Democrats or Republicans(USA)?

[Susurrus]

Every so often, the thought pops into my mind that instead of grudgingly supporting the Democrats in exchange for tiny improvements that are soon shot down, it might be better to stand aside and let the Republicans/Teabaggers screw the country up to the point that a revolution can be begun, or at the very least to the point that people see through their propaganda and take action against it. I know it's an absolutely wicked idea, that it will bring suffering to the proletariat, and that it shouldn't be done, but it's a wonderful thing to picture when frustrated: the people rising in guerilla warfare against capitalism and Fuhrer Reagan the IV's fascist regime.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

EDIT: This is a THOUGHT EXERCISE, not a recommendation.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Every so often, the thought pops into my mind that instead of grudgingly supporting the Democrats in exchange for tiny improvements that are soon shot down, it might be better to stand aside and let the Republicans/Teabaggers screw the country up to the point that a revolution can be begun, or at the very least to the point that people see through their propaganda and take action against it. I know it's an absolutely wicked idea, that it will bring suffering to the proletariat, and that it shouldn't be done, but it's a wonderful thing to picture when frustrated: the people rising in guerilla warfare against capitalism and Fuhrer Reagan the IV's fascist regime.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

Read the 4th quote in your sig. :D

[Susurrus]

Read the 4th quote in your sig. :D

Haha, true. As I said, this is something I mainly think about when reading about something or someone stupid people voted for. Or after listening to Bill Maher.

[Obs]

Or after listening to Bill Maher.

Yeah, stop doing that immediately.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Nah I get you, was just being a little wise ass :D Why do you think it is the Republicans that will be the cause of capitalism to fall in the US? After all of their bat-shit ideas and policies, they still have a very large and strong voter base do they not? The right-wing ideology is no better than the democratic left-wing ideology IMO, both are aligned against the working class. In the US the case and point would be the democratic party currently in office has done nothing to better the lives of us workers (IMO). These parties are two sides of the same coin, and either one is equally likely to foment unrest. Working conditions used to be horrible in the US before legislation protecting it was passed, yet communism never took hold here.


Yeah, stop doing that immediately.

P.S: I used to watch Bill Maher as well, until I started browsing the forums here. Haven't seen a single episode since.

[Revy]

So you just want to make things worse, in the false hope that people will automatically, in their misery, turn to us?

There must be hundreds of these threads already on here. It's not a new idea, unfortunately many people come up with the same thing.

The socialist parties combined in the 2008 Presidential election had the lowest vote by percentage ever had by socialist parties since 1888 (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/13/presidential-vote-for-explicitly-socialist-parties-likely-to-be-2nd-lowest-since-1888/), 120 years earlier. And that was during the recession, during Bush. While I don't think elections are the same as revolution, the votes are a reflection of support for socialist parties. We should build the movement regardless of the political situation. Most socialists probably vote Democrat or Green. If our parties grow in support, then revolution will be more a possibility.

By saying we should "stand aside" and "let" the right-wing of the Republican Party take over, you vastly overstate our influence. We should win more people over to our cause, and the idea that we want them to suffer just for our own political gain, not really a great sell.

[Susurrus]

Yeah, stop doing that immediately.

Have you seen his rant calling for class war(not paraphrasing, that is literally what he said)?

[Susurrus]

These parties are two sides of the same coin, and either one is equally likely to foment unrest. Working conditions used to be horrible in the US before legislation protecting it was passed, yet communism never took hold here.

I would say that there is a greater likely for fascism under the Republicans, or at least an open plutocracy. And there were a couple of points in American history(mass strikes, seizing factories, etc) that, given a few circumstances were different, a revolution could've at least begun.

[Obs]

Have you seen his rant calling for class war(not paraphrasing, that is literally what he said)?

Yes, but I've also heard several other, significantly better speeches about class war from people who actually know what it means.

[Susurrus]

Yes, but I've also heard several other, significantly better speeches about class war from people who actually know what it means.

Indeed so. I just keep hoping he brings Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on at the same time and lets them duel to the death.

[28350]

republicans

[Revy]

I would say that there is a greater likely for fascism under the Republicans, or at least an open plutocracy. And there were a couple of points in American history(mass strikes, seizing factories, etc) that, given a few circumstances were different, a revolution could've at least begun.

Huh...I didn't know Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were overthrown by socialist revolutions. Fascism/corporatism, any form of totalitarian government doesn't automatically lead to the people rebelling under a red flag. So far it has led to bourgeois democratic governments.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'd rather not just let things go horrible so that we might get a few more votes. Everytime I hear people say this I think to myself "this person has it made and won't be hurt by a Great Depression like situation." Maybe you've never had to go days without eating but it's not a good feeling, and I'd rather not do that self-inflinctingly to myself in the hopes that the rest of the people will revolt.

[Susurrus]

Huh...I didn't know Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were overthrown by socialist revolutions. Fascism/corporatism, any form of totalitarian government doesn't automatically lead to the people rebelling under a red flag. So far it has led to bourgeois democratic governments.

Actually, the primary resistance movements in the fascist countries were usually communist. I will admit, however, that this is most likely due to the presence of widespread leftism before the regime took power, but Italy was first taken by the native communists before the bourgeois democracy took hold, and the main reason the governments were bourgeois democratic was because they had been invaded by bourgeois democrats.

[Susurrus]

I'd rather not just let things go horrible so that we might get a few more votes.

I didn't say votes, I said revolution, though you are quite right(I did say it was a bad idea to do this in the original post).

[Pretty Flaco]

This kind of thinking makes me angry. You want me to get fucked and you want my condition to worsen? Fuck, you think sitting by and letting our condition plummet is representing our interests?

[Revy]

Actually, the primary resistance movements in the fascist countries were usually communist. I will admit, however, that this is most likely due to the presence of widespread leftism before the regime took power, but Italy was first taken by the native communists before the bourgeois democracy took hold, and the main reason the governments were bourgeois democratic was because they had been invaded by bourgeois democrats.

Do you support the rise of fascism or the far-right? That seems to be what you're getting at.

You realize "guerrilla warfare" under such a regime would be bloody and the reaction from the government would be brutal? Is this preferable to organizing under the current climate where we are not repressed by the government?

[Susurrus]

Do you support the rise of fascism or the far-right?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I said that this was a bad idea in the original post. It is merely a thought-exercise, not in any way a recommendation.

And though the struggle would be bloody, the outcome would (ideally, thought exercise not reality) be communism. Plus a revolution can succeed against a repressive government, so long as the people are behind it.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I didn't say votes, I said revolution, though you are quite right(I did say it was a bad idea to do this in the original post).

Fine revolution, how bad does it have to be to get a revolution going? Does half the population need to be starving to death? Where do you stand in life I bet you're pretty comfortable aren't you? And why don't you think the Democrats couldn't just get people to vote for them like they have before during very tough times? Sorry if I don't want to starve so that the Democrats could get angry people to vote them into office. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't but why would someone chance poverty, homelessness, etc, because the revolution might happen. Emphasis on the might.

[Raightning]

What you're describing here is what is termed as accelerationism, and it's almost as old as Marxism itself:
After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). Accelerationism is, in all frankness, a blight upon the left. It's a ridiculous negative way of thinking, with absolutely no serious ideological or historical grounding. Apart from anything else, we can barely predict the weather for tomorrow half of the time; it is utter foolishness to suggest that we can know the future in such a precise way as to make accelerationism valid. Even if we could, it'd be wrong. Why? Because our entire reason to be is that we work for the people. This entire communism thing? It's about them all. That means working to better their condition using every avenue open to us, and to protect them as far as we can from those who exploit them. What accelerationism suggests is that we accept their oppression and exploitation, and if you can see an injustice perpetuated and not fight it in such a manner then you are no comrade of mine. Serve the people.

[Susurrus]

I SAID IT WAS A BAD IDEA IN THE FIRST POST!!! I support trying to improve conditions in the here and now rather than let the people suffer(as xub3rn00dlex said, look at my sig). This is just something that pops into my head when I get frustrated with the situation.

[Raightning]

Pop it out of your head, it's a damned rot. ;)

[Susurrus]

Pop it out of your head, it's a damned rot. ;)

Proceeding to. And thanks for the accelerationism post, I didn't know about that.

[Raightning]

Proceeding to. And thanks for the accelerationism post, I didn't know about that.
It's something that was mocked a lot (and I do mean a lot) at a forum I posted on that closed recently, so I'm familiar with it to say the least.

Also, I probably should address the point you made about 'supporting the Democrats' here, because that's an important point. While the revolutionary left must be at the heart of the struggle for reform, you're right in that reformism, and particularly tying our banner to the Democratic machine, is an exercise in futility. There is a need for recognisance by socialists that the two parties are exactly the same, and that it does us no good to pin our hopes on getting 'good' Democrats elected or whatever it is; while we must struggle for reforms, we must also build our own organisations.

Sadly, there's quite a few leftists with their hearts in the right place out there who wed themselves to electoralism, and it's a difficult habit to kick.

[Susurrus]

There is a need for recognisance by socialists that the two parties are exactly the same, and that it does us no good to pin our hopes on getting 'good' Democrats elected or whatever it is; while we must struggle for reforms, we must also build our own organisations.


Not only that, but people who are openly socialist and campaign for the Democrats probably do them more harm than good. The fact that most of America(and a good deal of the world) considers socialism and communism to be authoritarianism and oppression is one of the first issues any leftist organization will have to tackle.

[Raightning]

Not only that, but people who are openly socialist and campaign for the Democrats probably do them more harm than good. The fact that most of America(and a good deal of the world) considers socialism and communism to be authoritarianism and oppression is one of the first issues any leftist organization will have to tackle.
Do more harm for the Democrats, you mean, but yeah. While I'm lucky enough to be from a country (Britain) where socialism isn't a dirty word with the people it needs, my impression is that the only way to fight such attitudes and the eternal propaganda onslaught is to build from the grassroots. Do it like the Black Panthers; serve the people, in every way possible, and you can open their minds.

[Susurrus]

Serve the people, in every way possible, and you can open their minds.

Exactly. This is the sort of propaganda of the deed people need to be doing.