Democratic Party

[tradeunionsupporter]

If Democrats are a Bourgeoisie political party why do the Democrats support a Progressive Tax System and say they are for income equality and not for income inequality my question is why would the Bourgeoisie want higher taxes on themselves which means they will be less Rich/Wealthy and have less money sorry for for asking this question agaon this will be the last time ?

[Jimmie Higgins]

If Democrats are a Bourgeoisie political party why do the Democrats support a Progressive Tax System and say they are for income equality and not for income inequality my question is why would the Bourgeoisie want higher taxes on themselves which means they will be less Rich/Wealthy and have less money sorry for for asking this question agaon this will be the last time ?

I think you are being too generous about the Democrats support of income equality measures, they hardly even give it lip service as much as they used to. They may say something about "two Americas" during primary campaigns but that's about as far as it goes.

If push came to shove and the ruling class was worried about social and class unrest, I think we would start to hear more militant things by the Dems and maybe they'd even enact some of them too. This is what they have done historically for American Capitalism in the last century... when struggle rises, the Dems step in as the "reasonable" alternative that "cares" about people etc. Obama fits that role too - I think if the ruling class wasn't a little bit afraid about discontent after the Bush years, the Dems would have nominated some unashamedly moderate bore like Kerry - at least Obama pretends sometimes. But the main use of the Democrats for the capitalists is to be the "nicer face" when people get upset... but it's really good-cop, bad-cop and this is the lesson that the Populist Party failed to learn, what Eugene Debs did learn, what Malcolm X knew and is a lesson that the working class needs to (re)learn in the US in order to build an independent working class movement.

[L.A.P.]

The Democratic Party's role is to alleviate worker's struggle by throwing them a bone once in a while thus prolonging class struggle, and act like they are the working class' representatives. This is also why the Democratic Party are big on peaceful protest, because they don't want workers to become violent.

[Dumb]

Because the bourgeoisie - especially its members in the financial sector - have a way of avoiding the tax hikes. (Notice how Clinton increased taxes on wages and salaries in 1993, but cut taxes on capital gains in 1998 - and also notice how Carter cut that same capital gains tax in the 1970s).

Historically, the Democrats have targeted the middle class and highest-earning members of the working class with the standard income tax, but have left Wall Street and the bourgeoisie alone for the most part.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think I get it now in my view the Democrats are used by the Capitalists to keep class/social unrest from happeneing and riots from happening the Democrats use Welfare Progressive Taxes and Social Security to keep the Working Class happy and voting Democrat and to prevent a Revolution or a Revolt by the Working Class from happening ?

Of Republocrats and Demublicans

November 13, 2005


The recent raucous presidential election of a year ago fading into the foggy past, our nation has had its deficient political attentions buzzed about, alighting on the replacement of two Supreme court Justices, illegal immigrants, scandals involving CIA agents, hurricanes, brain-dead women, faulty intelligence justifying the war in Iraq, and state and Congressional races, and host of “reform” issues – with the “The War on Terror” remaining that persistent low drone in the background. In trying to grasp the big picture, starting from Bush-Kerry in 2004, one finds it increasingly difficult to find just what each of our two parties actually stands for on a political and economic basis. Instead we are saturation bombed with accusations of criminal wrongdoing, corruption, greed, incompetence, personality defects, substance dependence and insanity. It also seems that identities of these parties have now been sufficiently usurped by the labels “liberal” or “conservative” that they form acceptable substitutes for the actual names of the parties. I suspect it would be as difficult for the pundits and talking heads to actually define these terms as it would be to define Democrats or Republicans. The truth is that the differences between the parties really are quite superficial on a politico-economic basis. Political outlooks differ slightly on foreign policy, if only on the “how” and not the “what”. Economic stands differ mainly in the management style each party tries, eternally unsuccessfully, to apply to capitalism. Some people believe the Republicans are the tough foreign policy party, ready to protect Americans and ensure our number one spot in the global order, but Democrats have presided over both World Wars and numerous other smaller foreign acts of aggression. Others cite the New Deal and Great Society as evidence that the Democrats are for the working class – willing to use tax dollars to alleviate societal problems – when all they really have done are apply ineffective palliatives to avoid large-scale social unrest.

Make no mistake – the ultimate goals of both parties, the ones never talked about in polite company – are essentially the same though the methods may appear to differ. Both wish to hold on to power and wealth at all costs, so both parties desire to keep the systems of “law and order” and “free market” capitalism in place, ensuring they stay both powerful and rich. Just try to find one so-called Democrat or Republican who thinks otherwise!
Some will try to give credit to either political party for social political or economic changes that occurred during their tenures as evidence they are committed to making things better, however it really becomes hard to explain just who really benefits with out letting the cat out of the bag! Unfortunately, many of those who disagree with both political parties think that forming their own party, with an eye to reforming the system from within, end up wasting their energies by trying to force it to act against its own interests and rules set up to ensure the status quo. Worse yet, most are content to try to convince the powers that be to change their ways, enacting reforms or policies that would actually curtail their ability to remain in the class of the elite. They write their congressman, circulate petitions, demonstrate in Washington, and Rock the VoteTM, foolishly hoping that those behind marble walls will see it in their hearts to voluntarily champion the oppressed and downtrodden. This strategy has never really worked and never really will!
There is a solution to the hegemony of law, capital and property – defended and administered by whichever face of the coin is currently showing, and that is to be rid of them and their system completely and forever. Social problems can only be solved by eliminating their causes, and the global race for superiority will be meaningless in the face of a world united in freedom and owing allegiance to no leaders or borders. Now more than ever, as global politics and capital are pushing us to the brink of economic, environmental, and genocidal disaster, it is time for World Socialism. Depending on one indistinguishable political party or the other is not the answer!

http://wspus.org/2005/11/of-republocrats-and-demublicans/

[Dumb]

I think I get it now

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/4/128703343166436929.jpg

[Drosophila]

They don't support anything. Except for maybe Kucinich.

[thesadmafioso]

I swear that you made this exact same topic about a month ago.

But yes, it can be misleading to become too caught up in the useless muck of bourgeois politics. The goal of such the structure is not to allow the working class a medium of enforcing their interests upon any institute of government, but rather to create the false appearance of such. The democracy of any capitalistic society will inevitably fall prey to the overwhelming force of capital and become a democracy which exists only to serve the whims of the rich.

[Revy]

If Democrats are a Bourgeoisie political party
What do you mean "if"?



why do the Democrats support a Progressive Tax System and say they are for income equality and not for income inequalityHow does a progressive tax system lead to "income equality"? It doesn't. All it does is release some of the tax burden off the lower incomes and place it on the wealthier. It doesn't change the disparity, only lessens it.



my question is why would the Bourgeoisie want higher taxes on themselves
Many of them don't. But most make enough money that even with taxes they're still filthy rich, so they don't care.

[SocialistAction]

If Democrats are a Bourgeoisie political party why do the Democrats support a Progressive Tax System

You're being way too presumptuous with that statement. Certain Democrats support certain tax policies. The manner by which the party collectively governs, however, is another matter entirely.

And even if one were to grant that the Democratic Party is in favor of a more progressive system of taxation, it would not render them an anti-bourgeois political party. Bourgeois liberals tend to feel that the best way to preserve capitalism is to safeguard it with some mild form of welfare state.


and say they are for income equality and not for income inequality

Excuse me?


my question is why would the Bourgeoisie want higher taxes on themselves which means they will be less Rich/Wealthy and have less money sorry for for asking this question agaon this will be the last time ?

See above. To many, it's a simple question of self-preservation. Of course, most of the bourgeois class is not of this opinion, which is why the Democratic Party is so seemingly ineffectual when it comes to actually implementing progressive taxation policies.

[Lucretia]

And even if one were to grant that the Democratic Party is in favor of a more progressive system of taxation, it would not render them an anti-bourgeois political party. Bourgeois liberals tend to feel that the best way to preserve capitalism is to safeguard it with some mild form of welfare state.

This. Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism and Martin Sklar's The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism should lay to rest for any curious reader the idea that many of the regulatory mechanisms we have in place function solely as impediments to capitalism. In many instances they facilitated the growth and smooth operation of capitalism.

[RGacky3]

based on their actions .... they don't really, why do they say it in rhetoric? To get elected.