The pathetic CPUSA

[RGacky3]

0-92r6C49kE

This is just embarrasing, this guy is sucking up the the democrats so bad, and desperately watering down socialist to just look like good old keynsianism or at most european social-democracy.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

He didn't know what the hell he was doing on that show.

[Offbeat]

If their party's reformist, why do they call themselves 'Communist' when that word has such negative connotations in the US?

[danyboy27]

it went from choddy bad to terrible at 4:00.

he seemed surprised when artmann asked him what was the communist party platform and gave a sucky answer to the other question about the elimination of property.

it almost seem like those folks are scared to say the word communism.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Having a Communist Party (if only in name) in the US is like having a hard-line Islamist Party in Devon, England...you're just not gonna get anywhere, no one's buying

[RGacky3]

Funnily enough the the CPUSA was pretty strong both ideologically and with support in hte 1930s and 1940s, but now they are so scared of anything and desperately want to be a mainstream party that they loose all genuine left support.

If you want to be taken seriously have principles and stick to them.

[NGNM85]

This is just embarrasing, this guy is sucking up the the democrats so bad, and desperately watering down socialist to just look like good old keynsianism or at most european social-democracy.

I think he was just trying to present himself in a nonthreatening, and accessible way. What do you think he should have done?


Funnily enough the the CPUSA was pretty strong both ideologically and with support in hte 1930s and 1940s, but now they are so scared of anything and desperately want to be a mainstream party that they loose all genuine left support.

If you want to be taken seriously have principles and stick to them.

What makes one a 'genuine' Leftist? (Besides a Leftist who is genuine.)

Like I said; what do you think he shoul be saying to appeal to working-class Americans?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Stupid Democrats.

[Bostana]

It's a shame.

People think this is what Communism is. This party doesn't even connect themselves to Marxism. They speak out against every revolution leader known to man. And they support Democrats.

[NGNM85]

It's a shame.

People think this is what Communism is. This party doesn't even connect themselves to Marxism. They speak out against every revolution leader known to man. And they support Democrats.

Do they actually support the Democrats, or just vote for them, periodically? (I don't know anything about this organization.)

[Bostana]

Do they actually support the Democrats, or just vote for them, periodically? (I don't know anything about this organization.)


They openly support the Democrat Party and President Obama.

CPUSA posted an article on its official website on Dec. 30, 2007, stating that “Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election.” But when WND reported the news in November 2008, CPUSA scrubbed its website of references that it “actively supported” Obama’s candidacy.

Here is a link:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/communist-party-usa-endorses-obama-democrats-for-2012/

[Althusser]

Well... There's really not much to say about it. If they went all out, he'd be chatting here rather than being interviewed by RT.

[Fawkes]

I just wanna give that guy a big hug, pat him softly on the head, and tell him "it's okay, one day you'll understand how the world works"

[Kronsteen]

If their party's reformist, why do they call themselves 'Communist' when that word has such negative connotations in the US?

Maybe it makes them feel more radical?

We probably shouldn't be surprised. We've all seen principled leftists gradually give up their principles one by one in exchange for some short term gain - and discover years later they've got no principles and no gain.

But if they've been calling themselves radical for that long, it's difficult to let go of the self image.

[Alfonso Cano]

He failed to mention that Obama is a secret member of CPUSA and that he is currently working on dismantling capitalist system and replacing it with socialism. Just remember how everyone thought Gorbachev was a Communist and how in the end he became a Social-Democrat, and destroyed socialism in the process.

The average Americans don't even dream what the glorious comrade Sam Webb is preparing for them with his cunning tactic of secretly infiltrating all positions of power in the Democratic party. They think the CPUSA is just blindly following Democrats because of opportunism. One day they will wake up and find out the truth... :cool:

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

He failed to mention that Obama is a secret member of CPUSA and that he is currently working on dismantling capitalist system and replacing it with socialism. Just remember how everyone thought Gorbachev was a Communist and how in the end he became a Social-Democrat, and destroyed socialism in the process.


Obama isn't a Communist, and isn't going to destroy the Capitalist system.

[milkmiku]

he failed to mention that obama is a secret member of cpusa and that he is currently working on dismantling capitalist system and replacing it with socialism. Just remember how everyone thought gorbachev was a communist and how in the end he became a social-democrat, and destroyed socialism in the process.

The average americans don't even dream what the glorious comrade sam webb is preparing for them with his cunning tactic of secretly infiltrating all positions of power in the democratic party. They think the cpusa is just blindly following democrats because of opportunism. One day they will wake up and find out the truth... :cool:


at last i truly see!

[Prometeo liberado]

Do they actually support the Democrats, or just vote for them, periodically? (I don't know anything about this organization.)

To answer your question:
From the CPUSA Party Program on defeating the Right:
"This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party.."

[Geiseric]

Emphasis on "Our LONG TERM goal is a socialist USA." Long term as in... As soon as the democrats want it to be.

[milkmiku]

To answer your question:
From the CPUSA Party Program on defeating the Right:
"This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party.."


HAHA, They believe the Democratic party of the US is center-left. The actually believe this I bet.

Both Major US parties are center-right and in the hands of big bad money.

[NGNM85]

They openly support the Democrat Party and President Obama.


To answer your question:
From the CPUSA Party Program on defeating the Right:
"This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party.."


That doesn't really answer my question. Obviously; of the two given choices any Leftist, Radical, or otherwise, would prefer Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. That's just common sense. That doesn't, necessarily, mean they think Obama is awesome, just the better of the two choices, which is pretty much like saying; 'Water is wet.'



Here is a link:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/communist-party-usa-endorses-obama-democrats-for-2012/

Incidentally; it's probably not a great idea to use far-Right blogs as sources.

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, but the problem, I think, is that CPUSA's position is "Republicans are bad, but the Democrats are good", and not "Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are even worse, so better Democrat than Republican, but even better if neither", as you seem to understand it. But maybe I'm the one that misunderstands their position.

[ed miliband]

That doesn't really answer my question. Obviously; of the two given choices any Leftist, Radical, or otherwise, would prefer Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. That's just common sense. That doesn't, necessarily, mean they think Obama is awesome, just the better of the two choices, which is pretty much like saying; 'Water is wet.'


god - why do you even pretend to be an anarchist? the "radical" social-democracy of the cpusa would be right up yr street

[NGNM85]

god - why do you even pretend to be an anarchist? the "radical" social-democracy of the cpusa would be right up yr street

Nothing in that statement was, in any way, inconsistent with Anarchism. Actually; it's the only position consistent with Anarchism. One of the things you overlook, and I should have mentioned this earlier, in your contemptuous derision of European-style social-democracy is what an enormous improvement that would be from the status quo, especially for the working class. We're nowhere near that. Right now, we can only imagine what that would be like. I'm not saying it's not possible to catch up to them, or even surpass them, of course, it is, but we're so drastically far behind that, by almost every metric, it's sort of hilarious for you to say something like that.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, but the problem, I think, is that CPUSA's position is "Republicans are bad, but the Democrats are good", and not "Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are even worse, so better Democrat than Republican, but even better if neither", as you seem to understand it. But maybe I'm the one that misunderstands their position.

I have no idea. I'm not familiar with this organization, or it's platform. However; as of yet, no-one has demonstrated evidence, either way. Also; it appears that this distinction is too nuanced for a number of members.

[ed miliband]

Nothing in that statement was, in any way, inconsistent with Anarchism. Actually; it's the only position consistent with Anarchism. One of the things you overlook, and I should have mentioned this earlier, in your contemptuous derision of European-style social-democracy is what an enormous improvement that would be from the status quo, especially for the working class. We're nowhere near that. Right now, we can only imagine what that would be like. I'm not saying it's not possible to catch up to them, or even surpass them, of course, it is, but we're so drastically far behind that, by almost every metric, it's sort of hilarious for you to say something like that.

it wouldn't be possible: capitalism is in a profound state of crisis and capital deciders what happens: the "political" is not sovereign. social-democracy is pure utopianism because the conditions have changed considerably since its heyday, the choice is between revolution and continuing misery - reform is not an option

anarchism is about the autonomous movement of the working class - away from labour bureaucrats and "red" politicians; you seem to invest some hope in both. yours is an anarchism without ultra-leftism - boring and essentially just radical liberalism.

[Robespierres Neck]

Funnily enough the the CPUSA was pretty strong both ideologically and with support in hte 1930s and 1940s, but now they are so scared of anything and desperately want to be a mainstream party that they loose all genuine left support.

If you want to be taken seriously have principles and stick to them.

I was looking at the history of the party recently, and yes; they used to be legitimate. Now, they're obviously not communist.
You should see Sam Webb's appreciate on Glenn Beck's show, it's equally appalling (if not more). It's the usual trash you see on Fox News and Beck uses Webb as his perfect victim.

[blake 3:17]

This is a link to a Communist Party of Canada's paper, which sharply criticizes the rightism of the CP-USA: http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/Pv01oc11.html#ILESSONS

Don't agree with some of it, but seems good the CP USA.

[Drosophila]

That doesn't really answer my question. Obviously; of the two given choices any Leftist, Radical, or otherwise, would prefer Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. That's just common sense. That doesn't, necessarily, mean they think Obama is awesome, just the better of the two choices, which is pretty much like saying; 'Water is wet.'




Supporting Obama & Democracts and calling for reforms is all that they do. It's not like they organize worker movements and then just say "well Obama is probably better than [insert name here] but whatever."

[GallowsBird]

HAHA, They believe the Democratic party of the US is center-left. The actually believe this I bet.

Both Major US parties are center-right and in the hands of big bad money.

They are centre-left (that is left of the other major centrist party and slightly to the slightly left of centre according to Ye Olde Politicale Spectrumme)... but who cares? Being a centrist isn't a good thing and a centre-left party is as bad as a centre-right party.... being a "centrist" of course means you support the capitalist system. You can't be a socialist and support capital!

[blake 3:17]

Aren't they really just an ineffective Left pressure group on the Democrats? I have met some American CPers who were active in their unions, and they seemed alright.

[Prometeo liberado]

That doesn't really answer my question. Obviously; of the two given choices any Leftist, Radical, or otherwise, would prefer Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin.That doesn't, necessarily, mean they think Obama is awesome, just the better of the two choices, which is pretty much like saying; 'Water is wet.'


What!? Obviously you have been hangin with paper leftists, folding under pressure, because no one I knew ever, ever, ever entertained the thought of going thru all that yet again. Prefer what? A slow liberal betrayel or an upfront screwing? Where is the choice?


This unity will include an ever-growing.....
How does cultivating an "ever-growing" unity with the Dems equate to the lesser of two evilism? Really, "ever-growing"? Cant be explained any way except as being lackey's to the Dems in an ever-growing fashion.

[NGNM85]

What!? Obviously you have been hangin with paper leftists, folding under pressure, because no one I knew ever, ever, ever entertained the thought of going thru all that yet again. Prefer what? A slow liberal betrayel or an upfront screwing? Where is the choice?

The choice is between the lesser evil, and the greater evil.

[NGNM85]

it wouldn't be possible: capitalism is in a profound state of crisis and capital deciders what happens: the "political" is not sovereign. social-democracy is pure utopianism because the conditions have changed considerably since its heyday, the choice is between revolution and continuing misery - reform is not an option

You're just hiding behind your bullshit rhetoric. This also exposes your real feelings towards the working class; somewhere between indifference and contempt.


anarchism is about the autonomous movement of the working class - away from labour bureaucrats and "red" politicians;

Those are not the sufficient conditions of Anarchism.


you seem to invest some hope in both.

I actually care about the working class, and thus would not refrain from availing myself of any, and all, means to empower them, and to ameliorate their suffering, both as a Socialist, and as a member of the working class.


yours is an anarchism without ultra-leftism - boring and essentially just radical liberalism.

'Radical Liberalism' is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive.

[NGNM85]

Supporting Obama & Democracts and calling for reforms is all that they do. It's not like they organize worker movements and then just say "well Obama is probably better than [insert name here] but whatever."

I have no idea. I'm not affiliated with this organization, nor am I familiar with this organization. I merely point out that;

A: The detractors of this organization have failed to make their prima facie case.

B: There seems to be a lot of fuzzy-minded thinking regarding how we should interact with the existing political system.

[Fawkes]

NGNM85:

Your views are based on a misunderstanding of the forces behind social change. Politicians respond to the pressures of social movements, they don't lead them. Obama and Romney want the same thing: continuation of their (and their class's) power. Subsequently, if there's a major movement for a public health system (or anything else), they will respond by enacting measures that serve to address some of the demands while ultimately maintaining their hegemony. Just look at the history of labor and civil rights movements

And the term "evil" has no place in a materialist leftist discourse

[milkmiku]

The choice is between the lesser evil, and the greater evil.


Then don't choose either. You do not HAVE to vote.

It does not matter which side you vote for, both are going to have hot steamy rape sessions with you.

Seriously, both sides support the same oppressive, debt slaving, war mongering, imperialistic, smooth talk bullshit.

Until I see a party made of REAL people, not affluent businessmen or lawyers, I will never vote for left or right.


Revolution will not be found among the repups or demos. They've been playing this back and forth game for 150 years.

[Drosophila]

Then don't choose either. You do not HAVE to vote.

It does not matter which side you vote for, both are going to have hot steamy rape sessions with you.

Seriously, both sides support the same oppressive, debt slaving, war mongering, imperialistic, smooth talk bullshit.

Until I see a party made of REAL people, not affluent businessmen or lawyers, I will never vote for left or right.


Revolution will not be found among the repups or demos. They've been playing this back and forth game for 150 years.

Unless you can get every single branch of government occupied by your party, you aren't going to make any significant changes. This is currently impossible in the USA (can't change the Supreme Court).

But that doesn't even matter. As long as you let capitalists into your government, you will not achieve revolution. The "democratic" system that the USA, UK, and the others use is counterrevolutionary in and of itself.

[NGNM85]

NGNM85:

Your views are based on a misunderstanding of the forces behind social change.

First; you don't know what my views are. second; If you want to quote somebody, you should use the quote button.


Politicians respond to the pressures of social movements, they don't lead them. Obama and Romney want the same thing: continuation of their (and their class's) power.

How tedious... Rhetoric aside; that's mostly accurate. In fact, I, essentially, said as much. However; while both parties, overwhelmingly, represent the business class, there are differences, owing to the fact that they represent different elite constituencies. Like I said before; on a national scale, those small differences can have a big impact. In general, the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. Also; a Democratic administration, and a Democratic controlled congress is going to make it easier to extract concessions, or to get progressive legislation passed.


Subsequently, if there's a major movement for a public health system (or anything else), they will respond by enacting measures that serve to address some of the demands while ultimately maintaining their hegemony. Just look at the history of labor and civil rights movements

No crap. The point that's getting lost is that Universal Healthcare would be a huge win. That this is something that millions of working-class Americans desperately need. It would also be empowering, because it would give people more control over their healthcare, by wresting it from totally unaccountable private tyrannies. What's really pathetic is that a substantial number of Radicals not only refuse to participate in such efforts, but are actually opposed to them. It's hypocritical, and stupid. Seriously.


WAnd the term "evil" has no place in a materialist leftist discourse

Jesus Christ, it's an expression.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven't read the entire thread. I would say that the choice isn't between an evil and a lesser evil. Socialists see the need for the political independence of the working class, not subordination to a bourgeois agenda, which is diametrically opposed to what we want.

The CPUSA stopped being revolutionary by the late 1930s.Their positions come from a deep pessimism about working class struggle.They see the need to orient themselves to an imaginary liberal bourgeois.This accelerated and deepened after the Pinochet coup in Chile.The collapse of the USSR furthered this.

The CP is desperate to get the support of "progressive" Democrats. I know of one case where they discouraged activists from anti-nazi activism in a southern state and expelled one dedicated activist for anifa activism.

The irony is the CP needs the Democrats but the Dems certainly don;'t need them.

The current debate w/in the Party is essentially over control of their very lucrative building in NYC.

The CPUSA probably won't exist 10 or even 5 years from now.They are interesting today only as a historical curiosity.

[NGNM85]

Then don't choose either. You do not HAVE to vote.

No, but boycotting the ballot box is stupid, and counterproductive. We should vote tactically. I'm in Massachusetts, which is a fairly blue state. If the Democrats have an election locked up, I probably won't vote. Let's also not forget that you can also vote on pieces of legislation, not just candidates. My best voting experience was when I, and a majority of my peers voted in favor of decriminalizing Cannabis. Now a lot of people, particularly Black, and Latino kids, won't have to get locked up for a victimless crime. I call that a win. If anybody wants me to feel guilty about it; you've got another thing coming.


It does not matter which side you vote for, both are going to have hot steamy rape sessions with you.

Seriously, both sides support the same oppressive, debt slaving, war mongering, imperialistic, smooth talk bullshit.

There are differences, and, again, on the national scale, small differences can add up to something big. The working class tends to fare better under Democratic administrations. Also; beyond being more ruthless towards the working class, one of the largest, and most influential wings of the Republican party is the Religious Right, which is virulently homophobic, and Pro-Life, among other things.


Until I see a party made of REAL people, not affluent businessmen or lawyers, I will never vote for left or right.

This attitude is counterproductive, and a little naive.


Revolution will not be found among the repups or demos. They've been playing this back and forth game for 150 years.

No-one ever said otherwise. That's not the point.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is missing the point. Their is a saying, "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal". After watching the Republican primaries, is it possible to believe this system has any legitimacy?

Another great saying,

Dump the elephant, dump the ass, build a party for the working class

[NGNM85]

Unless you can get every single branch of government occupied by your party, you aren't going to make any significant changes.

We'd have to have a consensus on the perameters of what should be termed; 'significant.' If 'significant' means Anarcho-Syndicalist utopia; you're definitely not going to get there by voting. However; it would be invaluable in establishing Universal Healthcare, or gay rights.


This is currently impossible in the USA (can't change the Supreme Court).

You can, indirectly. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President. If more Americans had voted for John Kerry, or Al Gore, Citizens United would have gone the other way. If anything, this might be the best reason to care about Presidential elections.


But that doesn't even matter. As long as you let capitalists into your government, you will not achieve revolution. The "democratic" system that the USA, UK, and the others use is counterrevolutionary in and of itself.

We're probably not going to be able to transform society into some kind of decentralized, Anarcho-Syndicalist federation simply by voting. That should pretty much go without saying. However; it would be stupid, and counterproductive not to avail ourselves of the existing mechanisms to hold the government, and corporations accountable, or to push for reforms that meet the needs of the working class. Beyond being a worthy cause, in itself, if anything, I think it has positive long-term benefits, outside of that. It empowers working people. It gets them energized, and engaged, as opposed to apathetic. It's also a way of building bridges between the small, atomized subculture that is the Radical Left, and the working class majority.

[NGNM85]

This is missing the point. Their is a saying, "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal". After watching the Republican primaries, is it possible to believe this system has any legitimacy?

Another great saying,

Dump the elephant, dump the ass, build a party for the working class

First of all; slogans have an effective purpose. There's a reason why people create them. They are designed to reduce ideas to their simplest, and most emotive forms to reach as many people as possible. You sacrifice content for accessibility. This is precisely why slogans are woefully insufficient as a substitute for policy. Complex ideas simply can't be accurately reduced to soundbites. The impulse to latch on to any half-baked slogan and turn it into doctrinal law is one of the more destructive diseases of the Radical Left.

You're correct in that there is an exceedingly low probability that we will be able to build a decentralized Anarcho-Syndicalist society by the ballot box alone. Incidentally; no-one has suggested this. However; there are mechanisms in place that would allow us to enact substantial reforms that would alleviate the suffering of the working class, and empower them. That alone, is reason enough. That constitutes a reason. If giving healthcare to millions of working class people, if getting equal rights for millions of gay Americans, etc., etc., if these reasons aren't compelling to you, then you really should find a new hobby.

You don't have to concede that the system is legitimate, you only have to acknowledge the fact that it exists.

Yes, the Republican primaries were a complete travesty. That only underlines my point. Suppose Rick Santorum had won. (He wasn't that far off.) Are you honestly saying that it's not worth it to keep him out of the White House? Knowing how he feels about abortion? Knowing his views on homosexuality? Mitt Romney just signed a pledge promising to support a federal ban on gay marriage. He is flat-out saying that he plans to deny millions of gay Americans their civil rights. It's funny. I would think that would be something most Leftists, especially Radical Leftists, might actually give a shit about.

If there was a working class party, most of the people here wouldn't vote for it. It's sad, really.

[The Hong Se Sun]

CPUSA line is "unite with the democrats to defeat the right" so whenever someone quote "letfwing communism an infantile disorder" to critique my boycott thoughts I ask "so I guess that the CPUSA has the right tactic then" no one ever answers that though :(

[blake 3:17]

The truth comes out!


The current debate w/in the Party is essentially over control of their very lucrative building in NYC.

Any idea what it is worth? One of the joys of being part of the anarchist & Trot milieus is that nobody owned anything (well sometimes anarchists would own a field or a copse of trees in the middle of nowhere..)

Edited to add: They own the building? How many millions is it worth?

[tachosomoza]

The CPUSA should change its name to the Social Democratic Party of America. They'd get more votes, since your average American thinks of the big bad Soviet Empire when they hear or see "Communist". They'll be more tolerant once the living memory of the Cold War fades later this century, I mean, the Soyuz has only been kaput for 20 years, and East Germany has only been gone for 22.

[Koba Junior]

There is only one party of which I'm aware that operates in the United States and is a Party of the Marxist-Leninist type. That would be the anti-revisionist American Party of Labor. While their ideology is theoretical sound, they haven't accomplished as much as the historical United States socialists and trade unionists before the advent of the New Left. In a time of domestic peace, the object of a Party of the Marxist-Leninist type is to cultivate radical proletarian consciousness through propaganda efforts and actions that win concessions from the bourgeoisie for the workers. Relative middle-class prosperity has confounded these efforts so far; the C.P.U.S.A. has abandoned the cause of radicalizing the left and has instead ingratiated itself to the left-leaning bourgeoisie. The American Party of Labor's failure is in its relative obscurity, something that will be extremely difficult to overcome.

[Krano]

http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329449/

[Yuppie Grinder]

It's a shame.

People think this is what Communism is. This party doesn't even connect themselves to Marxism. They speak out against every revolution leader known to man. And they support Democrats.

You're not exactly an authority on communism or Marxism either.

[l'Enfermé]

You're not exactly an authority on communism or Marxism either.
Neither are you, since you label yourself a "left communist".

Buuuuurn. No, but seriously, you're correct. Stalinists are not an authority on anything besides genocidal-denial and murderings hundreds of thousands of communists.

[Lucretia]

And after three pages of nearly unreadable bullshit, I think we can all take some time out of our busy lives to thank the admins once again for restricting NGNM to OI. It's amazing, really, that even after three years of the Obama administration basically torpedoing what were once growing left movements (the anti-war movement, most notably) and using the apparatus of the government to squelch #Occupy, NGNM still doesn't see the link between throwing your electoral support behind a bourgeois politician, and being too timid to organize grassroot movements that undermine him and the political establishment he represents. And it's because NGNM totally lacks any kind of class analysis of politics.

[l'Enfermé]

And after three pages of nearly unreadable bullshit, I think we can all take some time out of our busy lives to thank the admins once again for restricting NGNM to OI. It's amazing, really, that even after three years of the Obama administration basically torpedoing what were once growing left movements (the anti-war movement, most notably) and using the apparatus of the government to squelch #Occupy, NGNM still doesn't see the link between throwing your electoral support behind a bourgeois politician, and being too timid to organize grassroot movements that undermine him and the political establishment he represents. And it's because NGNM totally lacks any kind of class analysis of politics.
You are completely misinterpreting NGNM's views.

[Lucretia]

You are completely misinterpreting NGNM's views.

Absolutely not. Over a year before you joined this forum, when he was not yet restricted, we debated this endlessly. His views are that voting for a candidate is not the same as "supporting" that candidate, and that voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea because you can always work to organize independently of them (for anarchism, socialism, what have you) when you're not voting for them. Again -- he misses the connection between how one behaves electorally and how a person behaves politically outside the electoral system.

[NGNM85]

Absolutely not.

Yeah, you did.


Over a year before you joined this forum, when he was not yet restricted, we debated this endlessly.

That's not the word I would have used...

You also continue to make a big deal out of my Restriction as if it means anything. I'm sure the mods would be delighted to know that you think so highly of them, but the reasons for my Restriction have nothing to do with being ideologically inconsistent, nor did it have anything to do with my rather banal remarks regarding elections.


His views are that voting for a candidate is not the same as "supporting" that candidate,...

It's not just my view, and, more to the point, there's simply no other way to see it. For example; if I choose to allow a doctor to amputate my leg, as opposed to allowing an infection to spread throughout my body until I die, it does not stand to reason that I am enthusiastic about this prospect. Only that I have chosen the option that is less horrible. I hate to break it you, but, sometimes, that's all you can do. You also need to overcome this delusion that not participating is necessarily noble, or principled. In reality; it is just stupid, and counterproductive. Like the late Howard Zinn said; 'You can't be neutral on a moving train.' When faced with two bad choices, to abstain is to court the greater evil. There's no wisdom in that.


...and that voting for the lesser of two evils is a good idea..

Again; there's certainly no sense in voting for the greater evil.


because you can always work to organize independently of them..

Yup.


(for anarchism, socialism, what have you) when you're not voting for them.

The last time I voted, I was in, and out in less than half an hour.


Again -- he misses the connection between how one behaves electorally and how a person behaves politically outside the electoral system.

To the contrary, that's what you're doing. My reasoning is entirely consistnt. I care about the working class, because of my ethics, and because I happen to be a member of the working class. What does it mean to care about someone? If you care about someone, first, and foremost; you don't intentionally harm them. Second; you don't callously allow them to come to harm. Third; being unable to protect them from harm, you do everything in your power to ameliorate their discomfort. That's consistent. To say you support reforms that would address peoples' needs, and then obstinately refuse to participate in the elections that almost certainly decide whether, or not those reforms have any chance of actually happening, is irrational, and counterproductive.

[Koba Junior]

Stalinists are not an authority on anything besides genocidal-denial and murderings hundreds of thousands of communists.

Hey! I only murdered hundreds of thousands of communists in high-school! Christ, leave the past in the past, man!

[Drosophila]

Again; there's certainly no sense in voting

Fixed that for ya.

[NGNM85]

Fixed that for ya.

If you're going to quote statements, at the very least, include the posters' name.

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

[Drosophila]

If you're going to quote statements, at the very least, include the posters' name.

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

Now could you explain to me what the point is in voting?

[NGNM85]

Now could you explain to me what the point is in voting?

If you haven't understood it by now; odds are you never will. However; to be fair, this seems to be a common condition around these parts.

The point is that it sometimes makes sense. In terms of elections; there is a difference between the two wings of the business party, due to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies. It may not be very large, but, on a national scale, small differences can add up to a lot. Generally; the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. They also have the virtue of not being wedded to the reactionary Religious Right, who form a large, and vocal segment of the Republican base. Because of these differences it is easier to extract concessions, or create reforms under Democratic administrations. Presidents also appoint judges to the Supreme Court, which can have powerful, and long-reaching consequences. George W. Bush appointed three of the most extreme Right-wing judges; Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. (Scalia was appointed by Reagain, who also appointed Kennedy, but he isn't quite as far-Right as the others.) So far the consequences have been predictably awful, not the least of which being Citizens United.

Presuming one shows up at the local polling station, in addition to voting for candidates, you can also vote for particular pieces of legislation, some of which can have serious consequences for the working class, and minorities. For example; a majority of North Carolinians just voted against gay marriage. I shouldn't have to explain why a Leftist should care about that. The saddest part is I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Radicals, in North Carolina, didn't even show up to the polls.

[Drosophila]

Except almost nothing done by government affects the lower class. Tell me: has any piece of legislation been passed at the national level that has had a net effect on the poor? I haven't seen one. Even at the state and local levels nothing is really done that affects the lower class.

Plus, your vote really doesn't matter unless you band together with others and make it a huge priority. At that point, you put more effort into promoting liberal causes than you do socialist causes.

[NGNM85]

Except almost nothing done by government affects the lower class.

That's complete nonsense. The working class are the most affected, and the most deeply affected, because they live such a precarious existence.


Tell me: has any piece of legislation been passed at the national level that has had a net effect on the poor?

Of course.


I haven't seen one. Even at the state and local levels nothing is really done that affects the lower class.

If you really believe this is the case; then you aren't paying attention.


Plus, your vote really doesn't matter unless you band together with others and make it a huge priority.

There's simply no other way to change anything.


At that point, you put more effort into promoting liberal causes than you do socialist causes.

The two often overlap. Most liberals support gay rights. Most liberals support Universal Healthcare. Etc., etc.

[Drosophila]

That's complete nonsense. The working class are the most affected, and the most deeply affected, because they live such a precarious existence.

If you really believe this is the case; then you aren't paying attention.

Please point me to a piece of legislation passed recently that had a profound effect on the lower class.




There's simply no other way to change anything.

Except for revolution?




The two often overlap. Most liberals support gay rights. Most liberals support Universal Healthcare. Etc., etc.

But they can and will change their positions based on the statistics, fan base, etc.

[Geiseric]

Please point me to a piece of legislation passed recently that had a profound effect on the lower class.





Except for revolution?





But they can and will change their positions based on the statistics, fan base, etc.

Uhh the war in afghanistan, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, anti immigration bills...

Everything the government does is detrimental to the working class.

[Drosophila]

Uhh the war in afghanistan, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, anti immigration bills...

Everything the government does is detrimental to the working class.

But if those things didn't happen, there wouldn't be a significant improvement for the working class.

Also, why did you include NAFTA in there? Are you implying that if manufacturing jobs stayed in America things would be any better?

[eric922]

But if those things didn't happen, there wouldn't be a significant improvement for the working class.

Also, why did you include NAFTA in there? Are you implying that if manufacturing jobs stayed in America things would be any better?
Well if the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars hadn't happened a lot of people would still be alive. As to NAFTA, didn't it actually lower the living standards of the poor in Mexico? I've heard it caused a lot of trouble for poor farming communities, though I could be wrong.

[NGNM85]

Please point me to a piece of legislation passed recently that had a profound effect on the lower class.

We'd have to have a consensus definition of; 'profound.' You're also moving the goalposts. Again; it would be much more difficult to think of one that hasn't, for reasons I've already stated. However; since you asked; The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.


Except for revolution?

That would still involve banding together with a large group of people for a common cause.


But they can and will change their positions based on the statistics, fan base, etc.

You're conflating Liberals with the Democratic party. Liberals have overwhelmingly supported UHC, for quite some time. According to polls, something like two-thirds of Americans support it. Honestly; I think those are lowball figures. Or, to put it in stark relief; I suspect the percentage of Americans who would rather pay up to twice as much for healthcare, tor perhaps forego medication and treatment because of the exorbitant costs, out of some ideological dedication to 'free market principles' or some such horseshit is exceedingly small.

[Lucretia]

Yeah, you did.



That's not the word I would have used...

You also continue to make a big deal out of my Restriction as if it means anything. I'm sure the mods would be delighted to know that you think so highly of them, but the reasons for my Restriction have nothing to do with being ideologically inconsistent, nor did it have anything to do with my rather banal remarks regarding elections.



It's not just my view, and, more to the point, there's simply no other way to see it. For example; if I choose to allow a doctor to amputate my leg, as opposed to allowing an infection to spread throughout my body until I die, it does not stand to reason that I am enthusiastic about this prospect. Only that I have chosen the option that is less horrible. I hate to break it you, but, sometimes, that's all you can do. You also need to overcome this delusion that not participating is necessarily noble, or principled. In reality; it is just stupid, and counterproductive. Like the late Howard Zinn said; 'You can't be neutral on a moving train.' When faced with two bad choices, to abstain is to court the greater evil. There's no wisdom in that.



Again; there's certainly no sense in voting for the greater evil.



Yup.



The last time I voted, I was in, and out in less than half an hour.



To the contrary, that's what you're doing. My reasoning is entirely consistnt. I care about the working class, because of my ethics, and because I happen to be a member of the working class. What does it mean to care about someone? If you care about someone, first, and foremost; you don't intentionally harm them. Second; you don't callously allow them to come to harm. Third; being unable to protect them from harm, you do everything in your power to ameliorate their discomfort. That's consistent. To say you support reforms that would address peoples' needs, and then obstinately refuse to participate in the elections that almost certainly decide whether, or not those reforms have any chance of actually happening, is irrational, and counterproductive.

It truly is amazing NGNM, after four years of seeing Obama's presidency silence and undermine social movements in a way that GW Bush (remember him? the supposed "greater evil") could only have dreamed to do, you still continue to cling to this idea that there is nothing logically inconsistent between working in grassroots movements for the purpose of advancing socialist politics and then voting for a bourgeois politician who is propping up capitalism.

It is not something that requires a great deal of elaboration on my part. It's plainly obvious, and you can see it all over the place: "progressives" or "broad left" types are afraid to be overly critical of Obama because doing so might catapult the "greater evil" into office. *That* is the connection of which I was speaking in my earlier post -- people simply don't do as you suggest and work to fight Obama at that grassroots and then show up the next month to vote for him in the ballot box as though they were two completely distinct and unrelated activities. That is why your politics are fundamentally *idealist* and not *materialist*. You take an analytical distinction between two activites, then ignore the role both play in the class struggle in order to impose some philosophical principle about how people should (but of course, dont) behave politically. This is the stuff of Fourier, not Marx.

If keeping the "greater evil" out of office is important enough to hold your nose and vote for a capitalist lackey, then it's also important enough not to embarrass or criticize him so much that he runs the risk of losing to the greater evil come election time. This, as we have seen time and time again, defangs social movements.

[Drosophila]

Well if the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars hadn't happened a lot of people would still be alive. As to NAFTA, didn't it actually lower the living standards of the poor in Mexico? I've heard it caused a lot of trouble for poor farming communities, though I could be wrong.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars garnered a lot of support from the so-called "progressives" in Congress.

As for NAFTA, I was just pointing out that it manufacturing jobs are bad, no matter where they are done. Had they all stayed in the USA, companies would have likely tried to undermine conditions & wages further for factory workers.


We'd have to have a consensus definition of; 'profound.' You're also moving the goalposts. Again; it would be much more difficult to think of one that hasn't, for reasons I've already stated. However; since you asked; The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

"Profound" as in significantly improving working class conditions. Like a living wage law, or something to that extent.

Also, what good did the health care law do? Seemed like a watered down bill from the start. Even if it was good from the start, it was compromised over to the point where it was completely ineffective anyway.


That would still involve banding together with a large group of people for a common cause.

For a revolutionary cause, yes. Not for some liberal crap.


You're conflating Liberals with the Democratic party. Liberals have overwhelmingly supported UHC, for quite some time. According to polls, something like two-thirds of Americans support it. Honestly; I think those are lowball figures. Or, to put it in stark relief; I suspect the percentage of Americans who would rather pay up to twice as much for healthcare, tor perhaps forego medication and treatment because of the exorbitant costs, out of some ideological dedication to 'free market principles' or some such horseshit is exceedingly small.

UHC is something that would never be passed in the current situation. Imagine the "strict constitutionalist" assholes accepting a law that nationalizes an entire industry. The marriage between the Supreme Court and industry would render a UHC law completely void.

[NGNM85]

"Profound" as in significantly improving working class conditions. Like a living wage law, or something to that extent.

Again; what is the objective definition of; ‘significant.’ It seems like you’re moving the goal posts. From what I gather; this would not include a number of the examples I, previously mentioned, like gay marriage, or the decriminalization of cannabis, that those things just simply aren’t worth voting for. That’s just going to be an impasse. If you can’t conceptualize why Radicals should care about such things, then I’ll never be able to explain it to you.


Also, what good did the health care law do? Seemed like a watered down bill from the start. Even if it was good from the start, it was compromised over to the point where it was completely ineffective anyway.

It was, originally, a much better bill. It originally included the Public Option, that was, ultimately, wiped out, in the Senate. However; while it fell pathetically short of fixing the horrible state of healthcare in the United States, and should be, justifiably, criticized as such, we should also acknowledge the positives. For example;

Prohibiting insurance companies from randomly cutting off coverage to customers they don’t want to pay for under the aegis of a ‘pre-existing condition’, or preventing Americans with medical conditions from purchasing insurance.
The Bill ends lifetime coverage limits.
The Bill allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
It also, again, includes a provision for Americans to receive certain preventative procedures; like mammograms and colonoscopies, totally free, without a deductible or a copay.
Last, but not least, as a result of the Affordable Health Care Act, 30 million Americans who, previously, had no healthcare coverage, now have insurance.


For a revolutionary cause, yes. Not for some liberal crap.

Again; what I said was, essentially; The only way to create social, or political change is to band together with a large group of people for a common cause. That’s simply a fact. There’s no other way to see it.

Furthermore; just because Liberals tend to support universal healthcare, or gay rights, or reforming our draconian drug laws, etc., doesn’t mean they are fundamentally Liberal issues, or that anyone who supports them is a Liberal, by default. These are issues that any philosophically consistent Radical should care about.


UHC is something that would never be passed in the current situation.

If by; ‘the ‘current situation’, you mean tomorrow, or next Thursday; probably not. However; this is a real, achievable goal that could be realized in the not-too-distant future, that would substantively improve the conditions of the working class. Also; it’s highly unlikely that boycotting the political process is likely to change ‘the current situation.’

Imagine the "strict constitutionalist" assholes accepting a law that nationalizes an entire industry.The marriage between the Supreme Court and industry would render a UHC law completely void.

That depends, largely, on how the law is constructed.

There’s also more than a little hypocrisy in complaining about the reactionaries on the Supreme Court in one breath, and obstinately, categorically refusing to participate in elections that determine the composition of the Supreme Court. You can’t have it both ways.

[NGNM85]

It truly is amazing NGNM, after four years of seeing Obama's presidency silence and undermine social movements in a way that GW Bush (remember him? the supposed "greater evil") could only have dreamed to do,..

The emergence, and flourishing of the Occupy movement contradicts your thesis.


you still continue to cling to this idea that there is nothing logically inconsistent between working in grassroots movements for the purpose of advancing socialist politics and then voting for a bourgeois politician who is propping up capitalism.

There is no inconsistency, in fact, as I’ve explained, it’s the only completely consistent thing to do.

Obama isn’t ‘propping up capitalism.’


It is not something that requires a great deal of elaboration on my part. It's plainly obvious, and you can see it all over the place: "progressives" or "broad left" types are afraid to be overly critical of Obama because doing so might catapult the "greater evil" into office.

Some of them are, but many are not. If you survey the media, you’ll see that many liberals are very disappointed with this President, and his policies. I also don’t see that that follows, because the criticism of Obama from the Right, and the Left, are substantively, qualitatively different.


*That* is the connection of which I was speaking in my earlier post -- people simply don't do as you suggest and work to fight Obama at that grassroots and then show up the next month to vote for him in the ballot box as though they were two completely distinct and unrelated activities.

You’re right in that most people don’t do that. I never suggested otherwise.


That is why your politics are fundamentally *idealist* and not *materialist*. You take an analytical distinction between two activites, then ignore the role both play in the class struggle in order to impose some philosophical principle about how people should (but of course, dont) behave politically. This is the stuff of Fourier, not Marx.

Hrmph. I’ve never been called a Fourierist, before.

Also; as I’ve repeatedly stated; I am not a Marxist. (I really don't see how I could possibly be more clear about this.) Although; that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with a number of his ideas.

However, more to the point, this is just fuzzy-minded bullshit. I don’t even know where to start with this. First of all, if we follow your logic to it’s inevitable conclusions, then we should actually support the most extreme, reactionary politicians. That, by itself, should demonstrate that you’ve taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque, so to speak. However; this still leads to the same problem; extreme Reactionary policies, and attacks on the working class will inevitably result in social backlash. However; they will not necessarily result in the Radicalization of the masses. To the extent that your thesis is true, that the broad Left movements that bloomed under the Bush administration deflated in the wake of 2008, only exposes the fundamental weaknesses of those movements. They were ‘Anti-War’, or ‘Anti-Bush’, but they were not Socialist movements. Organizing, and educating working class people is our job. It’s not the governments’ job. It’s not Obama’s job. It’s our job. Clearly; there’s a lot of work to do. This is actually what bothers me most about your argument, not your questionable interpretation of recent events, etc., but this total abdication of even an iota of responsibility.


If keeping the "greater evil" out of office is important enough to hold your nose and vote for a capitalist lackey, then it's also important enough not to embarrass or criticize him so much that he runs the risk of losing to the greater evil come election time.

That doesn’t follow.


This, as we have seen time and time again, defangs social movements.

Only to the extent we allow it to.

[Lucretia]

I'm not going to waste time rehashing a debate that we've had before. It will just break down to mindless repetition of talking points, and to be perfectly blunt, I have better things to do with my time. I'll just highlight and respond to a couple of your noteworthy comments.


Obama isn’t ‘propping up capitalism.’

So in your mind, the Democratic party is not a capitalist party, and Obama -- the leader of the Democratic party, does not work to expand, entrench, and defend capitalism or capitalist business interests. This is a revelation to me, to Obama, to all the other liberals on this OI subforum (besides you, obviously), and of course to the revolutionary socialists throughout the world. It may be the single most absurd statement I've heard seen anybody make on the Internet while attempting to remain serious. And that is saying quite a lot.

In response to my earlier comment that "people simply don't do as you suggest and work to fight Obama at the grassroots and then show up the next month to vote for him in the ballot box as though they were two completely distinct and unrelated activities" you nonchalantly concede:


You’re right in that most people don’t do that. I never suggested otherwise.But then seem perplexed, and singularly disinterested, as to why I would even bring the subject up. Yet the relationship between grassroots politics and electoral politics lies at the heart of the entire framework of your argument. You want to claim that supporting a bourgeois politician with your vote is totally consistent with then fighting that politician at the grassroots level, but then when pressed as to why so few people engage in this kind of "consistent" behavior, you just want to pass over the issue in silence.

Analyzing *why* so few people do both says a good deal about both forms of activity, for phenomena can often only be understood relationally, by virtue of viewing them in connection with other parts of society or politics or what have you. My argument about why few people do both is that bourgeois electoral politics resulting from and in turn propping up the capitalist state is by its very nature antagonistic to political struggles by which people from the ground up are trying to reconstruct society so as to eliminate class exploitation and oppression, and ultimately the state itself.

This is evident when you consider how working against the president, his political party, and interests they represent places a set of demands on activists that is by default in tension with, antagonistic to, the demands of wanting to see that president defeat his "worse evil" electoral adversary. So, for example, we get the following dilemma: As activists interested in creating a classless society, should we devote every last ounce of energy, every second of our time to fighting Obama because of his flagrant protecting of banks and capitalists? Or should we take a more "balanced" approach, muting our criticism of the president by also attacking his opponent Mitt Romney -- and pointing out how he would coddle business interests even more? Or what if the race is really close and I'm in a swing state? Should we not attack the president at all, lest we tip the electoral scales to Romney's favor? Maybe in the next demonstration against the bank bailouts, we should only hold signs criticizing Romney, and only invite speakers who won't mention Obama.

Notice how once we drift from actual socialist politics to the bourgeois electoral arena, we are already thinking in an alienated way, in a way where we are no longer basing our criticism on the goal of achieving socialism and fighting representatives of the ruling class, but instead on the toxic "horserace" thinking that the capitalist media tries to brainwash people into accepting as the only form of politics? In the above example, we have somebody who wants to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state, yet is actively considering ways of protecting a capitalist politician. It's simply absurd.

This is called a "class analysis" and it used to be a staple of anarchism decades ago, before it drowned out by the mad dash of bourgeois middle-class "anarchist" lifestylists flocking to Internet message boards.

You don't defeat capitalism, or the state dominated by it, by electorally supporting capitalists. To do so demonstrates just how inverted, how alienated and alienating, is the thinking encouraged by the bourgeois electoral political process. It's not YOUR process, and it can never be YOUR process so long as capitalism persists. It's a process thoroughly dominated by the ruling class, and used by the ruling class to get otherwise well meaning people like you to become their little puppets. As we can see, it's a very effective process.

[NGNM85]

So in your mind, the Democratic party is not a capitalist party, and Obama -- the leader of the Democratic party, does not work to expand, entrench, and defend capitalism or capitalist business interests. This is a revelation to me, to Obama, to all the other liberals on this OI subforum (besides you, obviously)

Please…


and of course to the revolutionary socialists throughout the world. It may be the single most absurd statement I've heard seen anybody make on the Internet while attempting to remain serious. And that is saying quite a lot.

You misunderstood me. I never meant to imply that President Obama doesn't believe in capitalism. What I meant was that he's not that significant to capitalism. Even if a black hole appeared and sucked the White House, and Congress into Dimension X, never to be heard from, ; capitalism would continue. There would probably be some resultant chaos, but the overall framework of society would be, largely, unchanged.


In response to my earlier comment that "people simply don't do as you suggest and work to fight Obama at the grassroots and then show up the next month to vote for him in the ballot box as though they were two completely distinct and unrelated activities" you nonchalantly concede:

More, or less.


But then seem perplexed, and singularly disinterested, as to why I would even bring the subject up.

That's because it's irrelevant. The point of this conversation is; 'What should people be doing?', not; 'What are people doing?'


Yet the relationship between grassroots politics and electoral politics lies at the heart of the entire framework of your argument. You want to claim that supporting a bourgeois politician with your vote is totally consistent with then fighting that politician at the grassroots level,

Not so much that particular politician, as their platforms, etc. It would be a mistake to focus too much on an individual.

I’d clarify that a little bit. First of all; ‘voting’ isn’t limited to selecting from a list of political candidates, you can also vote on proposed legislation. Second; again, ‘support’, in this context, referring strictly to electoral support, as in voting for them, without illusions. Also; I didn’t say; ‘Hey, everybody, go vote for the Democrats!’ I said; if you live in a contested district, or state, then you should probably vote for the Democratic candidate, without illusions.

The phrase; ‘bourgeois politician’ is really pointless. It has no value. I mean, I make it a point not to use that kind of jargon, anyhow, but it’s not like there are, really, any viable candidates who wouldn’t be classified as ‘bourgeois.’ Furthermore; most of the Radical Left, by and large, has absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in trying to change the system to make it easier for third party candidates to get elected. Last, but not least, if, by some miracle, a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool Socialist did stand a serious chance of winning; the majority of people here wouldn’t bother to vote for them. Therefore; this distinction is completely meaningless.


but then when pressed as to why so few people engage in this kind of "consistent" behavior, you just want to pass over the issue in silence.
Analyzing *why* so few people do both says a good deal about both forms of activity, for phenomena can often only be understood relationally, by virtue of viewing them in connection with other parts of society or politics or what have you.

Argumentum ad populum. Believe it, or not, I’ve even used that, myself, once or twice. However; the fact remains that the majority, (Or, in this case; the majority of the minority.) can be, and often are, horribly misguided. (See; ‘The Slave Trade’, ‘Nazi Germany’, ‘Geocentrism’, ‘Elementalism’, ‘Creationism.’) Just glance around the boards and you’ll find all kinds of lunacy. I’ve said before that, among other things, this forum serves as exhaustive documentation of the pathologies of the Radical Left.

I was talking about people, in general, not merely the Radical Left. The Radical Left is a minor subculture. I’m much more interested in the fact that the general public so often votes against their own interests, even if they have a fairly good (if rather basic) understanding of what their interests are. For example; according to reliable surveys, the majority of Massachusetts residents who voted for Scott Brown were strongly in favor of Universal Healthcare, or, at least, a strong Public Option. Apparently; they somehow missed the fact that the candidate they voted for was emphatically against that. This isn’t unusual. I’ve seen similar data for Reagan’s election, in 1980. I think that's much more significant.


My argument about why few people do both is that bourgeois electoral politics resulting from and in turn propping up the capitalist state is by its very nature antagonistic to political struggles by which people from the ground up are trying to reconstruct society so as to eliminate class exploitation and oppression, and ultimately the state itself.

Ignoring the political system changes absolutely nothing. It’s never achieved one thing.


This is evident when you consider how working against the president, his political party, and interests they represent places a set of demands on activists that is by default in tension with, antagonistic to, the demands of wanting to see that president defeat his "worse evil" electoral adversary.

These two ideas are only contradictory if you think in extremely simple terms. What I want isn’t an option. My vision of an ideal society would be something like Albert, and Shalom’s; ‘Participism.’ That’s so fucking far from where we are right now. It is probably possible, someday, but it sure as hell isn’t going to happen tomorrow, or anytime soon. So, what I really want isn’t the point.


So, for example, we get the following dilemma: As activists interested in creating a classless society, should we devote every last ounce of energy, every second of our time to fighting Obama because of his flagrant protecting of banks and capitalists?

Again; there’s no reason to personalize it. It’s not like the drone strikes would be awesome if somebody else was in office.


Or should we take a more "balanced" approach, muting our criticism of the president by also attacking his opponent Mitt Romney -- and pointing out how he would coddle business interests even more? Or what if the race is really close and I'm in a swing state? Should we not attack the president at all, lest we tip the electoral scales to Romney's favor? Maybe in the next demonstration against the bank bailouts, we should only hold signs criticizing Romney, and only invite speakers who won't mention Obama.

It’s not a zero-sum game. You don’t have to choose. It doesn’t even make sense to choose one, or the other. Look; if your working class listeners come away with the idea that they’d be better off voting Republican, then, either; A; They horribly misunderstood what you were saying, or B; You fucked up big time. (Actually, it’s also possible that both of these could be the case, as they are not mutually exclusive.)


Notice how once we drift from actual socialist politics to the bourgeois electoral arena, we are already thinking in an alienated way, in a way where we are no longer basing our criticism on the goal of achieving socialism and fighting representatives of the ruling class, but instead on the toxic "horserace" thinking that the capitalist media tries to brainwash people into accepting as the only form of politics? In the above example, we have somebody who wants to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state, yet is actively considering ways of protecting a capitalist politician. It's simply absurd.

No, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re choosing the better of two bad choices, because there aren’t any good choices. Sometimes those are the only choices you get. This whole dichotomy between participating in the political system or working towards socialism is totally false. First of all; there is absolutely no possibility of establishing Socialism, in the United States, in the immediate future. At all. Second; drastic, fundamental changes follow reform. There’s no ‘Fast Forward.’ Third; there is no contradiction. Using the existing mechanisms to push the political system to the Left, and to extract concessions, and prompt reforms that improve conditions for the working class is very much a part of the Socialist project.


This is called a "class analysis"…

No, it’s not ‘Class Analysis’, (Which is absolutely vital.) it’s Crap Analysis, because it’s wrong.


and it used to be a staple of anarchism decades ago, before it drowned out by the mad dash of bourgeois middle-class "anarchist" lifestylists flocking to Internet message boards.

See above.

I’m not bourgeois, or middle-class, and I think lifestylism is a total fucking dead-end. (Because it is.) Also; I never suggested, or implied, that Anarchism was immune to the pathologies afflicting the Radical Left. There are any number of Anarchist (Or; ‘Anarchists’) who are sufficiently deranged. However; this is totally immaterial.


You don't defeat capitalism, or the state dominated by it, by electorally supporting capitalists.

As an aside; Marx actually mused at one point that this might actually be possible, under the conditions of universal suffrage, because the working class constitute the vast majority of the population. However; this necessitates that they have a sufficient understanding of their interests, and the political system. (Which, clearly, is not the case.) Regardless; I said no such thing.


To do so demonstrates just how inverted, how alienated and alienating, is the thinking encouraged by the bourgeois electoral political process. It's not YOUR process, and it can never be YOUR process so long as capitalism persists. It's a process thoroughly dominated by the ruling class, and used by the ruling class to get otherwise well meaning

'Otherwise well meaning'? Holy shit! 'Dear Diary...'


people like you to become their little puppets. As we can see, it's a very effective process.

No, you can only be a ‘puppet’, as you say, if you buy into the illusions. I don’t. Earlier generations of Radicals used the political system to push it to the Left, and to extract major concessions, and create substantial reforms. Radicals played a significant role in the reforms of the New Deal, the Great Society, and fighting for civil rights, etc., etc. Socialism was once a powerful force in American politics. It could be, again, but I won’t hold my breath. The modern Radical Left clings too tightly to it's precious irrelevence.

[Lucretia]

Please…



You misunderstood me. I never meant to imply that President Obama doesn't believe in capitalism. What I meant was that he's not that significant to capitalism. Even if a black hole appeared and sucked the White House, and Congress into Dimension X, never to be heard from, ; capitalism would continue. There would probably be some resultant chaos, but the overall framework of society would be, largely, unchanged.



More, or less.



That's because it's irrelevant. The point of this conversation is; 'What should people be doing?', not; 'What are people doing?'



Not so much that particular politician, as their platforms, etc. It would be a mistake to focus too much on an individual.

I’d clarify that a little bit. First of all; ‘voting’ isn’t limited to selecting from a list of political candidates, you can also vote on proposed legislation. Second; again, ‘support’, in this context, referring strictly to electoral support, as in voting for them, without illusions. Also; I didn’t say; ‘Hey, everybody, go vote for the Democrats!’ I said; if you live in a contested district, or state, then you should probably vote for the Democratic candidate, without illusions.

The phrase; ‘bourgeois politician’ is really pointless. It has no value. I mean, I make it a point not to use that kind of jargon, anyhow, but it’s not like there are, really, any viable candidates who wouldn’t be classified as ‘bourgeois.’ Furthermore; most of the Radical Left, by and large, has absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in trying to change the system to make it easier for third party candidates to get elected. Last, but not least, if, by some miracle, a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool Socialist did stand a serious chance of winning; the majority of people here wouldn’t bother to vote for them. Therefore; this distinction is completely meaningless.



Argumentum ad populum. Believe it, or not, I’ve even used that, myself, once or twice. However; the fact remains that the majority, (Or, in this case; the majority of the minority.) can be, and often are, horribly misguided. (See; ‘The Slave Trade’, ‘Nazi Germany’, ‘Geocentrism’, ‘Elementalism’, ‘Creationism.’) Just glance around the boards and you’ll find all kinds of lunacy. I’ve said before that, among other things, this forum serves as exhaustive documentation of the pathologies of the Radical Left.

I was talking about people, in general, not merely the Radical Left. The Radical Left is a minor subculture. I’m much more interested in the fact that the general public so often votes against their own interests, even if they have a fairly good (if rather basic) understanding of what their interests are. For example; according to reliable surveys, the majority of Massachusetts residents who voted for Scott Brown were strongly in favor of Universal Healthcare, or, at least, a strong Public Option. Apparently; they somehow missed the fact that the candidate they voted for was emphatically against that. This isn’t unusual. I’ve seen similar data for Reagan’s election, in 1980. I think that's much more significant.



Ignoring the political system changes absolutely nothing. It’s never achieved one thing.



These two ideas are only contradictory if you think in extremely simple terms. What I want isn’t an option. My vision of an ideal society would be something like Albert, and Shalom’s; ‘Participism.’ That’s so fucking far from where we are right now. It is probably possible, someday, but it sure as hell isn’t going to happen tomorrow, or anytime soon. So, what I really want isn’t the point.



Again; there’s no reason to personalize it. It’s not like the drone strikes would be awesome if somebody else was in office.



It’s not a zero-sum game. You don’t have to choose. It doesn’t even make sense to choose one, or the other. Look; if your working class listeners come away with the idea that they’d be better off voting Republican, then, either; A; They horribly misunderstood what you were saying, or B; You fucked up big time. (Actually, it’s also possible that both of these could be the case, as they are not mutually exclusive.)



No, that’s not what you’re doing. You’re choosing the better of two bad choices, because there aren’t any good choices. Sometimes those are the only choices you get. This whole dichotomy between participating in the political system or working towards socialism is totally false. First of all; there is absolutely no possibility of establishing Socialism, in the United States, in the immediate future. At all. Second; drastic, fundamental changes follow reform. There’s no ‘Fast Forward.’ Third; there is no contradiction. Using the existing mechanisms to push the political system to the Left, and to extract concessions, and prompt reforms that improve conditions for the working class is very much a part of the Socialist project.



No, it’s not ‘Class Analysis’, (Which is absolutely vital.) it’s Crap Analysis, because it’s wrong.



See above.

I’m not bourgeois, or middle-class, and I think lifestylism is a total fucking dead-end. (Because it is.) Also; I never suggested, or implied, that Anarchism was immune to the pathologies afflicting the Radical Left. There are any number of Anarchist (Or; ‘Anarchists’) who are sufficiently deranged. However; this is totally immaterial.



As an aside; Marx actually mused at one point that this might actually be possible, under the conditions of universal suffrage, because the working class constitute the vast majority of the population. However; this necessitates that they have a sufficient understanding of their interests, and the political system. (Which, clearly, is not the case.) Regardless; I said no such thing.



'Otherwise well meaning'? Holy shit! 'Dear Diary...'



No, you can only be a ‘puppet’, as you say, if you buy into the illusions. I don’t. Earlier generations of Radicals used the political system to push it to the Left, and to extract major concessions, and create substantial reforms. Radicals played a significant role in the reforms of the New Deal, the Great Society, and fighting for civil rights, etc., etc. Socialism was once a powerful force in American politics. It could be, again, but I won’t hold my breath. The modern Radical Left clings too tightly to it's precious irrelevence.

You're still not grasping the very basic point of my argument. You keep wanting to erect this absolute wall between grassroots politcs (geared toward overthrowing the bourgeois order and eliminating the state) and electoral politics (where you'll support the lesser-evil bourgeois party). In reality, and this is reflected in people's behavior, electoral politics is deeply and profoundly intertwined with grassroots politics such that how one conducts herself in one area will likely have a decisive influence on she conducts herself in the other area. In bourgeois society, electoral politics is an alienated, capitalist-dominated form of politics. And workers' struggle for power consists in part in trying to see through the illusions of electoral politics and reformism, the idea that you have a stake in supporting one wing of the bourgeoisie against the other. In light of all this, and contrary to your claim, it's totally inconsistent and illogical to fight to overthrow capitalism in one area, then throw your electoral support behind the political arm of capitalism in the other. It reminds me of the quote from the American soldier in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

I think the main obstacle you have is in failing to see that the democrats are a pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists, even if they do manage to manipulate anti-capitalists like you into supporting them.

Take a few weeks and study this last issue then get back to us. If you still have some confusion, try going to the democratic party web site, and determine whether the party platform favors preserving capitalism or not. Then ask yourself what the causes and consequences for this position are re: the class struggle.

[blake 3:17]

You're still not grasping the very basic point of my argument. You keep wanting to erect this absolute wall between grassroots politcs (geared toward overthrowing the bourgeois order and eliminating the state) and electoral politics (where you'll support the lesser-evil bourgeois party). In reality, and this is reflected in people's behavior, electoral politics is deeply and profoundly intertwined with grassroots politics such that how one conducts herself in one area will likely have a decisive influence on she conducts herself in the other area.

How would you prioritize electoral reform?

[Lucretia]

How would you prioritize electoral reform?

Changing how elections take place means very little if the framework of capitalist domination remains. And you're not going to reform capitalism away. Moreover, by focusing on electoral reforms, revolutionaries risk further promoting the illusion that the electoral arena is where "real" politics takes place (capitalists love promoting this myth, because it makes the only real political arena *their* arena). When in reality, it is the arena where politics assumes its alienated appearance. It's where the serious people aren't taken seriously, and the unserious people are taken seriously.

[NGNM85]

You're still not grasping the very basic point of my argument.

No, I understand it, it’s just wrong.


You keep wanting to erect this absolute wall between grassroots politcs (geared toward overthrowing the bourgeois order and eliminating the state) and electoral politics (where you'll support the lesser-evil bourgeois party). In reality, and this is reflected in people's behavior, electoral politics is deeply and profoundly intertwined with grassroots politics such that how one conducts herself in one area will likely have a decisive influence on she conducts herself in the other area.

There’s certainly a connection. For example; it’s unlikely that a Republican apparatchik would turn out at an Occupy protest, except to counter-protest. However; it’s not deterministic, as you’re suggesting. It all comes down to the ideology of the individual, and whether or not they are operating under any illusions. I’m not. I can vote against Scott Brown on Monday, and protest the drone strikes that very same day. There’s no conflict. Again; if your criticisms of current Washington policies lead your audience to conclude that they’d be better off with the Republicans in charge; then you screwed up. I have these conversations all the time with my co-workers. They say; ‘Which party do you support?’ I say; ‘Neither, really, I’m a Socialist. Basically; I see both parties as two wings of the Business Party. (This often gets nods of approval.) However; because I’m working class, and I’m not a religious ideologue, if I vote for a political party, I typically vote Democratic.’ That might not fit on a poster, but it’s not that hard to understand. Simply not participating in the political system isn’t going to change anything. It certainly isn’t going to magically disabuse people of their illusions. You have to do that, yourself.


In bourgeois society, electoral politics is an alienated, capitalist-dominated form of politics. And workers' struggle for power consists in part in trying to see through the illusions of electoral politics and reformism, the idea that you have a stake in supporting one wing of the bourgeoisie against the other.

You’re right about the first part; that one of the key components of the Socialist project is to see through the illusions perpetuated by the system, and to disabuse others of these same illusions. However; the rest is nonsense. Anybody who cares about the working class should be in favor of social reform. A socialist, by definition, is someone who cares about the working class. Again; what does it mean to care about someone? First, you don’t deliberately harm them. Second, you try to protect them from harm, to the extent of your ability. Third; finally, if one is unable to protect them from harm, you do everything you can to ameliorate their discomfort. That’s consistency. Also; (This should also go without saying.) the socialist project certainly isn’t furthered by passively allowing Reactionaries to take over the mechanisms of state power. Last, but not least, you still haven’t realized that reforms precede fundamental social change. You have to change things, to the extent that you can, within the existing framework. You can’t skip ahead.


In light of all this, and contrary to your claim, it's totally inconsistent and illogical to fight to overthrow capitalism in one area, then throw your electoral support behind the political arm of capitalism in the other. It reminds me of the quote from the American soldier in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

See above.



I think the main obstacle you have is in failing to see that the democrats are a pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists,..

I know, I specifically said so.


…even if they do manage to manipulate anti-capitalists like you into supporting them.

No, I don’t subscribe to any illusions. However; I don’t want you to think I didn’t notice that second enormous concession you’ve made by actually acknowledging that I’m a Socialist.


Take a few weeks and study this last issue then get back to us. If you still have some confusion, try going to the democratic party web site, and determine whether the party platform favors preserving capitalism or not.

Of course it does. Again; there are no significant anti-capitalist parties. Second; people like you are the primary obstacle to creating any kind of relevant Radical political movement. Third; were such an entity to come into existence you wouldn’t vote for it. Therefore; the issue is entirely moot.

You also need to realize how fucking far we are from being able to realize Socialism. That isn’t even a remote possibility. This is made even less likely by ignoring the political establishment, and the day-to-day concerns of working class people, and consigning ourselves to a ghetto on the far outskirts of society.


Then ask yourself what the causes and consequences for this position are re: the class struggle.

The consequences are we might actually improve conditions for the working class, and create a broad Left coalition to foment further , greater social change. (See; Eugene Debs, A. Phillip Randolph, Michael Harrington, etc.) We have a real opportunity, right now, with Occupy, and I see the Radical Left pissing it away. It’s fucking tragic.

[Lucretia]

NGNM, I think the most productive way to proceed with this discussion is to focus one issue at a time, in depth. Because the alternative, your just throwing out one-liners with no real substance in reply to my points, is just allowing you to dance around issues, sometimes on both sides of the same issue.

Let's take the issue of whether the democratic party is a pro-capitalist, bourgeois party or not. In your last post, you affirmed that you did indeed have a hard time acknowledging or seeing the Democratic party as a "pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists," but then literally two one-liners later, you state that "Of course it [the democratic party] does" support capitalism.

So perhaps you can clarify and elaborate before we move onto the next issue: do you think the democratic party is a pro-capitalist bourgeois party or not? And if you don't, would you care to explain, providing some evidence, why you don't think it is?

[NGNM85]

NGNM, I think the most productive way to proceed with this discussion is to focus one issue at a time, in depth.

I’m extremely pessimistic about any possibility of a meeting of the minds, but I’ll play along, for now, at least.


Because the alternative, your just throwing out one-liners with no real substance in reply to my points, is just allowing you to dance around issues, sometimes on both sides of the same issue.

No, that’s bullshit. First; only two of the statements from the previous post constitute one-liners, (‘See above.’ Doesn’t count.) one of which was to simply agree with you (In truth; I never suggested otherwise.), and the former, to assert, again, that I understand what you’re saying ,perfectly, I just think it’s completely wrong, for reasons I proceeded to expound upon, at length. I have been exceedingly generous, and patient in explaining myself, multiple times, in multiple different ways. I’m not going to listen to that at all.

Furthermore; there is no inconsistency, I’m saying the same thing I’ve always been saying, you just misunderstood me.


Let's take the issue of whether the democratic party is a pro-capitalist, bourgeois party or not. In your last post, you affirmed that you did indeed have a hard time acknowledging or seeing the Democratic party as a "pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists," but then literally two one-liners later, you state that "Of course it [the democratic party] does" support capitalism.

So perhaps you can clarify and elaborate before we move onto the next issue: do you think the democratic party is a pro-capitalist bourgeois party or not? And if you don't, would you care to explain, providing some evidence, why you don't think it is?


No, I didn’t have a hard time with it. You made a comment that President Obama was, quote; ‘propping up capitalism.’ I contested this without qualification, because I didn’t think it was necessary, because, I thought, it was just so obviously erroneous. Capitalism is not in crisis. It’s not endangered, in any sense of the word. Like I said; two, out of the three branches of government could inexplicably dematerialize, and capitalism would still be, largely, unaffected. Furthermore; this explicit qualification of the Democratic party as ‘capitalist’ is (still) utterly useless. It’s useless because it goes without saying. It’s useless because there are no significant non-, or anti-capitalist parties. Finally; it’s useless because even if such an entity were to spring into existence, of it’s own accord, nobody on the forum would vote for them. Therefore; it’s just excess verbiage; all emotion, zero substance. You can take note that this is exactly what I’ve said before, several times.

[Revolution starts with U]

Finally; it’s useless because even if such an entity were to spring into existence, of it’s own accord, nobody on the forum would vote for them

That is kind-of ironic :lol:

[Prometeo liberado]

That is kind-of ironic :lol:

Don't you think? It's like rain on your wedding day, and who would have thought............. Oh you get the point.:bored:

[NGNM85]

That is kind-of ironic :lol:

It's fucking pathetic, that's what it is.

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't you think? It's like rain on your wedding day, and who would have thought............. Oh you get the point.:bored:

What's funny is that neither of these are really ironic. But that's what the word has turned to, so we'll go with it :lol:

[Lucretia]

I’m extremely pessimistic about any possibility of a meeting of the minds, but I’ll play along, for now, at least.



No, that’s bullshit. First; only two of the statements from the previous post constitute one-liners, (‘See above.’ Doesn’t count.) one of which was to simply agree with you (In truth; I never suggested otherwise.), and the former, to assert, again, that I understand what you’re saying ,perfectly, I just think it’s completely wrong, for reasons I proceeded to expound upon, at length. I have been exceedingly generous, and patient in explaining myself, multiple times, in multiple different ways. I’m not going to listen to that at all.

Furthermore; there is no inconsistency, I’m saying the same thing I’ve always been saying, you just misunderstood me.



No, I didn’t have a hard time with it. You made a comment that President Obama was, quote; ‘propping up capitalism.’ I contested this without qualification, because I didn’t think it was necessary, because, I thought, it was just so obviously erroneous. Capitalism is not in crisis. It’s not endangered, in any sense of the word. Like I said; two, out of the three branches of government could inexplicably dematerialize, and capitalism would still be, largely, unaffected. Furthermore; this explicit qualification of the Democratic party as ‘capitalist’ is (still) utterly useless. It’s useless because it goes without saying. It’s useless because there are no significant non-, or anti-capitalist parties. Finally; it’s useless because even if such an entity were to spring into existence, of it’s own accord, nobody on the forum would vote for them. Therefore; it’s just excess verbiage; all emotion, zero substance. You can take note that this is exactly what I’ve said before, several times.


You really have a hard time just answering questions directly, don't you? I didn't ask you whether there are significant non-capitalist electoral parties. I asked you: is the Democratic party a pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists?

Is it? Yes or no?

[NGNM85]

You really have a hard time just answering questions directly, don't you? I didn't ask you whether there are significant non-capitalist electoral parties. I asked you: is the Democratic party a pro-capitalist party, funded and staffed by capitalists?
Is it? Yes or no?

No, I don't. I just don't reduce things to crude oversimplifications. This reductionistic, one-dimensional thinking is part of your problem.

I’ll try this one more time. You claimed that President Obama was, quote; ‘propping up capitalism.’ I responded by pointing out this was inaccurate, which I assumed was obvious, but, of course, if that was the case you wouldn’t have said such a ridiculous thing in the first place. This statement grossly misrepresents the status of capitalism, today. As I said; both the executive, and legislative branches of government could spontaneously combust, and capitalism would still be, largely, unaffected. It never even occurred to me that this would somehow lead you to think that I was suggesting, or implying that the Democratic party was a Socialist organization. The description of the Democratic party as a ‘capitalist party’ (Which I suspect you’re deliberately doing simply to be evocative, and inflammatory.) is not factually inaccurate, as the Democratic party is not a Socialist party. However; like all things, this needs to be appreciated in context, otherwise, it has no meaning. Part of context is the socioeconomic, and political reality of the United States, today. That being the case; singling out the Democratic party as a ‘capitalist’ party doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s makes even less sense when you consider the fact that you have absolutely no interest in creating, or participating in a non-, or anti-capitalist party, and wouldn’t support one, if it existed. That’s the context. That’s extremely pertinent. I can’t make it any more plain than that. I can only advise you to read slower.

[Lucretia]

No, I don't. I just don't reduce things to crude oversimplifications. This reductionistic, one-dimensional thinking is part of your problem.

I’ll try this one more time. You claimed that President Obama was, quote; ‘propping up capitalism.’ I responded by pointing out this was inaccurate, which I assumed was obvious, but, of course, if that was the case you wouldn’t have said such a ridiculous thing in the first place. This statement grossly misrepresents the status of capitalism, today. As I said; both the executive, and legislative branches of government could spontaneously combust, and capitalism would still be, largely, unaffected. It never even occurred to me that this would somehow lead you to think that I was suggesting, or implying that the Democratic party was a Socialist organization. The description of the Democratic party as a ‘capitalist party’ (Which I suspect you’re deliberately doing simply to be evocative, and inflammatory.) is not factually inaccurate, as the Democratic party is not a Socialist party. However; like all things, this needs to be appreciated in context, otherwise, it has no meaning. Part of context is the socioeconomic, and political reality of the United States, today. That being the case; singling out the Democratic party as a ‘capitalist’ party doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s makes even less sense when you consider the fact that you have absolutely no interest in creating, or participating in a non-, or anti-capitalist party, and wouldn’t support one, if it existed. That’s the context. That’s extremely pertinent. I can’t make it any more plain than that. I can only advise you to read slower.

You once again refuse to answer a basic question, and instead want to leap into your Gospel of Lesser-Evilism, as though you know the answer to my question but don't want to say it because you're too busy (wrongly, I might add) anticipating what I'll say in response to your answer. If I asked you "does the Earth revolve around the sun?", you'll accuse me of oversimplifying things and insist on talking about Pluto and the Kepler belt.

I'm going to give this one more try, NGNM, and if you still can't just answer the question directly in a sentence or less (it's NOT a difficult question, and doesn't require dozens of qualifiers), I'll assume you're just playing games and won't waste any more of my time.

Is the Democratic party a pro-capitalist party led and funded predominantly by capitalists? I'm not asking why, and I'm not making any claims about how this should be interpreted in context (we'll get to these issues later, AFTER we have established a shared factual basis for our conversation). So spare me your little narrative, and just answer the question.

[NGNM85]

You once again refuse to answer a basic question, and instead want to leap into your Gospel of Lesser-Evilism, as though you know the answer to my question but don't want to say it because you're too busy (wrongly, I might add) anticipating what I'll say in response to your answer. If I asked you "does the Earth revolve around the sun?", you'll accuse me of oversimplifying things and insist on talking about Pluto and the Kepler belt.

I'm going to give this one more try, NGNM, and if you still can't just answer the question directly in a sentence or less (it's NOT a difficult question, and doesn't require dozens of qualifiers), I'll assume you're just playing games and won't waste any more of my time.

Is the Democratic party a pro-capitalist party led and funded predominantly by capitalists? I'm not asking why, and I'm not making any claims about how this should be interpreted in context (we'll get to these issues later, AFTER we have established a shared factual basis for our conversation). So spare me your little narrative, and just answer the question.

I'll say this much; your audacity knows no bounds. You have the gall to accuse me of playing games, and wasting time, for not wasting my time by playing your games. I won't play this game.

[Lucretia]

I'll say this much; your audacity knows no bounds. You have the gall to accuse me of playing games, and wasting time, for not wasting my time by playing your games. I won't play this game.

I have no other conclusion to draw except that you refuse to answer a simple factual question. I hope other posters here take an important lesson about the nature if ngnm's ideology by looking at how his insecurity prevents him from acknowledging basic facts about American politics.

[Revolution starts with U]

To be fair, I think he has said numerous times that this question is irrelevant because there is no significant anti-capitalist party in the states, and if there was nobody here would vote for them.

I think you need to point out why the question is relevant, before you fault someone for not answering a question they see as meaningless. He did, after all, say "the claim that the DP is a capitalist party is not factually incorrect, but needs to be understood in context.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Obama is a bourgeois politician. That is an adequate descriptive term of who he is and the role he plays. There are a tiny number of non-bourgois politicians, that is people who advocate the interest of the working class as a class for itself and work for to build a society beyond the rule of capital. Obama, Romney, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Rick Santorum, etc are all bourgeois politicians. They may or may not be "good guys". they may or may not be "progressive", the fact is they are borgy politicians and ultimately serve to prop up the system..

The Democratic Party is part of the political prop of capitalist rule.Nothing exists in a vacuum, all elements of a society are in constant, dynamic interaction with other elements of society.

There is an alternative, TINA is a lie. The alternative is the implicit revolutionary motion of the working class. Of course very few US workers would consider themselves "Marxist" but the fact is the working classin pushing for demands provides an implicit challenge to capitalism. The antithesis to capitalism is implicit within capitalist society itself.

[Lucretia]

To be fair, I think he has said numerous times that this question is irrelevant because there is no significant anti-capitalist party in the states, and if there was nobody here would vote for them.

I think you need to point out why the question is relevant, before you fault someone for not answering a question they see as meaningless. He did, after all, say "the claim that the DP is a capitalist party is not factually incorrect, but needs to be understood in context.

That's the wrinkle, isn't it? If the answer to the question is really so insignificant and irrelevant, why does he have such a difficult time just answering it? Whatever answer he provides will be insignificant, right, because the entire issue isn't significant? In other words, he seems to be putting up quite a fight in order not to concede a point which he then wants to portray as irrelevant in any event.

What is really happening is that NGNM is simply unwilling to agree to establish a basic factual framework about what the democratic party is so we can then proceed to have a discussion about how to interpret our respective positions about whether it is acceptable for an anti-capitalist to vote for the democrats.

Instead of first establishing basics facts, then discussing their relevance and interpreting them -- something we would obviously have differences of opinion on -- he refuses to divorce the facts from his interpretation of them. It's kind of a cheap way of implying that there is one and only one way to interpret a fact, such that his interpretation of the context is indistinguishable and inextricable from the fact itself. Earth to NGNM: it's not.

He is unwilling to abide by protocols of civil and reasonable debate (which involve establishing facts, establishing shared definitions, etc.). What we're seeing here is cognitive dissonance playing out for all observers to see.

[NGNM85]

I have no other conclusion to draw except that you refuse to answer a simple factual question. I hope other posters here take an important lesson about the nature if ngnm's ideology by looking at how his insecurity prevents him from acknowledging basic facts about American politics.

No, this is utter nonsense. You are playing games. There is no question. Nothing is in doubt, as RevolutionStartsWithYou has pointed out. That’s not good enough. You want to dictate specifically how I should say it, and to do so at your command. It has nothing to do with; ‘insecurity’, it has everything to do with not being inclined to be jerked around by you. I won’t perform for you simply because you demand it. I’m not a fucking dancing bear.


That's the wrinkle, isn't it? If the answer to the question is really so insignificant and irrelevant, why does he have such a difficult time just answering it?

My primary objection is that the question is being asked in bad faith.


Whatever answer he provides will be insignificant, right, because the entire issue isn't significant? In other words, he seems to be putting up quite a fight in order not to concede a point which he then wants to portray as irrelevant in any event.

There’s nothing to concede, because there is no argument.


What is really happening is that NGNM is simply unwilling to agree to establish a basic factual framework about what the democratic party is so we can then proceed to have a discussion about how to interpret our respective positions about whether it is acceptable for an anti-capitalist to vote for the democrats.

If that’s what you wanted to do; then you would be doing it.


Instead of first establishing basics facts, then discussing their relevance and interpreting them -- something we would obviously have differences of opinion on -- he refuses to divorce the facts from his interpretation of them. It's kind of a cheap way of implying that there is one and only one way to interpret a fact, such that his interpretation of the context is indistinguishable and inextricable from the fact itself. Earth to NGNM: it's not.

Context is necessary to understand facts. Without context; facts are meaningless.


He is unwilling to abide by protocols of civil and reasonable debate (which involve establishing facts, establishing shared definitions, etc.).

No; I would love to engage in civil, adult conversation. (That’s, clearly, impossible.) I’m simply not interested in performing for you.


What we're seeing here is cognitive dissonance playing out for all observers to see.

There is no contradiction; therefore there is no cognitive dissonance.

I’ve moved beyond pessimism. This is utterly hopeless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it's obvious that the Democratic Party is part of the bourgeois establishment, and that any political organisation throwing their lot in with them is well on their way to being co-opted, despite what the organisation's membership may intend.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what the argument is here.

[Althusser]

Maybe they just don't want the US to re-enact The Smith Act.

[durhamleft]

Did he just say 70% of Republicans support socialism over capitalism? :confused:

[DrZaiu5]

Having a Communist Party (if only in name) in the US is like having a hard-line Islamist Party in Devon, England...you're just not gonna get anywhere, no one's buying

This. Although whether or not they should change their name to become more popular is not something I'm sure of.