, we must be managed by someone, there's no prospect to escape being managed. so, lets try to minimize the pain."

[NGNM85]

Sorry if this is off-topic, but what happened to the "left" activist movement the last couple years? Why did the anti-war movement and the rest of the left-wing activists suddenly disappear once Obama was elected?

Whose fault is that? I mean, there are a number of factors, but we have to take some of that responsibility.


I agree with some of the people in this thread that there are some legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans.

They represent a different elite constituency.


On the other hand, while there might be some slight material advantage to the working class if Democrats are in power over Republicans,..

There is, and I have data to prove it.


there is also significant damage to consciousness, as too many buy into the illusions. I also think it's significant that the left is a shadow of what it used to be a few years ago simply because Obama was elected. I think it reveals that a lot of what passes itself off as the "left" are really just interested in bourgeois politics. They weren't anti-capitalism or even anti-imperialism, they were anti-Bush. They were anti-war when you can flip on the tv and see that American troops were dying everyday.

So it's up to us to disabuse them of those illusions.


We are for the self-liberation of the working class and those of us who are revolutionary left don't go home content simply because a Democrat was elected.

Of course not. We should accept the real possibility that we may never be able to do so. Even if we do, it is presumptuous to assume that the first generation raised in our ultimate, ideal society won't have a different perspective. It's just and endless line; identifying and dismantling systems of oppression and trying to make the world better than it was yesterday.

[Amphictyonis]

Gonna do this one first.

You argue mutual exclusivity here. You can not seriously believe that checking a ballot box means you do not do anything else now do you?

The second comment I am going to make is the fact that revolutionaries have been saying the exact same thing as you do here...for decades.


and we've been sandbagged by bourgeois reformists for decades. Right now material conditions are ripe for a new level of class consciousness to manifest. Right now isnt the time to play identity politics taking sides with bourgeois liberals over conservatives. Maybe in the 1970's and 1980's but not now. This is the main thing holding us back in advanced capitalist nations, in the USA especially. This isnt a time for voting this is a time for direct action and the lefts loyalty to the people they voted for is keeping direct action from happening. Do you get it?

[Rusty Shackleford]

fucking seriously. vote green if you have to vote. or, vote Peace and Freedom in California. green is a little better and PFP is way better than dems.

dont get stuck into the paradigm of democrat versus republican. if you cannot move out of that plane of thought you need to sit back and do more research before claiming there is no alternative. and so the fuck what if a third party doesnt win. its one less vote for a blatant capitalist be it a repub or dem.

this whole "fight the right" or "fight rising republican fascism" by voting democrat is absolutely idiotic. the dems dont advance ANYTHING more than the republicans. they just talk sweeter.

for fucks sake.


or, build a movement and forget about bourgeois politics. i dont care. just dont claim the democrats are in any way better than repubs as a party.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QEF5i99zIwY/TLH6cmnruaI/AAAAAAAAACE/sAptGKqL2sY/s1600/Rage2.jpg

[DaringMehring]

3). there is no revolution yet...and there likely is not going to be one in the next decade no matter what I do or how hard I work to bring it about.


To be clear, this is the point in your chain that I find FALSE.

Nobody has any idea, when the revolution will come.

And it is always difficult to know, the impact of one's actions working to bring it about.

Further, whether the revolution comes in 10 years, 20 years, or how ever long, it is crucial that it does come ASAP. If your actions today push the revolution from 30 years distant to 35 years distant, you are committing just as big a crime as if you forestalled an immediate revolution by 5 years.

[Amphictyonis]

Whose fault is that? I mean, there are a number of factors, but we have to take some of that responsibility.





Yes. You and posters/people like the other two liberals in here do in fact need to take responsibility. Own up. People like you are the main reason the workers in advanced capitalist nations aren't taking to the streets. They are in Greece and it's because the Greek workers aren't under the spell of the pied piper as you seem to be.

[PhoenixAsh]

So your quote then, is by your thinking, completely idealistic, impossible, in a word false. If someone came up to you and said that to you, you'd reply: "can't you see, we must be managed by someone, there's no prospect to escape being managed. so, lets try to minimize the pain."

No...thats you trying to place words in my mouth.


We are managed. We live in a system that manages. Therefore anything short of revolution will not end that management. In the lieu of revolution we are going to be managed no matter what we do. We can not escape this management unless we have a revolution. For if we could escape that management without revolution there would not be a problem (wouldn't you agree???) If there is no revolution we are thus going to be managed. And in working towards the revolution in every way I can...I AM going to chose who gets to manage us in the lesser of all evils in the period leading up to the revolution.

I can not help that you do not understand that that quote is still true even if I vote....but does not n egate the fact of reality that we are all managed until there is a revolution.

[NGNM85]

Ok. Where there's a disconnect, is that I do all kinds of actions -- you don't know the degree to which my life is oriented around taking action against capitalism –

I don’t claim to have any special knowledge about your personal history.


…but I don't consider voting for Democrats to be an action that helps the working class.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Again, there is a series of criteria and factors that have to be considered. What kind of election it is, where you live, etc. However, we’d have to first accept the concept of voting at all, which is still in dispute.


Democrats have explicit anti-working class policies that they don't even attempt to hide.

In simplest terms; yes. However, somewhat less so than the Republicans. On a national scale, small differences can have sizeable impacts.


Look at Obama's SOTU or his latest comment that the White House & CEOs can and should work together.

I wasn’t particularly enthused by it.


I do not think it is a valid tactic for pro-worker people to vote for anti-worker people, even if they are the lesser of two evils ---

Of course it is. In fact, we’re obligated to. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless we have illusions.


..which I also think is far from proved, given the historical role of Democrats in putting the "seal of good housekeeping" on reactionary politics.

I feel I have demonstrated this point sufficiently, you can feel free to peruse my arguments as to how I come to this conclusion. I stand by it.


Nonetheless, since you openly and strenuously protest, that you are working to overthrow capitalism by other means and that voting for Democrats is some kind of a minimal-effort band-aid attempt -- we can leave it at that. We each have our own methods. I look forward to seeing if yours have any success.

Only time will tell. It might not help, but it doesn’t hurt, and it only takes fifteen minutes. That is perfectly acceptable to me.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes. You and posters/people like the other two liberals in here do in fact need to take responsibility. Own up. People like you are the main reason the workers in advanced capitalist nations aren't taking to the streets. They are in Greece and it's because the Greek workers aren't under the spell of the pied piper as you seem to be.

Greek workers don't vote????

[PhoenixAsh]

To be clear, this is the point in your chain that I find FALSE.

Nobody has any idea, when the revolution will come.

And it is always difficult to know, the impact of one's actions working to bring it about.[

Again you are arguing mutual exclusivity. I do not see that. I (think I) understand what you are trying to say...but I do not agree with it.

Now...I am pretty sure that we do not know when the revolution comes. But given the political spectrum just now and the amount of dissent there is no reason to assume that it will happen shortly.




Further, whether the revolution comes in 10 years, 20 years, or how ever long, it is crucial that it does come ASAP. If your actions today push the revolution from 30 years distant to 35 years distant, you are committing just as big a crime as if you forestalled an immediate revolution by 5 years.

Yeah...but other than you I do not see voting for the lesser of two evils extending the waiting period.

[NGNM85]

fucking seriously. vote green if you have to vote. or, vote Peace and Freedom in California. green is a little better and PFP is way better than dems.

Probably, but do they have any chance at winning? (Incidentally, I have voted for the Greens and the Socialist Party, more than once.) Otherwise, you might be making a mistake by voting for candidate who will never win, and, inadvertantly, give a greater edge to the candidate you dislike the most.
Unfortunately, the American system is rigged against other parties. However, we could change this.

First we'd need to change campaign finance, which was recently made much worse by the Citizens United ruling, which, not to beat a dead horse, never would have happened if a few more Americans had voted Democratic a few years, earlier. We, ultimately, need to have state-funded elections. We also should institute what's called an STV ('Single Transferable Vote') system, which they actually already have, here in Cambridge, and in Minneapolis. This allows voters to pick more than one choice, ranked in order of preference. That way, you can put the Socialist Party or the Greens as your first choice, that way, it isn’t like, essentially, giving a vote to the Republican candidate.


dont get stuck into the paradigm of democrat versus republican.

Unfortunately, we may not have a choice. However, understanding that we only have two viable candidates doesn’t mean we have to succumb to any illusions about what those candidates really represent.


if you cannot move out of that plane of thought you need to sit back and do more research before claiming there is no alternative. and so the fuck what if a third party doesnt win. its one less vote for a blatant capitalist be it a repub or dem.

Actually, if you vote for a Green candidate most of the time, you’re essentially voting Republican.


this whole "fight the right" or "fight rising republican fascism" by voting democrat is absolutely idiotic. the dems dont advance ANYTHING more than the republicans. they just talk sweeter.

for fucks sake.

or, build a movement and forget about bourgeois politics. i dont care. just dont claim the democrats are in any way better than repubs as a party.

They represent the less brutal wing of the business party. Don’t believe me? I have two impeccable studies, and fifty years of data. Again, this in no way precludes other forms of activism, or requires you to buy into any illusions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Probably, but do they have any chance at winning? (Incidentally, I have voted for the Greens and the Socialist Party, more than once.) Otherwise, you might be making a mistake by voting for candidate who will never win, and, inadvertantly, give a greater edge to the candidate you dislike the most.
Unfortunately, the American system is rigged against other parties. However, we could change this. this is the exact logic democrats and the CP-USA use to lock people into voting for democrats. "fight the right" "dont split the vote"

of course its rigged. voting for third parties is an attempt to fight them on their own battlefield, of course were going to get "slaughtered" in the elections. does that justify giving up and voting for some slightly progressive capitalist politician? no.

also, there currently is no power vacuum. you wont see a hitler(godwins law) voted into power because the slightly-right-of-center party didnt win against the farther-right-than-center party. this defeats the argument that splitting the vote will bring about an unprecedented amount of fascists into power or some shit. and, if you notices, the anti-war movement and anti-capitalist movement was actually STRONGER in the bush years.


First we'd need to change campaign finance, which was recently made much worse by the Citizens United ruling, which, not to beat a dead horse, never would have happened if a few more Americans had voted Democratic a few years, earlier. We, ultimately, need to have state-funded elections. We also should institute what's called an STV ('Single Transferable Vote') system, which they actually already have, here in Cambridge, and in Minneapolis. This allows voters to pick more than one choice, ranked in order of preference. That way, you can put the Socialist Party or the Greens as your first choice, that way, it isn’t like, essentially, giving a vote to the Republican candidate.
so move to capitalist germany or france if you want to vote in bourgeois elections that have some state funding.



Unfortunately, we may not have a choice. However, understanding that we only have two viable candidates doesn’t mean we have to succumb to any illusions about what those candidates really represent. so you vote for them anyways?




Actually, if you vote for a Green candidate most of the time, you’re essentially voting Republican.
then dont vote green



They represent the less brutal wing of the business party. Don’t believe me? I have two impeccable studies, and fifty years of data. Again, this in no way precludes other forms of activism, or requires you to buy into any illusions.no they dont. dems were in office during the war on yugoslavia.
dems were in office when the war in vietnam escalated
dems were in office when the bomb was dropped
dems were in office when the us joined wwi
dems are in office expanding the "war on terror"
dems are in office assisting "friends in the middle east"
dems are in office funding "the war on drugs"
dems voted with republicans on invading iraq
dems voted to maintain funding for the war.
http://www.presidentsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/democrat-history-george-wallace11.jpg




Democrats are in no way better. in fact, they champion the bailout of banks even!

[Amphictyonis]

Greek workers don't vote????

Greek workers wouldn't be stupid enough to see the total privatization of their healthcare as a good thing (as our liberal friend here does). Greek workers aren't waiting to 'vote for change' they're making it happen themselves. Their efforts aren't being co-opted into some democrat party machine.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Greek workers would be stupid enough to see the total privatization of their healthcare as a good thing. Greek workers aren't waiting to 'vote for change' they're making it happen themselves.
wat. am i missing some context here?

[Amphictyonis]

wat. am i missing some context here?

typo fixed :)

[MarxistMan]

Hello my great friend, i think that US poor people and US workers should dump the Democratic Party, and create a new third party, a large Workers Socialist Party for the american workers and poors. But in your statement about no protests in USA you are right. I think that there are no protests in USA because there is still not a revolutionary situation in USA and also because americans are too conformists. An excess of conformism in the masses of America like a conforming just to a life of basic needs and a society that doesn't get angry with their shitty life of just food and beer is a society that doesn't have the necessary anger and rage to rebel.

.



Lenin also spoke of destroying the bourgeoisie State as it is an implement of class rule, I don't think his rhetoric would be too applicable to what I am arguing for at the moment. I understand his position and I happen to agree that in its time period that it was entirely justifiable, the issue is the matter of historical context. Given the vastly different circumstances of the modern political system, what Lenin was calling for over a century ago would not work.

As for the supposed co-opting of the leftist movement in America, for that to happen you presume that there was once an actual movement to subsidize which there hasn't been for decades in any forceful sense of the word.

I hate to have to try and shatter your lovely view of the glorious revolution, but as you seem to be far too entrenched into your position here that shouldn't be much of a problem. There is no mass movement in America, no protests are looming over the horizon which will promise revolution, and even if the circumstances for revolution did miraculously come into existence the American left would fail to take advantage of the situation. I am not arguing that the Democrats are an ideal political party from most any standpoint, but rather that they are the best hope for the working class for the current time. They offer an outlet for labor to express itself politically and for it to gain some representation in the system. American democracy is terribly flawed and I never said anything to the contrary, but at the same time it is still democratic in a limited sense. The fact that it is democratic and that a great deal of the American populace participate in it as a means of electing a government means that as respectable leftists, it is our duty to work within the constructs presented here. It matters not how fraudulent or corrupt a system it is, the fact remains that we have no other option of influencing government and that democratic principles are still to be found within the fray. Nothing is going to ideal in western politics for leftists, and ignoring that fact will not have any profound effect on the people and their state of wellbeing.

[MarxistMan]

True, american people don't get angry. All bravery and anger is a consequence of a happy organization, and all liberty is a consequence of bravery and rage.

We need a United Socialist Front in USA

.



fucking seriously. vote green if you have to vote. or, vote Peace and Freedom in California. green is a little better and PFP is way better than dems.

dont get stuck into the paradigm of democrat versus republican. if you cannot move out of that plane of thought you need to sit back and do more research before claiming there is no alternative. and so the fuck what if a third party doesnt win. its one less vote for a blatant capitalist be it a repub or dem.

this whole "fight the right" or "fight rising republican fascism" by voting democrat is absolutely idiotic. the dems dont advance ANYTHING more than the republicans. they just talk sweeter.

for fucks sake.


or, build a movement and forget about bourgeois politics. i dont care. just dont claim the democrats are in any way better than repubs as a party.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QEF5i99zIwY/TLH6cmnruaI/AAAAAAAAACE/sAptGKqL2sY/s1600/Rage2.jpg

[PhoenixAsh]

Greek workers wouldn't be stupid enough to see the total privatization of their healthcare as a good thing (as our liberal friend here does). Greek workers aren't waiting to 'vote for change' they're making it happen themselves. Their efforts aren't being co-opted into some democrat party machine.

again...that is not the topic of this debate.

I do however wish to point out to you that the Greek workers were amongst others voting in parties that completely destroyed the Greek credit rating for some decades...in the eye of leftist and leftwing alternatives

[Amphictyonis]

5kq4m2aNNmk

These are the anarchists I stand with. Not liberals such as the the Americans in this thread who would see our efforts be swallowed up by 'pragmatism' and identity politics. Workers in the USA aren't doing this because? Because people like you are the norm in the USA. I mean, why protest, democrats are in office and it's been scientifically proven they have our best interests in mind. ;)

[PhoenixAsh]

These are the anarchists I stand with. Not liberals such as the the Americans in this thread who would see our efforts be swallowed up by 'pragmatism' and identity politics. Workers in the USA aren't doing this because? Because people like you are the norm in the USA. I mean, why protest, democrats are in office and it's been scientifically proven they have our best interests in mind. ;)

Yeah...you again are arguing mutual exclusivity here :rolleyes:

Now...I am pretty much done being nice here...with all your snide arrogant and o so subtile ad hominems. Offering blanket statements, shifting arguments, evasive arguments and hollow rethorics about "how you stand with those anarchists"

Were you there? I was. So STFU.

You are obviously being dense and insist on arguing again and again that its either "voting" or "protesting and working towards revolution". Get your head around the concept that this is not mutually exclusive...

[Lucretia]

Yeah...you again are arguing mutual exclusivity here :rolleyes:

Now...I am pretty much done being nice here...with all your snide arrogant and o so subtile ad hominems. Offering blanket statements, shifting arguments, evasive arguments and hollow rethorics about "how you stand with those anarchists"

Were you there? I was. So STFU.

You are obviously being dense and insist on arguing again and again that its either "voting" or "protesting and working towards revolution". Get your head around the concept that this is not mutually exclusive...

We have heard your lesser of two evils, pragmatist arguments. We heard them from the time we were young. We reject them. Repeating them on a forum ostensibly dedicated to people who reject this argument is NOT going to convince us. It is going to waste our time and annoy us. Go away.

[NGNM85]

this is the exact logic democrats and the CP-USA use to lock people into voting for democrats. "fight the right" "dont split the vote"

That’s a legitimate argument. Again, our system is institutionally biased against other parties, it’s almost impossible for them to win anything. Again, we could do things to level the playing field. You could generate a proposal to institute an STV system in your district, as I said, it isn’t unprecedented.


of course its rigged. voting for third parties is an attempt to fight them on their own battlefield, of course were going to get "slaughtered" in the elections. does that justify giving up and voting for some slightly progressive capitalist politician? no.

This is bad logic. Acknowledging that your in a bad situation is not giving up, it’s merely rational. Under certain circumstances, a vote for the Greens could essentially be a vote for the Republicans. You don’t want to shoot yourself in the foot.

There really isn’t much choice besides what you call ‘capitalist politicians.’ However, you can, perhaps, influence which ones win. If you care, you should do so.


also, there currently is no power vacuum. you wont see a hitler(godwins law) voted into power because the slightly-right-of-center party didnt win against the farther-right-than-center party. this defeats the argument that splitting the vote will bring about an unprecedented amount of fascists into power or some shit.

No, it just means the working class will suffer more, however slightly. That’s bad. We should minimize that to the extent we can.


and, if you notices, the anti-war movement and anti-capitalist movement was actually STRONGER in the bush years.

If you’re suggesting we should vote for the most vicious thugs available because they inspire more popular animosity you really need to sort yourself out. That is a morally bankrupt attitude.


so move to capitalist germany or france if you want to vote in bourgeois elections that have some state funding.

There is noplace on earth that represents my ideal. I don’t get to live in fantasyland. I live on earth, today. If we had federally-funded elections it would cut out the corruption and create a level playing field. Nobody would be able to buy elections. That would not be ideal, that would be an improvement.


so you vote for them anyways?

Yes, because I control that choice. Not voting changes absolutely nothing. It’s going to happen anyways. There is no shame in choosing the lesser evil. If you care, that’s what you do.


then dont vote green

I’m saying you do that when you vote for any ‘third party’ right now, most of the time. However, I’ve recommended several achievable remedies.


no they dont. dems were in office during the war on yugoslavia.
dems were in office when the war in vietnam escalated
dems were in office when the bomb was dropped
dems were in office when the us joined wwi
dems are in office expanding the "war on terror"
dems are in office assisting "friends in the middle east"
dems are in office funding "the war on drugs"
dems voted with republicans on invading iraq
dems voted to maintain funding for the war.

Yes.


Democrats are in no way better.

They are better in the sense of being generally less harmful to the working class. There is 50 years of data to back this up.

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

Wallace was one of the last of the Dixiecrats. After Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and JFK took a firm stance in favor of civil rights, almost immediately afterwards, they left the party, and the remaining racists joined the Republicans.


in fact, they champion the bailout of banks even!

It was President Bush’s idea, but Obama continued the policy.

[Amphictyonis]

Were you there? I was. So STFU.



Were you there saying everyone just needs to calm down and vote? That cuts in public healthcare/privatization of healthcare is great! Post some pictures of you getting punched in the face or spat on, that will entertain me. I'm not sure you've actually been reading the posts from Sadmafioso and this guy NGNM85. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065)

[NGNM85]

We have heard your lesser of two evils, pragmatist arguments. We heard them from the time we were young. We reject them. Repeating them on a forum ostensibly dedicated to people who reject this argument is NOT going to convince us. It is going to waste our time and annoy us. Go away.

First of all, this forum is not dedicated to people who reject that argument. Many members do, many members do not.

What matters is that you have been consistently unable to produce a smart, cogent counterargument.

[Amphictyonis]

First of all, this forum is not dedicated to people who reject that argument. Many members do, many members do not.

What matters is that you have been consistently unable to produce a smart, cogent counterargument.

If I ever see you at a socialist protest/event carrying signs saying "The Democrat Health Bill is great for the working class!" I'll give you 50 dollars and a kiss on the mouth. Take some pictures of you doing so at the next socialist event you attend. Post them here. The pictures will show you alone in a corner.

Mk_uVqAcGbE

As I am now.....

[Lucretia]

First of all, this forum is not dedicated to people who reject that argument. Many members do, many members do not.

What matters is that you have been consistently unable to produce a smart, cogent counterargument.

This is a forum for revolutionary socialists, not democratic voters. Perhaps you've had difficulty interpreting the web site domain name? You've yet to do anything but reproduce the standard lesser-of-two-evils "pragmatist" argument. We've heard this argument a thousand times. We reject it on the grounds that it results in commitment to the two party system in deed, and undermines attempts to organize outside of that orbit because of the mentality of allegiance to the two-party system that it engenders. If you aren't aware of our response to this argument, you haven't bothered to read this thread. Stop wasting our time by recapitulating your trite memes, and for the last time, beat it.

[Amphictyonis]

First of all, this forum is not dedicated to people who reject that argument. Many members do, many members do not.

What matters is that you have been consistently unable to produce a smart, cogent counterargument.

Argument to what? Your view that the new healthcare law is good for the working class? It's so obviously not wasting time compiling pages of data and facts is akin to explaining why the earth is round to a cave man. Ya just don't get it kid. Grunt grunt.

[PhoenixAsh]

We have heard your lesser of two evils, pragmatist arguments. We heard them from the time we were young. We reject them. Repeating them on a forum ostensibly dedicated to people who reject this argument is NOT going to convince us. It is going to waste our time and annoy us. Go away.

Yeah...instead you support right wing initiatives and endorse their agenda. :thumbup1:
- hypocracy win!

And you advocate the continued refusal to help people even if you can because "the system is wrong" :thumbup1:
- humanity and morality fail!



In othert news this pragmatism did get a couple of thousand illegal immigrants and asylum seekers legalised so they could work, find a place to live, get social care, get medical care etc.

It also helped prevent corporate plans to destroy social housing...on a local level

It also helped maintain social welfare for a couple of dozen handicaped and elderly people who were otherwise left on their own device....on a local level

it also helped for addicts to get medical drugs and help. something they would not otherwise have gotten. It also helped reduce drug caused crime rates in the mean time which mostly involved working class houses being burglered.



To name but a few examples. Point is we, the revolutionary left, would not have been able to establish on its own outside the legislative system and political mainstream support.

Point is...you fight where you can. Both on the streets, in the factories and in the ballot boxes.

You can make like an ostrich and cover your head in the sand and shout "go away" as hard as you want...but the fact of the matter is that in the western world revolutionary movements have been impotent without legislative support.

So yeah...I vote for a lesser evil to make the world a little better or a little less worse than it otherwise would have been.

I also engage in direct action, workers organisation, civil revolutionary platforms, and exported political DA...and other actions. But I also take 5 minutes of my time to check a ballot.

[PhoenixAsh]

Were you there saying everyone just needs to calm down and vote?

I was there. I got arrested with several broken bones and dislocated vertibrea. That is all you need to know.

Just like I have been shot, stabbed, tortured and beaten several times when I engaged in direct or other...more...hmm...involved...action. I don't fuck around.

You do not know anything about me....but already you seem to have some high hearted preconceived idea about me which you feel obligated to express every other post from the start of this debate. As I expressed before...don't be an arrogant asshole.


That cuts in public healthcare/privatization of healthcare is great! Post some pictures of you getting punched in the face or spat on, that will entertain me.

Yeah...you are a horrible person. I got that from all your rude comments, snide ad hominems and general obnoxiousness...no need to emphasize it any further by expressing joy about suffering from somebody.

If you would have read my post in this thread. Which you didn't because you can't be bothered...you would actually see I do not necessarilly agree with the health care plans and actually warned for the system in the US but that I know to little about the whole debate to make an informed decission.

Both Lucretia and NGNM85 make good arguments....though I have been more inclined to Lucretia's line. That is...untill you guys started to be complete ****s about it...twisting and taking out of context NGNM85's arguments....and you shouting everywhere for his banishment or restriction.

My position on the health care has not changed. I still have not seen viable and convincing evidence for a conclusive endorsement for either side. My position is on the point of voting as a way to make things suck less or making it a little bit better.



I'm not sure you've actually been reading the posts from Sadmafioso and this guy NGNM85. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29065)

I can not read sadmafioso's posts because he is on my ignore list.

I have been reading the posts of NGNM85...if that is his opinion than that is his opinion and I support his line of reasoning, in general, about strategic voting and pragmatism. This does not say I necessarilly agree with his position on the topic of the health care reforms.

My posts are independent of theirs.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is a forum for revolutionary socialists, not democratic voters. Perhaps you've had difficulty interpreting the web site domain name? You've yet to do anything but reproduce the standard lesser-of-two-evils "pragmatist" argument. We've heard this argument a thousand times. We reject it on the grounds that it results in commitment to the two party system in deed, and undermines attempts to organize outside of that orbit because of the mentality of allegiance to the two-party system that it engenders. If you aren't aware of our response to this argument, you haven't bothered to read this thread. Stop wasting our time by recapitulating your trite memes, and for the last time, beat it.

Well...we do not have a two party system and you hold the same position towards me. So basically your argument here is shit.

You are also ignoring that communist parties, socialist parties and revolutionary parties are increasingly in the last decades (90 years now in Holland) participating in the parliamentary democratic system. So again...your argument is thus that these are not real revolutionary parties since they commit into a parliamentary democracy in a captialist system....and that all members of such parties who vote for these parties do in fact not belong here as soon as they vote for them....since they are endorsing the system in doing so. Yeah...viable argument :thumbup1:

[Amphictyonis]

I was there. I got arrested with several broken bones and dislocated vertibrea. That is all you need to know.

Just like I have been shot, stabbed, tortured and beaten several times when I engaged in direct or other...more...hmm...involved...action. I don't fuck around.



I didn't know the ballot box was that dangerous? But seriously, the issue here isnt necessarily voting it's the mind frame generated by throwing our SUPPORT behind the democrat party machine in America out of some misplaced loyalty. Misplaced loyalty we see coming out in both the posters Sadmafioso and Numb3rs who claim they're not emotionally invested in the democrat party but, well, it's a lie. Perhaps you don't understand what it's like over here. There is no direct action AT ALL because of what I'm speaking about. My main point of contention isn't with you or any person who chooses to waste the day at the ballot box my issue is with people who defend things such as the Democrat health bill because they voted for a democrat. This isn't a good thread for people who aren't very familiar with the American system.

What illustrates my point isnt the fact Sadmafioso or Numb3rs will vote it's the fact they become emotionally invested with the candidates they vote for in so marginalizing the lefts efforts to form resistance to the policies the people they voted for enact. You see what I'm saying? My rudeness did admittedly spill over to you and I apologize because in reality it's meant for the other two posters, people who I in all sincerity see no reason to be posting here. I have no shame in saying that :) If I was a mod I'd restrict them and I'm sure many socialists on this site agree. So what? NGNM85 doesn't make any arguments because there is no socialist argument to justify the total privatization of healthcare. It's that simple. The only argument he can make is one from a liberal perspective. This isnt a liberal forum. Get it?

[Lucretia]

Well...we do not have a two party system and you hold the same position towards me. So basically your argument here is shit.

Well, I guess if we have the two-party system, we just have to support it, right? Just like we have to support capitalism because that's the current mode of production. :lol:


You are also ignoring that communist parties, socialist parties and revolutionary parties are increasingly in the last decades (90 years now in Holland) participating in the parliamentary democratic system. So again...your argument is thus that these are not real revolutionary parties since they commit into a parliamentary democracy in a captialist system....and that all members of such parties who vote for these parties do in fact not belong here as soon as they vote for them....since they are endorsing the system in doing so. Yeah...viable argument :thumbup1:Huh? I criticize voting for the two-party system because doing so entails casting a vote for either a Republican or a Democrat, which are not socialist parties and actively subvert socialist movements, and you respond by pointing out how my position is flawed because there are socialist parties engage in electoral politics around the world. What am I missing here?

[Lucretia]

Both Lucretia and NGNM85 make good arguments....though I have been more inclined to Lucretia's line. That is...untill you guys started to be complete ****s about it...twisting and taking out of context NGNM85's arguments....and you shouting everywhere for his banishment or restriction.

Excuse me? Where have I taken any of NGNM's arguments "out of context"? It's very simple. NGNM thinks that, because the democratic party is the channel through which reforms pass as they become institutionalized, that the democratic party is the source of the reforms. As a result, he thinks supporting the democratic party is "fighting for reforms." If pressed about where either the democratic or republican parties has been at the leading edge of a progressive issue, ahead of grassroots struggles, he won't be able to name them. This is because, as I noted, the source of all progressive reforms is democratic struggle by the people. The bourgeois parties simply co-opt these movements and try to mitigate them by institutionalizing as few of their demands as possible.

And no, calling for these people to be banished is not "being a ****." It's a recognition, borne from decades of experience, that attempting to discuss this issue in the present context will not yield productive results. It's just wasting people's time. If they want to go on about how great the democrats are, let them go to DailyKos or the Huffington Post.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, I guess if we have the two-party system, we just have to support it, right? Just like we have to support capitalism because that's the current mode of production. :lol:

Huh? I criticize voting for the two-party system because doing so entails casting a vote for either a Republican or a Democrat, which are not socialist parties and actively subvert socialist movements, and you respond by pointing out how my position is flawed because there are socialist parties engage in electoral politics around the world. What am I missing here?


I will requote your post here that you made towards me...I am NOT a citizen of the US...and I do NOT vote in a two party system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight20/20 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2016884#post2016884)
Yeah...you again are arguing mutual exclusivity here :rolleyes:

Now...I am pretty much done being nice here...with all your snide arrogant and o so subtile ad hominems. Offering blanket statements, shifting arguments, evasive arguments and hollow rethorics about "how you stand with those anarchists"

Were you there? I was. So STFU.

You are obviously being dense and insist on arguing again and again that its either "voting" or "protesting and working towards revolution". Get your head around the concept that this is not mutually exclusive...

We have heard your lesser of two evils, pragmatist arguments. We heard them from the time we were young. We reject them. Repeating them on a forum ostensibly dedicated to people who reject this argument is NOT going to convince us. It is going to waste our time and annoy us. Go away.

Nopw...if you would like to amend that statement...feel free...

[Lucretia]

I will requote your post here that you made towards me...I am NOT a citizen of the US...and I do NOT vote in a two party system.

Then my comments do not apply to your situation.

[PhoenixAsh]

I didn't know the ballot box was that dangerous?

It can be very, very vicious at times ;)



But seriously, the issue here isnt necessarily voting it's the mind frame generated by throwing our SUPPORT behind the democrat party machine in America out of some misplaced loyalty. Misplaced loyalty we see coming out in both the posters Sadmafioso and Numb3rs who claim they're not emotionally invested in the democrat party but, well, it's a lie.

I really didn't see that in NGNM85 posts or arguments. What I got from his posts is that he supports this health reform and that he makes an argument why he finds it better. I take no position on that argument one way or the other untill I get better informed about the topic. But I did see him argue that his vote is strategic...which I can accept as a viable argument in general.


Perhaps you don't understand what it's like over here.

I indeed do not have any first hand experience....so I indeed do not have the same level of emotive perception as people directly involved.


There is no direct action AT ALL because of what I'm speaking about.

I will have to take your word for that.



What illustrates my point isnt the fact Sadmafioso or Numb3rs will vote it's the fact they become emotionally invested with the candidates they vote for in so marginalizing the lefts efforts to form resistance to the policies the people they voted for enact. You see what I'm saying?

Yes...I see what you are saying. I can not read sadmafiosos posts since he is on my ignore list....so I can not comment on his posts.

I didn't see the emotional involvement with NGNM85.

In general I can say emotional involvement with any candidate than a socialist one and advocating for their policies in a wider sense (outside of the debtaing platform here) is indeed counter productive.


My rudeness did admittedly spill over to you and I apologize because in reality it's meant for the other two posters, people who I in all sincerity see no reason to be posting here. I have no shame in saying that :)

apology accepted



If I was a mod I'd restrict them and I'm sure many socialists on this site agree. So what? NGNM85 doesn't make any arguments because there is no socialist argument to justify the total privatization of healthcare. It's that simple. The only argument he can make is one from a liberal perspective. This isnt a liberal forum. Get it?

Yeah,...again...I can not really take a position on that. though in general I agree, as I posted, that privitisation is not a good thing.

I did see NGNM85 argue that he is in favor of another system which would not be realistically feasable...and as such weighted arguments of the effects on the larger scheme of things to make his decission. Wether that argument is viable or correct I can not assess but his arguments are IMO clinical.

[Jose Gracchus]

You're basically just restarting the conversation that has been dragging on across multiple pages. About a half dozen people, if not more, have already responded to the argument you're making here. Why ignore them and pretend you're offering up some novel, decisive argument about pragmatism? :rolleyes:

Very few people these days are raised to be rev leftists. Instead the revolutionary leftists who come here are already familiar with these arguments, have examined them, and rejected them. This is why liberals are usually blocked on this forum. They tend to just troll the board with LOTE arguments everybody is already familiar with, acting like they're providing some kind of profound intellectual breakthrough people just need to hear. In fact it's neither original nor breathtaking. But it is hurting the left.

Wow. That's a sheer lotta talk without being able to handle a damn thing. "Liberal" is what butt-hurt doctrinaire leftists call heretics. Sorry, what do you really think? Some tiny-ass left-wing confessional sect will undergo a magical phase transition from a tiny group of students and intellectuals and the odd-communist worker or union man to some mass party where votes for the party do not aid the most reactionary governments? Give me a break. Maurice Duverger is a leftist. If you really believe what you said, you'd just run crying to a mod, rather than quoting a post to merely to screech "heresy!" at it. Why does it in any principle make a difference in a swing state to not vote for the lesser evil? This is not Germany in the 1800s.

Furthermore, you're illiterate. My argument is different. I think the "Obama-brand Democrats are so much better than Republicans" argument is pretty weak. It think it implicitly is premised on the suggestion that rhetoric and party-loyalty are more guarantees of changing votes and policies than the movements of capital. However, the simple fact is that there is a non-zero difference between the Republicans and Democrats, no left-wing electoral option is available and is structurally excluded, and there is no such thing as a politically meaningful principled individual abstention.

What do you expect? We'll some how grind up from no votes to some little amount to a large amounts of votes when the electoral institutions in question offer no leverage or political gains to that electoral performance, in principle?

Vicious attacks on Democratic tactical votes (besides amusingly targeting most working people who vote) are based on no meaningful argument. It is purely appeals to slogans and theoretical abstractions. Third Periodism might be something worth talking about if you had the CPUSA of 1935. One of your guys' sects? Give me a fucking break.

EDIT: Missed the part where its because of "two party mentality" according to this genius. Yeah guys, Maurice Duverger and political science has never addressed this question, everything one need know on the question was dry by 1849, and better yet, the regressive electoral system: its all just a figment of workers' imagination. We just got to deprogram them to see the spiritual returns on voting for the sect!

If I lived in a PR or at least acceptably multi-party system, I'd definitely vote for left-wing parties. My bourgeois state's 18th C. Whig slave-owners' constitution, plus a bunch of statutes and case law, for all practical purposes exclude such electoral participation.

RevLefters' apparent definition of leftism: abject loyalty to the sect. And it remains any wonder, as Robin Hahnel put it, that the left has become accustomed and comfortable in its righteous isolation?

I challenge anyone: show me a shred of evidence that "principled" refusal to vote tactically to Democrats or lesser evils has any empirical impact on left-wing organizing? Duverger's Law explains why. All political currents are forced to coalesce into two permanent-coalition-esque broad parties of capital. If one wants to ask why there is no left-wing party, one cannot start where one does in the UK or Germany, bemoaning the fall of Labour or the SPD. No American workers' party has ever been able to breakout. In fact, in reaction to attempts to form left-wing opposition parties, much electoral and juridical barriers have been erected to their attempts.

[Lucretia]

I challenge anyone: show me a shred of evidence that "principled" refusal to vote tactically to Democrats or lesser evils has any empirical impact on left-wing organizing?

Empirical proof? Just look at the left in the United States since Obama was elected.

"The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda." http://www.counterpunch.org/letter12102010.html (See also http://www.usmarxisthumanists.org/articles/the-obama-effect-undermines-the-left/)

Of course all of this is the logical outcome of a mechanical LOTE mindset. If the primary purpose, or even an important focus, of your political activity is to defend the lesser of two evils from the worse evil, critiquing the lesser of two evils from the left no longer makes sense. Organizing protest movements that criticize the lesser evil no longer makes sense. What you then see is a timidity to advance a left agenda in the name of "pragmatism," and the acceptance rather than a challenge to the current political spectrum of "acceptable" ideas, freeing the spectrum to shift even more to the right. This has been explained repeatedly. People want to talk about grassroots organizing and electoral activity as if they are two entirely separate universes, as if your rationale in approaching one doesn't affect your activity in the other.

If you want a response to the rest of your lengthy post, just look through the posts earlier in this thread.

[DaringMehring]

Wow. That's a sheer lotta talk without being able to handle a damn thing. "Liberal" is what butt-hurt doctrinaire leftists call heretics. Sorry, what do you really think? Some tiny-ass left-wing confessional sect will undergo a magical phase transition from a tiny group of students and intellectuals and the odd-communist worker or union man to some mass party where votes for the party do not aid the most reactionary governments? Give me a break. Maurice Duverger is a leftist. If you really believe what you said, you'd just run crying to a mod, rather than quoting a post to merely to screech "heresy!" at it. Why does it in any principle make a difference in a swing state to not vote for the lesser evil? This is not Germany in the 1800s.

Furthermore, you're illiterate. My argument is different. I think the "Obama-brand Democrats are so much better than Republicans" argument is pretty weak. It think it implicitly is premised on the suggestion that rhetoric and party-loyalty are more guarantees of changing votes and policies than the movements of capital. However, the simple fact is that there is a non-zero difference between the Republicans and Democrats, no left-wing electoral option is available and is structurally excluded, and there is no such thing as a politically meaningful principled individual abstention.

What do you expect? We'll some how grind up from no votes to some little amount to a large amounts of votes when the electoral institutions in question offer no leverage or political gains to that electoral performance, in principle?

Vicious attacks on Democratic tactical votes (besides amusingly targeting most working people who vote) are based on no meaningful argument. It is purely appeals to slogans and theoretical abstractions. Third Periodism might be something worth talking about if you had the CPUSA of 1935. One of your guys' sects? Give me a fucking break.

EDIT: Missed the part where its because of "two party mentality" according to this genius. Yeah guys, Maurice Duverger and political science has never addressed this question, everything one need know on the question was dry by 1849, and better yet, the regressive electoral system: its all just a figment of workers' imagination. We just got to deprogram them to see the spiritual returns on voting for the sect!

If I lived in a PR or at least acceptably multi-party system, I'd definitely vote for left-wing parties. My bourgeois state's 18th C. Whig slave-owners' constitution, plus a bunch of statutes and case law, for all practical purposes exclude such electoral participation.

RevLefters' apparent definition of leftism: abject loyalty to the sect. And it remains any wonder, as Robin Hahnel put it, that the left has become accustomed and comfortable in its righteous isolation?

I challenge anyone: show me a shred of evidence that "principled" refusal to vote tactically to Democrats or lesser evils has any empirical impact on left-wing organizing? Duverger's Law explains why. All political currents are forced to coalesce into two permanent-coalition-esque broad parties of capital. If one wants to ask why there is no left-wing party, one cannot start where one does in the UK or Germany, bemoaning the fall of Labour or the SPD. No American workers' party has ever been able to breakout. In fact, in reaction to attempts to form left-wing opposition parties, much electoral and juridical barriers have been erected to their attempts.

1 - You limit your thinking to the bourgeois electoral sphere. Politics does not equal bourgeois elections. The revolution will not be won by the ballot box.

2 - Your fixation on the sect is bizarre. You set up a false dichotomy between a small, insular, militant group, and dissolving politically into the Democratic Party.

3 - You are wrong that no American workers' party has ever been able to "breakout." The SP and the CP both have played big historical roles. Not getting elected to the Presidency doesn't mean you don't play an important role.

4 - Getting lecture on how to politically organize from a Chomsky-ist libertarian socialist is rich. That tendency is so far below communism & socialism in achievement, in this country and world wide, that it hardly bears notice by comparison.

5 - The "principled refusal" to vote Democratic, has been a feature of such parties as the SP of Eugene Debs, the CP that played a big role in the SF general strike, and abroad -- of Parties including the early Bolsheviks.

On the other hand, acceding to electoral support of Democrats, we have the DSA (eventually dissolved), the post-popular-front CPUSA (from leading left organizer, to insignificant wreck), the Stalinist CPs of Europe.

There is a clear revolutionary divide.

[Jose Gracchus]

Translation: My monastic rituals require that I engage in collective, broadly unorganized, purely symbolic abstention from voting. In some abstract fashion, somehow this will make some meaningful impact on whether workers go left or not.

[Jose Gracchus]

Empirical proof? Just look at the left in the United States since Obama was elected.

"The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda." http://www.counterpunch.org/letter12102010.html (See also http://www.usmarxisthumanists.org/articles/the-obama-effect-undermines-the-left/)

Your point being? Workers would be better off if McCain had won? This is simply the result of most of those protest movements being more and more organizationally and man-hour dependent on liberal "progressive" outfits like MoveOn.org, which, deprived of a motivation, pulled out. This has nothing to do with people signing on to a monastic program of vote abstention.

You have a real funny idea of the word "proof" and "empirical".


Of course all of this is the logical outcome of a mechanical LOTE mindset. If the primary purpose, or even an important focus, of your political activity is to defend the lesser of two evils from the worse evil, critiquing the lesser of two evils from the left no longer makes sense.

Saying that monastic abstention or obedience to the sect have only metaphysical and emotional benefits only to offer workers, and they can continue (like me) to do whatever political activity they want, without carrying water for Obama. I don't know what NGNM thinks is right. I don't have a problem talking shit about Obama and if he is the less bad option of the two possibilities who will be President no matter what, yeah, I don't have a problem pushing the button. If I'm in a solid red or blue state, I'll vote for whomever I feel. I'm not advocating stumping for the asshole. I'm saying that until organizational fronts have bore fruit and given us alternatives, there's nothing wrong with keeping worst out.

The Left is not a real option - AT THE BALLOT BOX - to effect outcomes on the table right now. Period.

Of course there are other things to do but bourgeois electoralism. I agree those are the MORE IMPORTANT AND URGENT THINGS. But nothing stops you from doing those things, and then pressing the button to keep the worst out if it really matter or there's no better alternative. I may throw up a little in my mouth, but given the structure of the electoral system, they'll claim "mandates" - obviously fictitious - just the same.

I'm not losing sleep over it.

[synthesis]

The Left is not a real option - AT THE BALLOT BOX - to effect outcomes on the table right now. Period.

The ballot box is not a real option to affect outcomes on the table, right now or any time in the foreseeable future.


Translation: My monastic rituals require that I engage in collective, broadly unorganized, purely symbolic abstention from voting. In some abstract fashion, somehow this will make some meaningful impact on whether workers go left or not.


Saying that monastic abstention or obedience to the sect have only metaphysical and emotional benefits only to offer workers, and they can continue (like me) to do whatever political activity they want, without carrying water for Obama. I don't know what NGNM thinks is right. I don't have a problem talking shit about Obama and if he is the less bad option of the two possibilities who will be President no matter what, yeah, I don't have a problem pushing the button.

There is a difference between people voting in private and people advocating that others vote for their own interests. You might not see the point in rejecting bourgeois elections on general principle, but if you're thinking long-term, the right principles are pragmatic.

[PhoenixAsh]

The ballot box is not a real option to affect outcomes on the table, right now or any time in the foreseeable future.

That all depends on what what you see as "affect".

I think a more appropriate analogy is that it would not affect the table being used....or more precise...what papers are being brought to the table. It does however affect which of the papers on the table is going to be used.


There is a difference between people voting in private and people advocating that others vote for their own interests. You might not see the point in rejecting bourgeois elections on general principle, but if you're thinking long-term, the right principles are pragmatic.

Advocacy of the system, which nobody here does, is directly averse to grassroot movements while it is counter revolutionary. Advocacy of the practive of pragmatism in lieu of a viable alternative whilst working towards that alternative however, isn't.



There is an increasing tendency here in Holland not to vote (assumed from the increasing "vote or..." campaigns in the US that is also a "problem" in the US) ....saying it will not affect the system at all and nothing will change regardless.

This however has never, ever, ever fueled a revolutionary movement. Instead it has opened the door for extremism and populism on the right side to rear its ugly head. Never in modern post war Netherlands history has a revolutionary movement gained momentum from the rejection of the ballot boxes.

Disillusionment, however justified, is always benefitting the easilly digested populist rethorics on the rightwing.

Voting on the other hand, to be fair, has also never ever brought structural change and does not have a correcting effect on party policy. The last can only be established by broad infiltration into a party. which I think is counter productive to a revolutionary movement.

[Lucretia]

Your point being? Workers would be better off if McCain had won? This is simply the result of most of those protest movements being more and more organizationally and man-hour dependent on liberal "progressive" outfits like MoveOn.org, which, deprived of a motivation, pulled out. This has nothing to do with people signing on to a monastic program of vote abstention.

Um, my point being that you asked for evidence of whether having a democratic president or supporting democrats has an effect on left political movements. I provided that evidence, and your response is one of confusion?


You have a real funny idea of the word "proof" and "empirical".Hardly. If you were expecting me to waste my time constructing an animated chart listing groups that are "left," showing their membership numbers decrease, or their activities lessen over the past two years, you are clearly demanding a level of proof so high that you are intentionally trying to disqualify all evidence and just declare victory by default. Can you name a single left movement in the United States that has grown and become more effective since January 2009?


Saying that monastic abstention or obedience to the sect have only metaphysical and emotional benefits only to offer workers, and they can continue (like me) to do whatever political activity they want, without carrying water for Obama.Who is saying that you have to do anything? My point was that if a person supports Obama on the basis that it's more important to save the workers from the worst option, then that person is operating in a mindset that makes grassroots activism critical of the lesser evil totally unlikely, which effectively suppresses the left and fastens in place the left-most boundary of the political spectrum while allowing it to drift further and further to the right (which is exactly what has happened in the past 30 years, when most leftists have drifted to the democratic party). A grassroots left afraid to criticize people in power, out of fear that it might hurt the lesser evil's chance of beating the greater evil in the next election, is not helping workers.


The Left is not a real option - AT THE BALLOT BOX - to effect outcomes on the table right now. Period.The above mindset is exactly what I was referring to when I expressed earlier that some participants in this thread think that the electoral sphere and the grassroots sphere of politics exist in separate universes. In this little fictional world of abstraction you created, a die-hard leftist is going to vote for Obama one day, then the next day undermine his presidency, his authority, and his popularity, by protesting against him on the streets and accusing him of being a puppet of capital. Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You can claim all you want to how it is possible, but all we have to do is to look at the state of left protest in this country right now. Just look at it and honestly assess its current state in relation to where it was in 2007 and 2008. Do you honestly think it's stronger or even as strong? This suggests that while it is logically possible in the abstract, it just does NOT happen in the real world. I would argue it doesn't happen in the real world for the reason I suggested, which is that leftists voting for Obama tend to do so with a rationale that also dissuades them from direct action at least implicitly critical of the man and the party they supported.

[Jose Gracchus]

Um, my point being that you asked for evidence of whether having a democratic president or supporting democrats has an effect on left political movements. I provided that evidence, and your response is one of confusion?

No, you're an idiot. Democratic victories only had an effect on "left" political movements in this case because the left became totally dependent on the Democratic allies in those movements. Now I think that's because of stupidity. Organizing should stress two-party independence at all times. I totally agree on that, that way we don't get in the habit of thinking MoveOn.org drones are real comrades, and the real work gets put in to make them comrades. That has nothing to do with whether or not workers in swing states swallow the bile and vote tactically.

Again, the only logical possibility allowed by your response is you think McCain's victory would be preferable...ostensibly to keep Democrats playing leftists because its the GOP's war, austerity, etc. ad nauseum?

To me, the idea that tactical voting in the extremely 'Duvergerist' electoral system of the U.S. is even in the top 30 of substantively meaningful factors for the state of the left today, and historically, is utterly beneath contempt. It is magical thinking, based on abstract hard-line rules elevated above reality.


Hardly. If you were expecting me to waste my time constructing an animated chart listing groups that are "left," showing their membership numbers decrease, or their activities lessen over the past two years, you are clearly demanding a level of proof so high that you are intentionally trying to disqualify all evidence and just declare victory by default. Can you name a single left movement in the United States that has grown and become more effective since January 2009?

What kind of leftists and how good of groups were these people if they were accepting Democrats-in-leftists'-clothing? I'm simply disputing the idea that somehow your point (withhold voting at all costs, or, unorganized symbolic abstention) has any substantive political value. I think Leftists abstain to make themselves feel better. It is not a major factor on things.

Again, unless you're arguing workers or Leftists should tactically abstain with the hope Republicans win, because apparently that's the variable on which your sect sinks or swims, keeping its fair-weather, Democrats-in-fact membership up. I don't even know what to say to that kind of reasoning, given how utterly on its face preposterous it is.

Its really odd you go on these shrieking purist tirades toward NGNM, others, squeal like a stuck pig about "liberalism". (Can you give me an operative definition, or are you simply using it like Orwell said the word fascism has now been degraded: "Something not desirable". Pejorative shit-talking is not arguing.) Yet it is you who apparently thinks that Republicans ought to win to keep really existing opportunist liberals, showing up to marches with the left. If the problem is "Obama wins, liberals leave my rallies", you're essentially claiming the above.


Who is saying that you have to do anything? My point was that if a person supports Obama on the basis that it's more important to save the workers from the worst option, then that person is operating in a mindset that makes grassroots activism critical of the lesser evil totally unlikely, which effectively suppresses the left and fastens in place the left-most boundary of the political spectrum while allowing it to drift further and further to the right (which is exactly what has happened in the past 30 years, when most leftists have drifted to the democratic party). A grassroots left afraid to criticize people in power, out of fear that it might hurt the lesser evil's chance of beating the greater evil in the next election, is not helping workers.

Oh, I see. Its spreading this anti-left mindset. Now there's some brilliant materialism there. :rolleyes: That's just absurd. The Left is doing bad because the constituencies of the left are being assaulted. Maybe when unions are back on their feet, workers are wildcat striking, and groups are at all times highs, you could claim with a straight face too much talk of tactical voting is demoralizing or something. But if you think that a "LOTE mindset" is anything near a substantive contributor to the Left's current state, you're just naive and clueless. Again, pointing that out as a problem is logically equivalent to claiming that if only everyone adopted your monastic lifestyle choices, then somehow this would palpably move forward class struggles. It wouldn't. I can't believe it all comes down to this, it is this infectious mindset! If only people lost it, we'd have revolution!!!!

What is to be gained from non-participation? What is to be gained from individual abstention in practice? I mean I just think it is absurd this kind of an approach to voting could be entertained as a mass strategy. Maybe once you have organizational figures you could play with mass abstentions or spoiling campaigns, or voting symbolically for alternative candidacies.


The above mindset is exactly what I was referring to when I expressed earlier that some participants in this thread think that the electoral sphere and the grassroots sphere of politics exist in separate universes. In this little fictional world of abstraction you created, a die-hard leftist is going to vote for Obama one day, then the next day undermine his presidency, his authority, and his popularity, by protesting against him on the streets and accusing him of being a puppet of capital.

I do exactly that. I mean, you're being completely obtuse. If we'd gotten the Employee Free Choice Act passed - and that would've been entirely an achievement of grassroots, and union organizing - it would still be pressured upon and executed by the Democratic Party. But as some on in the Deep South, I can tell you it would have been nice to make it easier to organize unions.

What's incoherent is the wooden call by most leftist to "pressure" for reforms to strengthen the working class. Where will all reforms in the foreseeable future ultimately be pressured upon? The Republicans? Give me a break. Its absurd to call on one hand to pressure for reforms and to give the more viscerally anti-union candidate help by arguing for abstentions.


Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You can claim all you want to how it is possible, but all we have to do is to look at the state of left protest in this country right now. Just look at it and honestly assess its current state in relation to where it was in 2007 and 2008. Do you honestly think it's stronger or even as strong?

It means you thought Obama Democrats were leftists. That's not my problem, and does nothing for your "argument."

You're right, if only monastic abstentionism had been at the core of participating leftists in 07-08 we would have kept those fair-weathers and have some great opposition in the streets to Obama. Give me a break.


This suggests that while it is logically possible in the abstract, it just does NOT happen in the real world. I would argue it doesn't happen in the real world for the reason I suggested, which is that leftists voting for Obama tend to do so with a rationale that also dissuades them from direct action at least implicitly critical of the man and the party they supported.

So implicitly things would be better if McCain won, thus keeping the Obama Democrats playing leftists at our rallies.

You thought Obama Democrats were leftists. That's not my problem, and does nothing for your "argument."

[Jose Gracchus]

There is a difference between people voting in private and people advocating that others vote for their own interests. You might not see the point in rejecting bourgeois elections on general principle, but if you're thinking long-term, the right principles are pragmatic.

I won't lift a finger to stump or help Democrats. I think people should see it for two wings of the business party, they should be told there is a wealth of evidence to back this up (Thomas Ferguson's work). That's entirely different from holding a theological-esque hardline on individual abstention in the deluded notion that this is at all a significant factor in left organizing: it isn't. If you think that's the major problem, well you just do not live in the same world as most workers. My goal is to expand the scope of possibility both inside and outside the electoral arena - the streets, unions, workplaces, etc. - if we can break the Democratic Party up and demand electoral reforms, I think we should consider the possibility that it is acceptable for left-wing organizations to contest the electoral arena (with the caveat clearly transformative change cannot be achieved this manner). But that day isn't today. In the meantime, 99.999% of my work goes into the former, and if someone privately asks me what I think, I tell them I swallow my vomit and press the less-bad choice if that's the only choice I'm given. If not, I do what I feel like.

Of course this goes for the election of our king...I mean President more than other things. Especially in local politics, I think serious working-class alternatives should be sought - right fucking now, while the Democrats are revealed increasingly for what they really are. I'm not saying this shit in a vacuum, we have serious possibilities, in the next decade or two, to try to work to build an independent face of American labor, and to break the control the Democrats have other them. We're trying to run a union man with the support of SDS for city commission, on an explicitly pro-worker platform. I think that's worth my time, along with protesting, organizing, and agitating. Carrying an Obama sign, making calls, telling people he's anything other than the more moderate Abuser of the Workers - not for me. Can't speak for others.

[Lucretia]

No, you're an idiot. Democratic victories only had an effect on "left" political movements in this case because the left became totally dependent on the Democratic allies in those movements. Now I think that's because of stupidity. Organizing should stress two-party independence at all times. I totally agree on that, that way we don't get in the habit of thinking MoveOn.org drones are real comrades, and the real work gets put in to make them comrades. That has nothing to do with whether or not workers in swing states swallow the bile and vote tactically.

Yes, try expressing independence from the two parties while at the same time helping members of one of those parties assume political power because of the benefits they will provide for workers. Who's the idiot here?


Again, the only logical possibility allowed by your response is you think McCain's victory would be preferable...ostensibly to keep Democrats playing leftists because its the GOP's war, austerity, etc. ad nauseum?I've already addressed the argumentum ad absurdum in an earlier response to Hindsight. You are conflating preference for substantive policies, abstracted from their political context, with the act of supporting a politician.


What kind of leftists and how good of groups were these people if they were accepting Democrats-in-leftists'-clothing?Here's what's hilarious about your position. You ask for an example of where the election of a democratic president actually suppressed left grassroots political organizing. I provide it, then you respond by saying that those grassroots activists were just democrats. Yeah, they effectively became democrats by adopting the lesser of two evils mentality. This is precisely my point, and why I oppose LOTE reasoning. It takes potential recruits to left groups, people who are fooled by the democrats' progressive-sounding rhetoric into believing the democrats are something other than what they are, and it weds them to the bourgeois party instead of to revolutionary politics. What left did you have in mind when you asked whether the election of Obama hurt the left? The CPUSA? Most marxian socialist groups are so small, so filled with hard core supporters, that their numbers are not likely to shrink below a certain threshold. What is clear is that they haven't grown because most of their potential allies or new members have cast their lot with the democrats.


I'm simply disputing the idea that somehow your point (withhold voting at all costs, or, unorganized symbolic abstention) has any substantive political value. I think Leftists abstain to make themselves feel better. It is not a major factor on things.Where did I say that my position is withholding my vote at all costs? Are you debating me, or voices in your head?


Its really odd you go on these shrieking purist tirades toward NGNM, others, squeal like a stuck pig about "liberalism".My approach is more pragmatic and recognizes the reality of the situation -- that adopting the LOTE mindset in the voting booth leads to diminished returns overall because of a reduced likelihood of grassroots political action against the bourgeois parties. There is nothing purist or abstract about this. The person here trying to cram this discussion into abstract, rarefied categories is you, with your insistence that we analyze the benefits of voting for a particular candidate by looking only at the abstract policy positions of those candidates while paying no attention to what the act of supporting those candidates has on leftists.

I am also still waiting to hear an answer to my question: where are all these emboldened, flourishing leftist groups now that Obama is in power?

[Jose Gracchus]

Yes, try expressing independence from the two parties while at the same time helping members of one of those parties assume political power because of the benefits they will provide for workers. Who's the idiot here?

They will assume power anyway. To discuss something else pretends we have the capacity to go out and block the bourgeois political apparatus: we don't right now.

What does "expressing independence" mean? You seem to be congentially incapable of realizing that this is just a slogan, without any argument behind it to justify it. My vote is not some "free" thing I can do with as I please. The choices are institutionally limited to 1 of 2 in most circumstances. Non-participation is unprincipled self-indulgence (oh noes! I don't want my vote to go to the bourgeois! - that shit does nothing for workers) and you've shown no evidence this would be the substantial factor you repeatedly claim it is.


I've already addressed the argumentum ad absurdum in an earlier response to Hindsight. You are conflating preference for substantive policies, abstracted from their political context, with the act of supporting a politician.

And you're acting like we're equally going to be able to agitate or demand reforms regardless of who got into the White House, that's rightfully called idiotic.


Here's what's hilarious about your position. You ask for an example of where the election of a democratic president actually suppressed left grassroots political organizing. I provide it, then you respond by saying that those grassroots activists were just democrats. Yeah, they effectively became democrats by adopting the lesser of two evils mentality. This is precisely my point, and why I oppose LOTE reasoning. It takes potential recruits to left groups, people who are fooled by the democrats' progressive-sounding rhetoric into believing the democrats are something other than what they are, and it weds them to the bourgeois party instead of to revolutionary politics. What left did you have in mind when you asked whether the election of Obama hurt the left? The CPUSA? Most marxian socialist groups are so small, so filled with hard core supporters, that their numbers are not likely to shrink below a certain threshold. What is clear is that they haven't grown because most of their potential allies or new members have cast their lot with the democrats.

Uh, or they were always fundamentally Democrats and never joined the Left. Guess that's unthinkable to you. Again, you think the GOP should win so fewer fair weather people will leave. That's an unavoidable logical outcome of your claim.

Where are the "revolutionary politics" in the U.S.? I get a job welding tomorrow tomorrow, what should I say to back up your position to workers without getting laughed out?

The fact is these amazing rallies yadda yadda was because of an alliance of convenience against Bushism by leftists and MoveOn.org types. That had inevitable drawbacks - most notably the Democrats withdraw their activists when they win. You think that alliance should be lost - is to be avoided at all costs (therefore we should hope the GOP wins). Those groups weren't on our side of the barricades, as should be obvious.

If you really think your abstentionist rhetoric MAKES OR BREAKS left-wing activism prior to 2008, you really are an idiot living in some abstraction somewhere.


Where did I say that my position is withholding my vote at all costs? Are you debating me, or voices in your head?

Who should we vote for? Tiny sects then?


My approach is more pragmatic and recognizes the reality of the situation -- that adopting the LOTE mindset in the voting booth leads to diminished returns overall because of a reduced likelihood of grassroots political action against the bourgeois parties.

What "mindset" should be adopted? On what principles? What do you expect to happen if you get your way?

Again here comes the childish idea that it is insufficient purism and isolationism expressed rhetorically by leftists which is a make-or-break factor. That's ridiculous. I can't believe anyone thinks seriously if only we maintained uniform hardlines about not voting for either of the two-parties (which is electorally identical in outcome to rank abstention outside of a well-organized electoral alternative), that maybe we'd have all these MoveOn.org people struggling against Obama. I'm sorry, but that's not why people are seduced by CHANGE! rhetoric.


There is nothing purist or abstract about this. The person here trying to cram this discussion into abstract, rarefied categories is you, with your insistence that we analyze the benefits of voting for a particular candidate by looking only at the abstract policy positions of those candidates while paying no attention to what the act of supporting those candidates has on leftists.

LOL. IF YOU TACTICALLY VOTE IT WILL REARRANGE YOUR CORTEX AND MAKE YOU INCAPABLE OF OBAMA OPPOSITION!

This is idiotic. There's no physical reason why your contention should be true. Why can't I make a 5 minute LOTE decision, and spend the rest of my political activities in opposition to bourgeois politics? Maybe your sect's comrades are too stupid or simpleminded to do that, but me and my friends seem to be just fine.

I'm not Baracking the Vote here, which is what you're saying. I'm saying quasi-religious stances on voting have no substantive impact. Spending time and money building electoral infrastructure and organizational support for bourgeois politicians is a grave error. Good thing I advocate 100% of that activist creativity and labor should be invested in categorically politically independent organization.


I am also still waiting to hear an answer to my question: where are all these emboldened, flourishing leftist groups now that Obama is in power?

Again, so McCain should have won so your MoveOn.org friends would show up to protesting "The GOP's War"?

[Lucretia]

They will assume power anyway. To discuss something else pretends we have the capacity to go out and block the bourgeois political apparatus: we don't right now.

What does "expressing independence" mean? You seem to be congentially incapable of realizing that this is just a slogan, without any argument behind it to justify it. My vote is not some "free" thing I can do with as I please. The choices are institutionally limited to 1 of 2 in most circumstances. Non-participation is unprincipled self-indulgence (oh noes! I don't want my vote to go to the bourgeois! - that shit does nothing for workers) and you've shown no evidence this would be the substantial factor you repeatedly claim it is.



And you're acting like we're equally going to be able to agitate or demand reforms regardless of who got into the White House, that's rightfully called idiotic.



Uh, or they were always fundamentally Democrats and never joined the Left. Guess that's unthinkable to you. Again, you think the GOP should win so fewer fair weather people will leave. That's an unavoidable logical outcome of your claim.

Where are the "revolutionary politics" in the U.S.? I get a job welding tomorrow tomorrow, what should I say to back up your position to workers without getting laughed out?

The fact is these amazing rallies yadda yadda was because of an alliance of convenience against Bushism by leftists and MoveOn.org types. That had inevitable drawbacks - most notably the Democrats withdraw their activists when they win. You think that alliance should be lost - is to be avoided at all costs (therefore we should hope the GOP wins). Those groups weren't on our side of the barricades, as should be obvious.

If you really think your abstentionist rhetoric MAKES OR BREAKS left-wing activism prior to 2008, you really are an idiot living in some abstraction somewhere.



Who should we vote for? Tiny sects then?



What "mindset" should be adopted? On what principles? What do you expect to happen if you get your way?

Again here comes the childish idea that it is insufficient purism and isolationism expressed rhetorically by leftists which is a make-or-break factor. That's ridiculous. I can't believe anyone thinks seriously if only we maintained uniform hardlines about not voting for either of the two-parties (which is electorally identical in outcome to rank abstention outside of a well-organized electoral alternative), that maybe we'd have all these MoveOn.org people struggling against Obama. I'm sorry, but that's not why people are seduced by CHANGE! rhetoric.



LOL. IF YOU TACTICALLY VOTE IT WILL REARRANGE YOUR CORTEX AND MAKE YOU INCAPABLE OF OBAMA OPPOSITION!

This is idiotic. There's no physical reason why your contention should be true. Why can't I make a 5 minute LOTE decision, and spend the rest of my political activities in opposition to bourgeois politics? Maybe your sect's comrades are too stupid or simpleminded to do that, but me and my friends seem to be just fine.

I'm not Baracking the Vote here, which is what you're saying. I'm saying quasi-religious stances on voting have no substantive impact. Spending time and money building electoral infrastructure and organizational support for bourgeois politicians is a grave error. Good thing I advocate 100% of that activist creativity and labor should be invested in categorically politically independent organization.



Again, so McCain should have won so your MoveOn.org friends would show up to protesting "The GOP's War"?


I havent the time to engage in these petty and excruciatingly lowbrow exchanges with you. Your logic is unbelievably sloppy, in that you claim these left groups are populated by democrats, but then provide no other evidence for this assertion than the fact that they supported Obama. By this criteria, you are a democrat. The fact that they have lessened their grassroots activism is a sign that, whether they identify as democrats or not, they tailor their grassroots activism around not wanting to hurt a person who they believe is benefiting workers. They think Obama is a person worth supporting, just as you do. You cannot respond to this breathtaking simple yet correct analysis, so you resort to name calling ("purist," "idiot," etc.).

And you refuse to answer a basic question: if supporting Obama does not necessarily hurt left groups, why have they been hurt, almost totally silenced, a non-factor, in the past two years? You ask for evidence, then when provided evidence, just ignore it. This, along with the childish insults, shows you are here just to scream "I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!" with your fingers plugged firmly into your ears rather than to have a good-faith exchange on these issues.