Leftist Convert from the Pacific Northwest of the USA

[B5C]

Hello, I am from Northwest Washington. The last home of pure left in the United States. Even though the establishment blocks our policies.

I consider myself as an Social Democrat.

Economy:
I do not believe the state should not have complete control of industry. Absolute power brings in absolute corruption.
Workers of the company should own 50% of the company. The workers should have a say how the company works and not be a tool.
Government support of co-ops.

How to transform into a better society?
We need (The United States) to gradually transform into a fairer society. The United States can not transform forcefully into a Nordic model or a Welfare model. We need to take our time because a good portion of the population is stuck with the red scare. (you can thank Glen Beck) We need to educate the American population of Social Democracy and other forms of leftist style economic systems. Maybe in 10 or 20 years we can finally get universal healthcare for all.

Foreign Policy
Promote Pacifism, we still need an Army to protect our borders. Never start wars or be aggressive. We are a community of nations sharing one planet. We have to work together and not attacking the weakest nation.

US Troops need to removed from every nation with the exception of UN approved peacekeeping forces. United States should not be an Empire. Yet, we are stuck with one.

About two years ago, I was an (American) Conservative in the style of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Yet life events in the past two years showed me the reality of this life. Also the Tea Party has shown me how radical they were changing the Republican Party. We live in a era of suffering. Why should people suffer when we have the means to help end suffering? This year I officially signed up with the US Democratic Party (Only reason is because 3rd parties does not work in our system.) Also I've came out of the closet and announced that I am an Atheist. I also converted too Buddhism, so you can technically call me an Atheist/Buddhist.

[#FF0000]

Welcome!


We need (The United States) to gradually transform into a fairer society. The United States can not transform forcefully into a Nordic model or a Welfare model. We need to take our time because a good portion of the population is stuck with the red scare. (you can thank Glen Beck) We need to educate the American population of Social Democracy and other forms of leftist style economic systems. Maybe in 10 or 20 years we can finally get universal healthcare for all.So whenabouts would we be doing away with the capitalist mode of production? :lol:

[9]

we still need an Army to protect [the] borders.

Why?

[progressive_lefty]

Welcome.

I think revleft could do with some social democrats!

[Nolan]

Welcome.

To add to what Artist said, the revolutionary left no matter what tendency aims to do away with private property and market economies. Where and how does social democracy accomplish this? Or better, how do you reconcile the capitalist state with class struggle?

You lay out your positions and you don't share this with the left. I believe you are a cappie, albeit a progressive one firmly rooted in the social justice part of liberalism rather than the usual individualism.

I hope you have fun and learn something from this little community of ours.

[B5C]

Why?

Do I mean militaristization of the border? No

It is the government's responsibly to protect it's people. We don't need a military for the offensive, but the defensive. This is why I said military to protect the boarders.


Welcome.

To add to what Artist said, the revolutionary left no matter what tendency aims to do away with private property and market economies. Where and how does social democracy accomplish this? Or better, how do you reconcile the capitalist state with class struggle?

You lay out your positions and you don't share this with the left. I believe you are a cappie, albeit a progressive one firmly rooted in the social justice part of liberalism rather than the usual individualism.

I hope you have fun and learn something from this little community of ours.


Well I believe Socialism and Communism can happen, but not in our life time. A social democracy is a good starting point to gradually turn Socialist and then Communist and keeping a democracy.

The currently the states who claim Socialist or Communist are mostly authoritarian. Like the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. How do those nations became an authoritarian? Because absolute power brings in absolute corruption.

As for class struggle. We need to have the government make it fairer for all classes. As of now the US government is only supporting one class. The mega Rich. Why? The major rich buy our representatives. We have to elect people who will support their principles lie the ONLY official Social Democrat in the Senate, Bernie Sanders.

In the United States, I would be considered a revolutionary leftist. The American term of left is quite different than most parts of the world. Even though Social dems are considered centered-left. In the United States, we would be considered left, Socialist hard leftist, and Communist as extreme leftistist.

[B5C]

I am just curious. How many posts are required before all my posts need to stop being approved?

[#FF0000]

About 10, I think. Keep in mind posts in the introduction and chit-chat sections don't count.

[#FF0000]

The currently the states who claim Socialist or Communist are mostly authoritarian. Like the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. How do those nations became an authoritarian? Because absolute power brings in absolute corruption.

Very few people would say that these are great examples of socialism. Generally, people only "critically" support these countries. Then there are others, like the Left Communists who see these places as state-capitalist countries with leadership that represent the left-wing of capital, so.

[Nolan]

On a related note, how is Venezuela any sort of dictatorship whatsoever?

[B5C]

On a related note, how is Venezuela any sort of dictatorship whatsoever?

I didn't say dictatorship, but authoritarian. Chavez is not an offically a dictator yet, but the way things are going. He may become one.

I wish more states have term limits.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

On a related note, how is Venezuela any sort of dictatorship whatsoever?

I was wondering tha as well. Chavez has had something like fifteen elections since he became President.

[Nolan]

I didn't say dictatorship, but authoritarian. Chavez is not an offically a dictator yet, but the way things are going. He may become one.

I wish more states have term limits.

Chavez has won every election since becoming president in elections declared free and fair by outside observers. The PSUV as a whole and its allies have also done spectacularly. By the standards of bourgeois democracy "authoritarian" Chavez is golden.

Now being of a Venezuelan-American background myself, I'd politely ask you to stop repeating such drivel as you would find on FOX or the Miami Herald. It's the number two reason no one takes social democrats seriously here.

[B5C]

Chavez has won every election since becoming president in elections declared free and fair by outside observers. The PSUV as a whole and its allies have also done spectacularly. By the standards of bourgeois democracy "authoritarian" Chavez is golden.

Now being of a Venezuelan-American background myself, I'd politely ask you to stop repeating such drivel as you would find on FOX or the Miami Herald. It's the number two reason no one takes social democrats seriously here.

I just don't trust unlimited elections. A republic is better with term limits, so corruption does not happen. I love Franklin D. Roosevelt, but even he has to have limits. Also what prevents Chavez asking his government for a life time position. Do you really want leaders to become like Caesar?

Also note Saddam was elected since the 1970s and Mubarak was elected since the 1980s.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I just don't trust unlimited elections. A republic is better with term limits, so corruption does not happen. I love Franklin D. Roosevelt, but even he has to have limits. Also what prevents Chavez asking his government for a life time position. Do you really want leaders to become like Caesar?

Also note Saddam was elected since the 1970s and Mubarak was elected since the 1980s.

BIG difference there. Chavez has had like fifteen elections in 12 years and has even lost some of the referendums, but EVERY SINGLE ONE was ruled free-and-fair by the international community. In contrast, Saddam and Mubarak never had opposition and ran military governments which controlled a police state.

[B5C]

BIG difference there. Chavez has had like fifteen elections in 12 years and has even lost some of the referendums, but EVERY SINGLE ONE was ruled free-and-fair by the international community. In contrast, Saddam and Mubarak never had opposition and ran military governments which controlled a police state.

Manuel Rosales was charged for "corruption" and had to flee the state. He was granted political asylum in Peru.

Francisco Arias Cárdenas contested the election.

Also the government has given Chavez the right to rule by decree. How does that protect the republic?

Unlimited terms
rule by decree
Created his own police force. Policía Nacional Bolivariana

I opposed the US sponsored coup against him.

I can see Chavez sticking around for life and by like the other dictators like in the middle east.

[Nolan]

Typical liberal. Take everything anything any reactionary says at face value, but of course that doesn't apply to progressive leaders and movements. In this case, outside observers declared the elections fair.

Not that I would give a fuck if they weren't.

Mods, why no restriction?

[#FF0000]

it seems like op thinks the only difference between social democracy and legit marxist socialism is authoritarianism.

why is that?

[khad]

I consider myself as an Social Democrat.
Social Democrats are restricted. That's the rule around here.

[Imposter Marxist]

Like Capitalism is democratic. :rolleyes:

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Manuel Rosales was charged for "corruption" and had to flee the state. He was granted political asylum in Peru.

Francisco Arias Cárdenas contested the election.

Also the government has given Chavez the right to rule by decree. How does that protect the republic?

Unlimited terms
rule by decree
Created his own police force. Policía Nacional Bolivariana

I opposed the US sponsored coup against him.

I can see Chavez sticking around for life and by like the other dictators like in the middle east.

Sorry, but no. He's not allowed to run for more than three terms, I believe. EVERY internationally recognized election observer called ALL the elections free and fair. ALL the private media, which is almost ALL media, is anti-Chavez and conspired with, supported, and assisted the coup. Due to the coup, it was obvious that non-state institutions needed to be created which functioned within the interests of the people and not the media or the elites, in fact that's an ESSENTIAL aspect of a revolution and the road to socialism.

[Metacomet]

Greetings, we seem to have a lot in common (though I'd consider myself a Syndicalist)

Look forward to chatting with you.

[Sentinel]

Could this thread be merged with Inmate's Introductions in OI?

***

So, would you consider yourself a left wing social democrat, like Olof Palme, or a third way man like Tony Blair? If the former, you are in a dead end as your politics are dead and buried since 30 years back. If the latter, well then you aren't a leftist, really.

My organisation, the CWI, worked within the socdem/labour parties around the world in an attempt to force them to turn left, but in the 90's the decision was made that there was simply no point anymore, the politics of social democrat parties had become bourgeois to the core and no longer stood for the interests of the working class.

In Sweden the party is now in crisis, with lowest support since the beginning of the last century. This is is the result of a fundamental change in soc dem politics. It was they who started selling out the public property , infrastructure etc to private owners in the 90's, and the current bourgeois govt is only continuing in their footsteps.

From being the largest party with periodic support around 50%, they now only get around 25%, and there is no end in sight in this downward spiral. The right wing of the party -- the third way people -- dominates internal debate so they can't move back to their roots and start pushing for welfare reforms again. At the same time their voters are leaving en masse.

And as the voters are confused due to only rightwing alternatives being presented -- the Left party is also compromising their ideas, talking about how there isn't a working class anymore and how a 'modern (bourgeois) view of class' needs to be adapted -- they vote either for the conservatives who promise to cut taxes for the workers as well as the rich, or for the racist ultraright which uses populist rhetoric.

This development has lead to a giant dip in living standards and in practice the death of the so called nordic model -- now it's every man for himself here, just like the the bourgeoisie wants it. In short, when it comes to reaching the original goal -- socialism -- social democratic reformism has been proven to be at least as much a failure as the authoritarian regimes of the east bloc.

So what is your take on this development? Could it have been avoided? Should it have been avoided, or do you perhaps even consider it 'inevitable', or outright support it..?

[ellipsis]

Welcome and enjoy OI.