Who is worse?

[Sinister Intents]

Who is worse? Democrats or Republicans, I see very little difference between the two, and both sides say the same thing just in different ways. So who is worse? Im sorry if this has been asked before and I'm not sure where it belongs.

Also, Why does everyone hate eachother in the leftist community?, so many tendencies. How is the Left suppose to survive divided?

[FerLuc]

The Republicans are much worse, though the Democrats suck too. At least the majority of Democrats support Same-Sex marriage. But on the whole, they both suck. A two-party state is not a Democracy.

[Firebrand]

We live in a selection of multiple choice dictatorships

[NewLeft]

Who is worse? Democrats or Republicans, I see very little difference between the two, and both sides say the same thing just in different ways. So who is worse? Im sorry if this has been asked before and I'm not sure where it belongs.

Also, Why does everyone hate eachother in the leftist community?, so many tendencies. How is the Left suppose to survive divided?

They're not the same party, they serve different sections of the bourgeois. The current situation unites most of the bourgeois, making both parties practically the same.

And we don't all hate each other, some are just more sectarian and dogmatic in their approach. As for the left surviving, it is better to have more diverse thought, so I don't think it's much of a problem.

[ed miliband]

i would say it doesn't matter at all but i'm going to say democrats anyway

[GoddessCleoLover]

Basically agree with FerLuc and NewLeft, and would add that Mitt Romney's assertion that he is not concerned with the very poor because they benefit from a so-called "ample safety net" shows that he represents an extremely reactionary section of the bourgeoisie. Even fellow reactionary Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry called attention to Romney's career as a vulture capitalist. Vulture capitalism is a super-exploitative subcategory of capitalism which seeks to extract super-profits through a total maximization of surplus value extracted from workers by means of union-busting and outsourcing. I can't believe that this vulture capitalist might be the next president of my country.

[Prinskaj]

They are basically two factions of the same party, which are bought and payed for by the ruling class.

[Искра]

They are fractions of Capital. Who cares about them, hang them high....

[artanis17]

I'm not american but at least republicans seem more honest to me... when applying imperialism of course.

[NewLeft]

I'm not american but at least republicans seem more honest to me... when applying imperialism of course.

You're being misled. How many times did Bush lie? About the same as Obama, just look at the total "promises" broken.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'm not american but at least republicans seem more honest to me... when applying imperialism of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[GoddessCleoLover]

Just want to reiterate that in my view Romney represents an extremely super-exploitative section of the bourgeoisie that in the USA we often term vulture capitalists. Today's Republican party in the USA has come under the control of the very worst type of capitalists who disdain any compromises with the working class in favor of total maximization of profits. While the American mainstream media has focused upon Newt Gingrich's reactionary bellicosity on racial and cultural issues, Romney has almost been allowed to fly under the radar. American civil society does contain some influential factions that still adhere to some form of liberalism and are beginning to expose the extreme nature of Romney's views, so this could be an interesting presidential election.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

I think the "libertarian" section of the republican party, a le Ron Paul, is a bigger threat then all the Bushs and Obamas combined.

[NoMasters]

There is absolutely no difference. One side is trying to keep neoliberalism alive, and the other side is trying to cure the ills of neoliberalism by implementing religious morality backed by a massive military industrial complex.

Choose your poison...

[Lanky Wanker]

To my knowledge, the biggest difference between the two is in their names.

[daft punk]

Who is worse? Democrats or Republicans, I see very little difference between the two, and both sides say the same thing just in different ways. So who is worse? Im sorry if this has been asked before and I'm not sure where it belongs.

Also, Why does everyone hate eachother in the leftist community?, so many tendencies. How is the Left suppose to survive divided?

The Republicans are worse, but the Democrats are not much better, and in some ways they are more of a problem because decent people keep voting for them as the 'lesser of two evils'.

For instance my sister had great hopes for Obama and wouldn't believe me telling her she was gonna get hugely disappointed.

The left is divided into 4 main camps, reformist, Trotskyist, Stalinist and anarchist.

The reformists are the people who vote for Obama with gritted teeth. Keeping the status quo.

Stalinists defend a monstrous anti-socialist regime which no longer exists, plus regimes like China and Cuba which are edging towards capitalism. However some well meaning Stalinists exist and they can work with Trots.

Anarchists dont believe in parties so they arent much use. In a revolution they will swap sides or sit there unable to make their mind up.

Trots are real revolutionaries. Out of them unfortunately are many factions, some good, some not so good. They will work with all of the above on certain conditions. For instance the British one in Militant were in the Labour Party until it drifted to the right.

[NewLeft]

The left is divided into 4 main camps, reformist, Trotskyist, Stalinist and anarchist.

Maybe in the 1930s. There's no Stalinist here..

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The Republicans are worse, but the Democrats are not much better, and in some ways they are more of a problem because decent people keep voting for them as the 'lesser of two evils'.

For instance my sister had great hopes for Obama and wouldn't believe me telling her she was gonna get hugely disappointed.

The left is divided into 4 main camps, reformist, Trotskyist, Stalinist and anarchist.

The reformists are the people who vote for Obama with gritted teeth. Keeping the status quo.

Stalinists defend a monstrous anti-socialist regime which no longer exists, plus regimes like China and Cuba which are edging towards capitalism. However some well meaning Stalinists exist and they can work with Trots.

Anarchists dont believe in parties so they arent much use. In a revolution they will swap sides or sit there unable to make their mind up.

Trots are real revolutionaries. Out of them unfortunately are many factions, some good, some not so good. They will work with all of the above on certain conditions. For instance the British one in Militant were in the Labour Party until it drifted to the right.
"My tendency is the only REAL revolutionary tendency"

[piet11111]

The democrats because they are capable of taking over social movements and such them dry for votes to their party.

With them in place as the leftwing of capital a lot of momentum is lost towards the creation of an actual opposition.

The republicans are so damned confrontational with their politics that it is easy to see them for what they are and they wont fool anyone.
They are effectively campaigning for Obama's reelection with their circus act.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Anyone old enough to remember the year 1981 ought to know well that when the reactionary Republicans are riding high they are fierce advocates for the very worst and uncompromising sections of the bourgeoisie.

[piet11111]

Anyone old enough to remember the year 1981 ought to know well that when the reactionary Republicans are riding high they are fierce advocates for the very worst and uncompromising sections of the bourgeoisie.

True but its the Democrats that keep that 2 party system going by their lesser evil-ism.

They are worse because they keep the illusion of meaningful choice going.

[Fennec]

Republicans are far more blatant about their hatred of the working class, but that's about it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO the illusion of meaningful choice is not the doing of the Democratic Party but rather an extremely complex set of historical factors including but not limited to the development of a diverse civil society. The end result is that the hegemony of the bourgeoisie is based not just upon the armed power of the state and/or the existence of reformist electoral choices.

The Republican Party in the era of the "tea party", Mitt Romney, and post Citizens United legalization of direct corporate expenditures to rig elections has become a real and present danger to the few gains of the working class in the USA during the twentieth century. If they are elected this year the consequences to the working classes will be as grave as they were in the 1980s. We can ill afford another 1980s, and the first step to keeping alive any spark that might someday become a flame is to make sure that Mitt or Newt aren't in a position to extinguish that spark.

[GPDP]

IMO the illusion of meaningful choice is not the doing of the Democratic Party but rather an extremely complex set of historical factors including but not limited to the development of a diverse civil society. The end result is that the hegemony of the bourgeoisie is based not just upon the armed power of the state and/or the existence of reformist electoral choices.

The Republican Party in the era of the "tea party", Mitt Romney, and post Citizens United legalization of direct corporate expenditures to rig elections has become a real and present danger to the few gains of the working class in the USA during the twentieth century. If they are elected this year the consequences to the working classes will be as grave as they were in the 1980s. We can ill afford another 1980s, and the first step to keeping alive any spark that might someday become a flame is to make sure that Mitt or Newt aren't in a position to extinguish that spark.

And this, of course, entails making sure the Democrats get into office, correct?

Let me tell you why such a strategy of "keeping the Republicans out" will always inevitable lead to weakening the left. To keep the Republicans out, obviously you want the Dems to stay in. For the Dems to stay in, you gotta vote for them. But of course, just voting for them yourself isn't enough. You gotta actively campaign for them and tell as many people as possible to vote Democrat to keep the Republicans out.

All of a sudden, even if you consider yourself an anti-capitalist, you've just succeeded in becoming part of the system. Energy that could've gone toward building a working class alternative is instead wasted on campaigning for an anti-worker bourgeois party. And what's more, you invest yourself and anyone else with an interest in "keeping out the Republicans" toward electioneering for that very party. Sooner or later, you end up like the CPUSA: communist in name, reformist liberal in practice. Your interests no longer lie in ending capitalism, but in maintaining the slightly less shitty version of it.

At that point, you may as well hang up a sign on your neck that says "Socialists for Obama."

[Prometeo liberado]

Who is worse? Democrats or Republicans, I see very little difference between the two, and both sides say the same thing just in different ways. So who is worse? Im sorry if this has been asked before and I'm not sure where it belongs.

Also, Why does everyone hate eachother in the leftist community?, so many tendencies. How is the Left suppose to survive divided?


As for which is worse I would need to know your definition of worse. The democrats do more harm to the left by selling the idea that only they can lead the working class. And they do a good because a worker would sooner vote Demo than join a revolutionary party. On the other hand the Republicans barely even bother to mask who they are and what they will do to the working class. At least with the Republicans you know when, why, how and who is gonna screw you. The Demo's will just wait till your asleep before they bone you and your family. Now you tell me which is worse?

[ad novum orbem]

Who is worse? Democrats or Republicans

Doesn't this depend on the perspective? From the perspective of dragging capitalism out as long as possible, the Dems are worse, as they keep passing enough social legislation to keep the system limping along. A vote for the Dems is a vote for welfare capitalism.

Perhaps everyone should vote R and help neoliberalism bring about the demise of capitalism as soon as possible... :)

[GPDP]

Doesn't this depend on the perspective? From the perspective of dragging capitalism out as long as possible, the Dems are worse, as they keep passing enough social legislation to keep the system limping along. A vote for the Dems is a vote for welfare capitalism.

Perhaps everyone should vote R and help neoliberalism bring about the demise of capitalism as soon as possible... :)

This is probably just a joke, but I should still like to reiterate such an outlook is idealist at best, and cynical and contemptuous of the working class at worst. There is absolutely no guarantee worsening conditions (at least not by themselves) radicalize workers to our cause. In fact, I expect people to despair more than anything, and if any radicalization comes about, it may in fact turn toward the side of reaction than revolution. Besides, we're supposed to fight for the working class, not actively work against them in a shrewd attempt to get them to agree with us. Such a thing stinks of extortion to me.

[ad novum orbem]

This is probably just a joke, but I should still like to reiterate such an outlook is idealist at best [...]

It was tongue in cheek, but there's something to it don't you think?

The Dems seem to be in favor of full-blown social democracy--taxing the private capitalist economy to pay for social programs that cover up capitalism's shortcomings. That's something that could go on for a long while.

Major change won't be possible until the system becomes completely intolerable. I agree with you that mass radicalization could go either way, but it might not occur at all if we keep putting band aids on everything, pretending that a kinder, gentler capitalism (though still unsatisfactory and exploitative) is better than moving beyond capitalism altogether.

[Ocean Seal]

Wow all of you who say that there are no differences between the parties are way off. Obviously the United States only has two parties with a legitimate shot at winning.

The first is party which likes to make war, implement austerity measures, and is supported by the capitalist class. Many of their high ranking members are privileged country club elites (predominantly white males) who have never had to do an honest days work in their lives. The wealthier members of this party have chronically voted to extend tax cuts for themselves and take pride in the benefits that they get as congress people. They strive to be seen as pious, nationalistic, and strong anti-communists. They are big believers in the free market, don't generally have many good things to say about unions, they believe that business, especially small business is the cornerstone of American life. They are also quite proud of US foreign policy towards Axis of Evil nations, and improvised access of evil nations. They tend to also like free trade agreements with under-developed nations.

They see themselves as the party of family values, support private property, the state (often falling on their knees to praise the responsible police officers of America), as well as exploitation here and abroad, and are in turn supported by the state and private property.

The other party I don't know much about. With the exception of the fact that they like elephants.

[GPDP]

It was tongue in cheek, but there's something to it don't you think?

The Dems seem to be in favor of full-blown social democracy--taxing the private capitalist economy to pay for social programs that cover up capitalism's shortcomings. That's something that could go on for a long while.

Major change won't be possible until the system becomes completely intolerable. I agree with you that mass radicalization could go either way, but it might not occur at all if we keep putting band aids on everything, pretending that a kinder, gentler capitalism (though still unsatisfactory and exploitative) is better than moving beyond capitalism altogether.

Major change comes when the working class organizes itself and works toward ending the entire facade of capitalist democracy. That means it's on us to help that come to fruition by fighting for the interests of the working class. How can you call yourself a communist while at once wishing for the further immiseration of the working class? How do you expect them to trust us and see us as their allies when we're openly wishing for those who would most brazenly attack their living standards to fulfill their goals?

Besides, it's not really an original idea. Remember when Germany's KPD said "first Hitler, then us?" Yeah, that sure went well, didn't it?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The GOP are more vulgar with their policy statements and opinions, they unabashedly represent the politics of the Dark Ages, but the Democrats are real snakes. I think most modern countries have a version of the Democrats...in Greece it may be PASOK, in the UK it's Labour, in Mexico it's the PRD, etc. The Democrats in the USA are more to the right of all those parties, but the function they serve is essentially the same. They play the role of Judas to the working class, and because of that fact are arguably "worse" than the GOP (although such value statements are pretty worthless when judging two sides of the same coin, as judged by the presidency of our illustrious current commander in chief, who may have well been George W. Bush's apprentice).

[getfiscal]

The Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party has a pretty good platform, all things considered. Even Obama's platform (on paper) is a bit better than Romney's. If you expect miracles from the Democrats you will be disappointed. They can do good things when there is enough popular pressure and powerful countervailing institutions, though. Obviously a much more left-wing government would be superior to anything the mainstream Democrats have on offer, but whatever.

[Firebrand]

As long as the most right wing of the electoral parties is in power then people will assume that electing the most left wing of the electoral parties into power will be enough to make it all better. People need the evidence of their own experience that they have voted as far left as they can and its still too far right. Then they will turn to revolution. Besides if the right is in power then people will assume that the majority of the population supports the right, and that is demoralising and makes people feel alone in believing there is a better way.

[kuros]

And this, of course, entails making sure the Democrats get into office, correct?

Let me tell you why such a strategy of "keeping the Republicans out" will always inevitable lead to weakening the left. To keep the Republicans out, obviously you want the Dems to stay in. For the Dems to stay in, you gotta vote for them. But of course, just voting for them yourself isn't enough. You gotta actively campaign for them and tell as many people as possible to vote Democrat to keep the Republicans out.

All of a sudden, even if you consider yourself an anti-capitalist, you've just succeeded in becoming part of the system. Energy that could've gone toward building a working class alternative is instead wasted on campaigning for an anti-worker bourgeois party. And what's more, you invest yourself and anyone else with an interest in "keeping out the Republicans" toward electioneering for that very party. Sooner or later, you end up like the CPUSA: communist in name, reformist liberal in practice. Your interests no longer lie in ending capitalism, but in maintaining the slightly less shitty version of it.

At that point, you may as well hang up a sign on your neck that says "Socialists for Obama."
I think you should vote for, but not campaign for the democrats.

[kuros]

Wow all of you who say that there are no differences between the parties are way off. Obviously the United States only has two parties with a legitimate shot at winning.

The first is party which likes to make war, implement austerity measures, and is supported by the capitalist class. Many of their high ranking members are privileged country club elites (predominantly white males) who have never had to do an honest days work in their lives. The wealthier members of this party have chronically voted to extend tax cuts for themselves and take pride in the benefits that they get as congress people. They strive to be seen as pious, nationalistic, and strong anti-communists. They are big believers in the free market, don't generally have many good things to say about unions, they believe that business, especially small business is the cornerstone of American life. They are also quite proud of US foreign policy towards Axis of Evil nations, and improvised access of evil nations. They tend to also like free trade agreements with under-developed nations.

They see themselves as the party of family values, support private property, the state (often falling on their knees to praise the responsible police officers of America), as well as exploitation here and abroad, and are in turn supported by the state and private property.
If you are talking about the democratic party, than that is an inaccurate description of them.

[black magick hustla]

no future in any one of them. revolt revolt revolt revolt revolt revolt revolt revoltislife

[black magick hustla]

I think you should vote for, but not campaign for the democrats.

no you don't you should join the mayority of the working class (which doesnt vote) and drink/get high/fuck/play with kids. why waste your time. fuck the state and fuck democracy

[Ocean Seal]

If you are talking about the democratic party, than that is an inaccurate description of them.
Really bro.
So what you mean to say is that the Democrats bash private property?
When was the last time that they said something bad about small business, or the police? And didn't immediately crawl on their knees to apologize for insulting the cornerstones of America. And of course you should remember Libya, which Obama so graciously bombed the shit out of. Oh and the bailouts followed by cuts and of course where is my free healthcare. That's what they promised, no?

Anyone who is complacent with the current pace of progress that the democrats are giving should get out of this revolutionary business.

[Brosip Tito]

It wouldn't matter if the Democrats was a social democratic party and the republicans a fascist party. Both are parties of the bourgeoisie, participating in bourgeois democracy. Do I advocate voting for "the lesser evil"? Yes, but not "supporting".

It's basically, "which flavor of capitalism would I like?". Quite frankly, we would all prefer the social democratic flavour. (inb4 "no, we'd all prefer no flavour!" cause I know already...the point is that within the system, prior to revolution, we should be trying to maintain and improve the living standards of the proletariat).

[GPDP]

I think you should vote for, but not campaign for the democrats.

I think telling people they should vote for the Democrats is pretty much campaigning for them. That's basically what I was getting at. Promoting the Democrats only ties you and those who listen to you to the Democrats.

[cb9's_unity]

The GOP are more vulgar with their policy statements and opinions, they unabashedly represent the politics of the Dark Ages, but the Democrats are real snakes. I think most modern countries have a version of the Democrats...in Greece it may be PASOK, in the UK it's Labour, in Mexico it's the PRD, etc. The Democrats in the USA are more to the right of all those parties, but the function they serve is essentially the same. They play the role of Judas to the working class, and because of that fact are arguably "worse" than the GOP (although such value statements are pretty worthless when judging two sides of the same coin, as judged by the presidency of our illustrious current commander in chief, who may have well been George W. Bush's apprentice).

The republicans are not unabashedly "Dark Ages" or even "anti-working class."

... At least in the eyes of many working class Americans. If one pays attention to the actual messages the republicans put out it is clear that they usually find some way to seem pro-working class. Of course, they have done a worse than usual job of this lately. It is important to remember that we are able to easily see through their rhetoric because we have an understanding of how the system really works. Most Americans have a pretty jumbled understanding of how politics and economics work and (even worse) have historically worked.

The republicans do a good rhetorical job of making the main struggle in society of that being man vs. government. It is easy for most American to know that the government isn't on their side. Thus the republicans place themselves on the side of the working class by "getting the government out of your life."

We need to realize that the reason both bourgeois parties are in power is because they have gotten good at manipulating how people regularly discuss politics. We to spend more time analyzing what they are actually saying in order to expose their rhetorical tactics to the working class.

[Ostrinski]

While I don't think we should be telling people to use the voting machine, we shouldn't be actively telling them not to either. It's not like either choice brings out a different outcome.

[GPDP]

While I don't think we should be telling people to use the voting machine, we shouldn't be actively telling them not to either. It's not like either choice brings out a different outcome.

I myself couldn't care less whether you use the ballot box or not. I mean, I think it's pretty useless, but if you want to, whatever. The problem comes when you tell other people besides yourself they should go out and vote for either party for whatever reason. In the end, all you do is give the parties more support and exposure.

[Ostrinski]

I myself couldn't care less whether you use the ballot box or not. I mean, I think it's pretty useless, but if you want to, whatever. The problem comes when you tell other people besides yourself they should go out and vote for either party for whatever reason. In the end, all you do is give the parties more support and exposure.I agree 100%

[Rafiq]

Leftists who want to vote for the democrats with "no illusions" are their useful idiots.

[NewLeft]

The idea that we need to work backwards in order to move forward.. We need Ron Paul to destroy the economy, so that our grand revolution can sweep in and our utopia will follow.

[kuros]

Really bro.
So what you mean to say is that the Democrats bash private property?
When was the last time that they said something bad about small business, or the police? And didn't immediately crawl on their knees to apologize for insulting the cornerstones of America. And of course you should remember Libya, which Obama so graciously bombed the shit out of. Oh and the bailouts followed by cuts and of course where is my free healthcare. That's what they promised, no?
These were the inaccurate statements you made

The wealthier members of this party have chronically voted to extend tax cuts for themselves

They strive to be seen as pious

don't generally have many good things to say about unions

They see themselves as the party of family values (some parts of the democratic party do)


Anyone who is complacent with the current pace of progress that the democrats are giving should get out of this revolutionary business.

Agreed.

[Yazman]

Moderator Action: Dr. Zaun - do not post videos unless they are relevant! Especially not like you have done here, just posting random shit, without any text at all.

It's spam. Do it again and you're infracted.