So we know about leaders and politicians that pay lipservice to socialism

[Belleraphone]

....but end up supporting capitalist policy and doctrine and smash socialist movements. Basically socialist in name only.

But what about the other way around? Ralph Nader glorifies capitalism, but I think he's only trying to make himself relevant to get elected/get votes. It would not surprise me if he was secretly a socialist.

Do you guys know of any examples/guess at who you think might be a closet socialist?

[Ocean Seal]

....but end up supporting capitalist policy and doctrine and smash socialist movements. Basically socialist in name only.

But what about the other way around? Ralph Nader glorifies capitalism, but I think he's only trying to make himself relevant to get elected/get votes. It would not surprise me if he was secretly a socialist.

Do you guys know of any examples/guess at who you think might be a closet socialist?
Obama lol jk. No, I don't think that there are closet socialists and I don't think that they would be able to do much simply because of the way that politics is constructed. Its not so much about beliefs as it is about interests. If you chose to go into a reformist party, you essentially will be serving the interests of a faction of the bourgeoisie or labor bureaucrats.

[thefinalmarch]

It would not surprise me if he was secretly a socialist.
It would fucking surprise me.

[Belleraphone]

Why is that finalmarch?

[MarxSchmarx]

It will be impossible to tell, unless they gained power and influence.

A few have renounced capitalism once they were in office. Fidel Castro also didn't start out as a Marxist, he was primarily a nationalist, but eventually "accepted" Marxist views. Same deal with a number of cold-war/WWII era guerilla fighters who needed soviet support in one way or another.

[thefinalmarch]

Why is that finalmarch?
Nader has run for the presidency several times now. His bids for the presidency of a bourgeois state serve not only as examples of his complacency with the bourgeoisie's domination over the working class, but also as examples of his active support for the political rule of the bourgeoisie, and this particular bourgeois state he intends to maintain is also probably the most brutal empire to exist in living memory.

Also, all communists worth their salt understand that communism cannot be brought about by the ballot box.

[Belleraphone]

Since when has he come out and said he supports the political rule of the bourgeois? I know he won't implement communist policies even if he was elected (that would be impossible with Congress) but he certainly has worked to make America a better place to live. He's just trying to stay relevant and improve things as much as he can, doesn't make him a a supporter of the bourgeois.

[thefinalmarch]

Since when has he come out and said he supports the political rule of the bourgeois?
He doesn't have to say it like that. By simply running for the presidency he is extending his services and inadvertently lending his support to the ruling class.

[Belleraphone]

The American elections are a bourgeois mode of electing government officials, but I don't' see how participating them is lending his support to the ruling class. He makes no profit off of doing this and has nothing to gain from it that I can see.

[citizen of industry]

Well, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is pretty clear on not concealing views and aims and openly declaring the overthrow of existing social conditions. So it would be pretty shady for someone to glorify capitalism with the intent to get elected and reveal one's true intentions later.

[Mr. Natural]

C'mon, guys and gals, I've voted for Nader as a clear protest vote against the Dems and Reps, but his kneejerk, unquestioning loyalty to the capitalist system is our there for all to see. I give as example his recently published Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us Now. For those of you not familiar with this amazing pile of crap, it's not satire--Nader is serious.

I respect Nader in some ways and have read a biography of him. A person's motivating psychology always fascinates me. In Nader's case, my question is: How could he have spent a lifetime conscientiously exposing the countless sins of capitalism without engaging the nature of capitalism, itself. His failure to do so has resulted in the nonsense of his latest book.

Nader's failure--outlined above--can be considered to be the failure of liberals and liberalism in general. Liberals generally express many of the same noble ideals as genuine communists, but then leave the realization of these principles to the workings of the capitalist system. What a contradiction!

I know of no persons who ostensibly support capitalism who are secretly socialist. Believe them. They support capitalism.

I do know of one hell of a lot of purported socialists who support capitalism, though. For example, all European social democrats. Their "socialism" is that of a capitalist welfare state ("capitalist welfare state" is an oxymoron, for that matter).

I try to hate liberalism but not liberals. After all, if there is to be a socialist revolution, many of them must become socialist. A fine beginning point for radicalization of liberals would be the ideals we hold in common. These ideals rather obviously are being trashed by capitalism and cannot be realized under The System.

The OWS actions, though, reek of liberalism--of pleading with or pressuring the government to "do what's right." But the government is doing what it is supposed to under capitalism: as Marx noted, it is serving as the executive committee for the bourgeoisie.

My red-green best.

[eyedrop]

The American elections are a bourgeois mode of electing government officials, but I don't' see how participating them is lending his support to the ruling class. He makes no profit off of doing this and has nothing to gain from it that I can see.
Can you clarify what you exactly mean by the bolded part?