Social Democrats

[ArseCynic]

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that is starting to get fed up with those who believe they can solve their problems politically, slowly, and locally. Changing policies and laws in your local area while not change anything intrinsic and is not progress or change. All of these forms of change will degenerate back, the current systems will not allow actual change to occur within them. sure you can regulate some stuff, improve services to ease the destruction, but this is not change and should never be bannered as such.

I feel as though those who advocate parties such as the NDP have given up on all progress, have had their revolutionary logic burned away from living too long within the systems, and have settled for a band-aid oppose to solutions.

What are the so called radicals doing to change things?

well all we can do is complain, and from this complaining we are already doing more than any band-aid will ever do.

[Peoples' War]

What we need to be doing is agitating the ruling class, educating our fellow proletariat, and putting our words into action.

The Social Democrats feel that they can "tame" or put a "human face" on capitalism.

They are fools, in the absolute. What are so-called Socialist and Social Democratic parties doing right now? They are forcing austerity measures on the people that elected them.

Only in times of economic stability, if you can call it that, are Social Democrats superior to their liberal and neo-liberal counterparts.

Occupy, the protests in Quebec, the railway strike in Canada, these are all things that the radical left need to take advantage of. We need to get our propaganda out there, to inform the masses, to encourage them to drop the illusion that they will do better eventually.

Complaining, although we leftists do it a lot, is not all we can do. We need to, provided our circumstances, be out there, in the midst of the protests and strikes.

Anarchists, Left-Communists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists. Side-by-side. Regardless of theoretical, or tactical, or historical opinion.

[tradeunionsupporter]

This is a good topic.

[Krano]

Here in Finland we had a Social Democratic government for 30 years and during that time we got the largest wealth gab between the rich and the middle class,
people need to abandone the idea that you can change capitalism from the inside.

[SirBrendan]

I am a social democrat and find this entire posting to be divisive and inappropriate. My ultimate goal is worldwide socialism. I have every bit the dislike for capitalism is any hardliner. I simply reject violent protest and the use coercion to achieve the aims.

I believe before any revolution can have a chance, a population must be in agreement that the revolition is both necessary and good. So long as we are not starving, there will be no impulsive or reactionary revolution.This means that the revolution would instead have to be driven by moral compulsion and ideaology. This is only possible if education on the subject has reached critical mass to the point that there is wholesale rejection of capitalism by the majority.

As we are still recovering from Cold War propoganda and no economic depression has arrived to precipitate a degree of suffering required for revolutionary ideals to take hold, it is only through the slow crawl of mitigation and democracy we have any hope of education and change. So before you poo-poo with an upturned nose social democracy, consider what it has done in Canada (since you specifically mentioned NDP).

We have universal health care, universal education, economic regulation, welfare state, large-scale unionization, wokrers rights, minimum wage, anational media channel protecting us from American excess, and the charter of human rights and freedoms (Installed by Truedeau, who was the leader of the Marxist Party of Canada). Social democracy is not ineffective and those bandaids go a long way when we've been hemmorhaging for centuties.

I contend that social democracy is an effective and good political idea simply because it helps us live our lives to at least some degree of improvement where socialism is not yet popular. So please don't dismiss us as enemies of the people.

[NGNM85]

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that is starting to get fed up with those who believe they can solve their problems politically, slowly, and locally.

That sounds a lot like something some German guy said once;

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.html)


Changing policies and laws in your local area while not change anything intrinsic and is not progress or change.

By that logic; the Radical Left should not have supported the civil rights movement(s).


All of these forms of change will degenerate back,

Not necessarily.


the current systems will not allow actual change to occur within them.

That depends on how you define; ‘change.’


sure you can regulate some stuff, improve services to ease the destruction, but this is not change and should never be bannered as such.

Ok, now you’ve sort of defined; ‘change.’ Ok. So, in your view; equal rights for gays and lesbians, or universal healthcare, would not constitute ‘real change’, because it doesn’t fundamentally alter the underlying structure of society. (I concede the second part.) However; it does not stand to reason that we should not support such initiatives. In fact; we must, if we ever hope to fundamentally change society, to create ‘real’ change.


What are the so called radicals doing to change things?

Not much.


well all we can do is complain, and from this complaining we are already doing more than any band-aid will ever do.

No, I think universal healthcare, etc., would do a hell of a lot more for the working class.

[l'Enfermé]

That sounds a lot like something some German guy said once;

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.html)



By that logic; the Radical Left should not have supported the civil rights movement(s).



Not necessarily.



That depends on how you define; ‘change.’



Ok, now you’ve sort of defined; ‘change.’ Ok. So, in your view; equal rights for gays and lesbians, or universal healthcare, would not constitute ‘real change’, because it doesn’t fundamentally alter the underlying structure of society. (I concede the second part.) However; it does not stand to reason that we should not support such initiatives. In fact; we must, if we ever hope to fundamentally change society, to create ‘real’ change.



Not much.



No, I think universal healthcare, etc., would do a hell of a lot more for the working class.
That's quite an un-anarchist stance you have there, comrade. The rejection of political action is the supreme principle of Anarchism, and struggles for things like universal healthcare are political things.

You are almost a Marxist.

[ed miliband]

That's quite an un-anarchist stance you have there, comrade. The rejection of political action is the supreme principle of Anarchism, and struggles for things like universal healthcare are political things.

You are almost a Marxist.

a guess there isn't much difference between shit anarchists and shit marxists.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Social Democrats still support Capitalism therefor they are still Capitalists.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Here in Finland we had a Social Democratic government for 30 years and during that time we got the largest wealth gab between the rich and the middle class,
people need to abandone the idea that you can change capitalism from the inside.

Same deal in UK with 13 years of 'new' Labour (call themselves democratic socialist, just widened the rich/poor gap and sucked up to the market and capital)

[l'Enfermé]

a guess there isn't much difference between shit anarchists and shit marxists.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say but I'm guessing it's an insult.

[NGNM85]

a guess there isn't much difference between shit anarchists and shit marxists.

If you really wanted to shock me; you'd say something intelligent, for once.

[NGNM85]

That's quite an un-anarchist stance you have there, comrade. The rejection of political action is the supreme principle of Anarchism, and struggles for things like universal healthcare are political things.

You are almost a Marxist.

I don't think it's as much of a stretch as you suggest, although there are certainly plenty who would see it that way. I think that's just one-dimensional thinking. By that reasoning; Anarchists should actually be supporting the Republicans in trying to dismantle the welfare state, the EPA, the public education system, etc. That makes no sense. No, we should defend, and expand the welfare state, we should be supporting the movement for universal healthcare, because it improves conditions for the working class, and it empowers them. That doesn't require you, on any level, to accept the state is legitimate, merely that it exists.

[l'Enfermé]

Of course, but when you say such things, you immediately abandon the central tenant of Anarchism(one that is more important than all that fuss made my anarchists about how authority and authoritarianism is inherently evil), abstention from all politics.

[NGNM85]

Of course, but when you say such things, you immediately abandon the central tenant of Anarchism(one that is more important than all that fuss made my anarchists about how authority and authoritarianism is inherently evil), abstention from all politics.

Eh, I don't think it's that huge of a jump. There are precedents. More importantly; it's the only sensible, rational conclusion. The minute we begin ignoring, or editing reality to comply with some doctrinal law is when we jump from political philosophy, to religion.

The way I've always seen it, and I'm hardly alone in this; is simply that authority should be, continually, subject to a heavy burden of proof as to it's legitimacy, and upon failing that test, should be dismantled, or replaced. Sometimes it's legitimate, sometimes it isn't. However; authority, in general, should never be seen as inherently legitimate. That's authoritarianism, and it's fundamentally antithetical to anything that could, reasonably, be called Socialism.

[#FF0000]

We have universal health care, universal education, economic regulation, welfare state, large-scale unionization, wokrers rights, minimum wage, anational media channel protecting us from American excess, and the charter of human rights and freedoms (Installed by Truedeau, who was the leader of the Marxist Party of Canada). Social democracy is not ineffective and those bandaids go a long way when we've been hemmorhaging for centuties.

Except it's coughing up blood along with neo-liberalism in the States, and how many of those reforms would even be possible without the hyper-exploitation of workers elsewhere in the world.

I mean, hey, these things are nice, but they aren't a suitable end-goal at all. We should always be agitating for socialism, not holding our piece because "oh, now might not be a good time".


I contend that social democracy is an effective and good political idea simply because it helps us live our lives to at least some degree of improvement where socialism is not yet popular. So please don't dismiss us as enemies of the people.

Well, historically speaking...

[cynicles]

Screw Social Democrats, they're the worst of all! Remember what happened to Rosa!

[jookyle]

Social-Democracy=capitalism where the capitalists use a portion of surplus to buy off a revolution of the people.

[Regicollis]

That depends on what kind of social democracy we are talking about. If we are talking about the increasingly rare ideological social democrats I think that they could - and in the past have - done a much better job than the liberal alternative. A social democratic welfare state is a more liveable place than a libertarian hell-hole. However one should know that social democratism has its limitations. It has historically shown a tendency towards class treason after which the previously dangerous social democrats transforms into a tool for keeping the working class down.

As for those parties who call themselves social democrats or socialists and sometimes win an election they are the scum of the earth. They are a bunch of liars and fat-cats. They'll promise anything in order to get elected but their policies will be a particularly nasty kind of libertarianism once they are in office.

[Positivist]

Supporting social democrats seems a lot less treasonous when you have a grandma and an aunt who could go into remission on your dads side, and everyone over 50 with diabetes on your moms side. And my dad is too old too move furniture so hes unemployed. Welfare and healthcare are valuable whatever the fuck any of you anti election idealists say.

[#FF0000]

Supporting social democrats seems a lot less treasonous when you have a grandma and an aunt who could go into remission on your dads side, and everyone over 50 with diabetes on your moms side. And my dad is too old too move furniture so hes unemployed. Welfare and healthcare are valuable whatever the fuck any of you anti election idealists say.

no one is saying they aren't though. just that voting isn't enough to get and maintain these things and it's damn sure not enough to rest on a social democratic policy and say 'yeah that's enough for now'.

cool appeal to emotion, though. One could easily turn that one around, btw, and point to all the folks who die thanks to social democratic countries that play along with or engage in their own imperialist ventures. France has got a lovely safety net for its citizens, so let's ignore the atrocity that was Libya!

[Sentinel]

As we are still recovering from Cold War propoganda and no economic depression has arrived to precipitate a degree of suffering required for revolutionary ideals to take hold, it is only through the slow crawl of mitigation and democracy we have any hope of education and change.


This, of course, is where your entire argument collapses. It might have sounded plausible just a few years ago, but now we do have the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, which is developing into a real depression.

How can you not have noticed this, really? Surely some countries have been more sheltered than others, but modern economy is global and so is the crisis. It is possible for certain countries, especially the ones that used to have social democratic welfare states and thusly lots of public property to sell out, to hold on inside 'bubbles' for a little while, but not for long.

The only way out of the crisis within capitalism would be an immense destruction of capital, infrastructure and means of production equalent to WWII. That was what saved capitalism the last time, and made the concessions achieved by the social democrats possible, along with the capitalists fear of the stalinist bloc.

None of these conditions exist today. There will be no more concessions on the scale we saw in the last century from the ruling classes. Only large scale nationalisations of corporations and banks can get us out of the crisis, and this is something the capitalists will never abide to voluntarily, nor is it something the majority of the contemporary social democratic movement advocates.

And this is why social democracy is a dead end and the revolutionary left holds the only answer.

[ed miliband]

i think sentinel makes some very good and necessary points, although i strongly disagree with his conclusion ("Only large scale nationalisations of corporations and banks can get us out of the crisis").

but on top of that i think it's also important to consider the ways in which the working class actively rejected social democracy, keynesianism, 'the golden age of capitalism', the post-war consensus, whatever you want to call it. because they did. and the history of struggles from about '68 to '79, across europe and north america, is testament to that. here's a quote from what i think is a very important and informative study of social democracy by aufheben:


Yet in recognizing and representing the working class within capital, social democracy is essentially in a contradictory position. On the one hand, to assert its power against that of the bourgeoisie, social democracy must mobilize the working class: the organs of social democracy are animated by the working class, who join and vote for parties and unions, and who take part in union-organized industrial action. On the other hand, social democracy must prevent the working class from mobilizing too far - from becoming a class-for-itself - since it must preserve the capital relation. Social democracy must therefore both mobilize and demobilize the working class if it is to represent it. The working class is recognized and enabled to act as an agent but is simultaneously reified. As such, social democracy functions to recuperate proletarian antagonism but is also vulnerable to such antagonism.

[Sentinel]

i think sentinel makes some very good and necessary points, although i strongly disagree with his conclusion ("Only large scale nationalisations of corporations and banks can get us out of the crisis").



You probably have an idea of what I meant, but others might not realise what I'm talking about. So to elaborate, what I'm referring to is the transferring of corporations, banks, insurance companies, and all vital infrastructure to public ownership under the democratic supervision of the workers, and the implementation of a democratically planned economy.

Ie, not bureaucratic nationalisations controlled by a bourgeois state or a stalinist type bureaucracy. This kind of change I believe is something that only a socialist revolution by the working masses can achieve.

[Sentinel]

Ah, the dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words? Why not common ownership? After all, the socialist revolution has occurred.


Well, I'm a leninist, and clearly don't believe a communist society can be achieved without a transition period. But that is another discussion, this thread is for all of us to bash the social democrats together. ;)

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Well, I'm a leninist, and clearly don't believe a communist society can be achieved without a transition period. But that is another discussion, this thread is for all of us to bash the social democrats together. ;)
Indeed, I'll delete my post, comrade.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Here in Finland we had a Social Democratic government for 30 years and during that time we got the largest wealth gab between the rich and the middle class,
people need to abandone the idea that you can change capitalism from the inside.

where else should we fight capitalism from? Capitalism has no outside, we all live within it. (and that's not at all meant as a support for social democracy)

[Krano]

where else should we fight capitalism from? Capitalism has no outside, we all live within it. (and that's not at all meant as a support for social democracy)
You know what i mean, electing Socialists and Communists.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Welfare and healthcare are valuable whatever the fuck any of you anti election idealists say.

Of course it's valuable to the working class (within capitalism of course), but what's really idealist is to say that welfare is fought for only through the ballot. However, the right number of ballots is everything that's needed for this welfare to go away within a blink of the eye.

Also, what #FF000 said: Why support a security net for the working class in one country, when that country bombs the hell out of the workers in another?

[Positivist]

no one is saying they aren't though. just that voting isn't enough to get and maintain these things and it's damn sure not enough to rest on a social democratic policy and say 'yeah that's enough for now'.

cool appeal to emotion, though. One could easily turn that one around, btw, and point to all the folks who die thanks to social democratic countries that play along with or engage in their own imperialist ventures. France has got a lovely safety net for its citizens, so let's ignore the atrocity that was Libya!

So if France didn't have a safety net, there wouldn't haven been an atrocity in Libya? Now your just being ridiculous. I'm not supporting a social democratic over a socialist society, I am supporting a social democratic society over an anarcho-capitalist society.

[ВАЛТЕР]

When it comes to violent revolution and revolutionary terror, I think Mark Twain hit the nail on the head. Of course he was speaking on the French revolution, but the point still stands


"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."



I don't like social democrats. No back-bone as far as I can see, they fear radical change and usually aren't where it matters most, in the factories, farms and trade unions. Reformism is counterrevolutionary and I want no part of it. One thing I cannot stand is cowardice, and I feel that the whole social democratic ideology is an embodiment of that word.

[Skyhilist]

Social democracy is not acceptable as a final state, but it's a step in the right direction. For this reason I support it as a transition state into communism. I mean lets be realistic. Attitudes aren't going to progress overnight to the point where there's enough support for communism. While social democracy isn't anywhere near perfect, it at least gets the ball rolling.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It is not a step in the right direction, it is a step back. It is a way to prevent revolution by throwing the people some crumbs when the people are demanding the entire meal. Social democracy is a defeatist position and has always and always will be in the best interests of the capitalists since it still protects private ownership of over the means of production. Social democracy is counterrevolutionary, simple as that.

It comes about when the bourgeoisie senses that there is discontent for the current state and they must concede some things in order to maintain their status as the ruling class. We want their heads on a platter, not the change from their pockets.

[l'Enfermé]

Announcement:

Everyone who supports gay rights and gender equality in the US is a reactionary because the United States is conducting wars in half a dozen countries.

Jesus, what a stupid fucking thing to say!

[Peoples' War]

It is not a step in the right direction, it is a step back. It is a way to prevent revolution by throwing the people some crumbs when the people are demanding the entire meal. Social democracy is a defeatist position and has always and always will be in the best interests of the capitalists since it still protects private ownership of over the means of production. Social democracy is counterrevolutionary, simple as that.

It comes about when the bourgeoisie senses that there is discontent for the current state and they must concede some things in order to maintain their status as the ruling class. We want their heads on a platter, not the change from their pockets.
"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions if the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms."

Lenin

[ВАЛТЕР]

"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions if the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms."

Lenin


I will gladly accept and support reforms of the system if they help alleviate some of the suffering of the workign class, however we cannot even begin to waste our time seriously supporting social democrats. We can give them a pat on the back for temporarily alleviating some problems, however in general the social democratic parties are wastes of time. Their goals aren't the same as ours and they support the capitalist system in the end.

Listen to the SYRIZA party in Greece. They are reformists, should we support them? Absolutely not, because we all know that the situation in Greece is beyond reform.

[#FF0000]

Announcement:

Everyone who supports gay rights and gender equality in the US is a reactionary because the United States is conducting wars in half a dozen countries.

Jesus, what a stupid fucking thing to say!

its a good thing no one said it then!

[#FF0000]

"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions if the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms."

Lenin

A quote isn't an argument, kid. If it was we could go back and forth all day quoting Luxemburg and Lenin.

Plus I think you've taken this quote wildly out of context.

[#FF0000]

So if France didn't have a safety net, there wouldn't haven been an atrocity in Libya?
Now your just being ridiculous. I'm not supporting a social democratic over a socialist society, I am supporting a social democratic society over an anarcho-capitalist society.

Uh no I didn't say that. I'm saying that a social safety net in any country is only possible through ultra-exploitation of other workers elsewhere in the world.

I'm not saying reforms aren't nice. They simply do not make capitalism any more acceptable. The battle might be over reforms but if you don't keep in mind that the goal, the point of everything, is to end capitalism, then it's just a band-aid on a gushing wound.

[Positivist]

Uh no I didn't say that. I'm saying that a social safety net in any country is only possible through ultra-exploitation of other workers elsewhere in the world.

I'm not saying reforms aren't nice. They simply do not make capitalism any more acceptable. The battle might be over reforms but if you don't keep in mind that the goal, the point of everything, is to end capitalism, then it's just a band-aid on a gushing wound.

No you can establish a safety net through a progressive income tax, that's what social democracy is. And yes its a band aid which is better than an open wound if your the one bleeding.

[Skyhilist]

It is not a step in the right direction, it is a step back. It is a way to prevent revolution by throwing the people some crumbs when the people are demanding the entire meal. Social democracy is a defeatist position and has always and always will be in the best interests of the capitalists since it still protects private ownership of over the means of production. Social democracy is counterrevolutionary, simple as that.

It comes about when the bourgeoisie senses that there is discontent for the current state and they must concede some things in order to maintain their status as the ruling class. We want their heads on a platter, not the change from their pockets.

Please explain how social democracy is a step back from the current American system.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Please explain how social democracy is a step back from the current American system.

Strange hearing this argument coming from an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

This isn't a good argument as you can compare this shitty US system with the N. Korea one and make it look like a paradise. I don't care about the individual systems of nations, we have to look at this on a global scale and not a national one. You know international solidarity and the likes.

Social Democracy is not a solution to the problems that capitalism has found itself in. It will not stop the wars or the starvation of the people. Social democracy is a step backwards in the sense that it temporarily prevents revolution by tossing crumbs our way.

Our goal is the utter destruction of capitalism and the social-democrats defend that system by giving it a "human face". Compromise is defeatist.

[Sentinel]

Regarding the Lenin quote posted by The Dude. Marxists, Trotskyists in particular, adhere to what is called a transitional program. This includes supporting workers struggles for reforms, including ones initiated by social democrats (which are quite rare nowadays).

The struggle serves to radicalise the workers and give them a sense of empowerment which is necessary to go further, into revolutionary activity. This is one reason to why for instance the CWI used to practice entryism into the social democrat/labour movement in the past.

However with the emerging of the so called 'third way' line in the social democracy in the 1990s, we drew the conclusion that these parties had become entirely bourgeois, and in most countries formed parties of our own instead. But we still support and put forward transitional demands for reforms.

[ed miliband]

No you can establish a safety net through a progressive income tax, that's what social democracy is. And yes its a band aid which is better than an open wound if your the one bleeding.

there's a lot more to social democracy than that, and indeed neither a "safety net" or progressive income tax are solely the reserve of social democracy. rather, social democrats seek to use the state to mediate the effects of capitalism "in favour" of the working class. so yes, that includes a "safety net" in the form of unemployment benefits and so on, but also nationalised industries, health and safety regulation, perhaps a degree of "workers' control" (though very weak and bureaucratic), attempts at achieving full employment, etc. this all rests on a very close relationship between the state, capital, and labour (via trade union bureaucrats).

with that in mind...


Please explain how social democracy is a step back from the current American system.

this is really a moot point. social democracy in europe didn't just spring into place because people voted for it, it emerged in response to years of working class organisation and agitation. the period of european social democracy wasn't just represented by parties in parliament, but as i have said time and time again, a particular relationship between classes, and class institutions. these no longer exist.

so yeah... if you think the current american system can be replaced by social democracy simply through voting you're sadly mistaken. hypothetically (and ignoring the other social and economic arguments about the untenability of social democracy) it would take years of working class militancy and ruling class recuperation. a return to social democracy is no more likely or realistic than full communism, and i know which one is preferable.

[Peoples' War]

A quote isn't an argument, kid. If it was we could go back and forth all day quoting Luxemburg and Lenin.

Plus I think you've taken this quote wildly out of context.
Ho do you think I've taken it out of context?

[#FF0000]

Ho do you think I've taken it out of context?

Because Lenin saw value in the struggle for reforms, not reforms themselves.

[NGNM85]

I'm not saying reforms aren't nice. They simply do not make capitalism any more acceptable. The battle might be over reforms but if you don't keep in mind that the goal, the point of everything, is to end capitalism, then it's just a band-aid on a gushing wound.

Exactly. It is a Band-Aid, in that it alleviates the suffering of the working class. If you care about the working class; then you have to support that. That's what 'caring' means. Furthermore; extracting concessions, and building reforms are vital to the Socialist project. The former must precede the latter. Furthermore; we're never going to build a broad-based, grassroots, working class movement by ignoring the problems of the working class. Working class single moms don't want Marxist rhetoric; they want affordable healthcare, they want to be able to give their kids a decent education, they want a living wage. If we can't speak to those concerns; they won't listen to a fucking word we have to say, and we shouldn't expect them to. In neglecting to address the day-to-day struggles of the working class, we render ourselves irrelevent, and undermine the very goals we claim to want to acheive.

[#FF0000]

Exactly. It is a Band-Aid, in that it alleviates the suffering of the working class. If you care about the working class; then you have to support that. That's what 'caring' means. Furthermore; extracting concessions, and building reforms are vital to the Socialist project. The former must precede the latter. Furthermore; we're never going to build a broad-based, grassroots, working class movement by ignoring the problems of the working class. Working class single moms don't want Marxist rhetoric; they want affordable healthcare, they want to be able to give their kids a decent education, they want a living wage. If we can't speak to those concerns; they won't listen to a fucking word we have to say, and we shouldn't expect them to. In neglecting to address the day-to-day struggles of the working class, we render ourselves irrelevent, and undermine the very goals we claim to want to acheive.

yeah the thing is, though, that voting doesn't get these goods -- it requires organization and direct action, which I think we might both agree on (?).

I think ed miliband hit the nail on the head. Voting

EDIT: I LITERALLY DECIDED TO STOP WRITING AND CLICK POST HALFWAY THROUGH A SENTENCE WHAT THE FUCK

[NGNM85]

yeah the thing is, though, that voting doesn't get these goods -- it requires organization and direct action, which I think we might both agree on (?).


It requires both. I mean, doing one, and categorically abstaining from the other is, frankly, stupid. I mean; there really aren't any rational arguments that giving the Republicans a congressional majority advances the Socialist agenda.

[Positivist]

there's a lot more to social democracy than that, and indeed neither a "safety net" or progressive income tax are solely the reserve of social democracy. rather, social democrats seek to use the state to mediate the effects of capitalism "in favour" of the working class. so yes, that includes a "safety net" in the form of unemployment benefits and so on, but also nationalised industries, health and safety regulation, perhaps a degree of "workers' control" (though very weak and bureaucratic), attempts at achieving full employment, etc. this all rests on a very close relationship between the state, capital, and labour (via trade union bureaucrats).

with that in mind...



this is really a moot point. social democracy in europe didn't just spring into place because people voted for it, it emerged in response to years of working class organisation and agitation. the period of european social democracy wasn't just represented by parties in parliament, but as i have said time and time again, a particular relationship between classes, and class institutions. these no longer exist.

so yeah... if you think the current american system can be replaced by social democracy simply through voting you're sadly mistaken. hypothetically (and ignoring the other social and economic arguments about the untenability of social democracy) it would take years of working class militancy and ruling class recuperation. a return to social democracy is no more likely or realistic than full communism, and i know which one is preferable.

I knew social democracy consisted of more than a safety net, but that's what ##FF000 brought up so that's what I discussed. Furthermore I don't believe that social democracy is coming back anytime soon but I do value the welfare institutions that are in existence today and ones on the platform of mainstream "left" parties as they are helpful to my situation. Further programs and working class favorments would be nice too but I certainly agree that pursuing them would be a waste of time as opposed to pursuing full socialism but if on the way to achieving socialism or in the meantime before it comes into existence I would take these programs anyday.

[#FF0000]

It requires both. I mean, doing one, and categorically abstaining from the other is, frankly, stupid. I mean; there really aren't any rational arguments that giving the Republicans a congressional majority advances the Socialist agenda.

Nor are there any for giving the Democrats a congressional majority either.

[NGNM85]

Nor are there any for giving the Democrats a congressional majority either.

In the abstract; perhaps not. However; in the political landscape of the present-day United States, that's dead wrong.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am a social democrat and find this entire posting to be divisive and inappropriate. My ultimate goal is worldwide socialism. I have every bit the dislike for capitalism is any hardliner. I simply reject violent protest and the use coercion to achieve the aims.


The vast majority of violence and coercion comes from the state. Look at police repression of Occupy, look at OWS, Oakland, etc. Look at the state repression in Quebec. I hate violence myself, but I'm not a pacifist. Trotsky observed how pacifists-Norman Thomas, etc. would rapidly cave in and support state authority when push comes to shove.

Violent coercion may be necessary in a revolutionary situation. I would support the 1934 Asturias uprising against the Spanish state, arming Chilean workers the early 70s.



I believe before any revolution can have a chance, a population must be in agreement that the revolition is both necessary and good. So long as we are not starving, there will be no impulsive or reactionary revolution.This means that the revolution would instead have to be driven by moral compulsion and ideaology. This is only possible if education on the subject has reached critical mass to the point that there is wholesale rejection of capitalism by the majority.

It doesn't work this why. As the German guy whom NG8..likes to quote said, "The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas of society". Most people are not revolutionaries. A revolutionary climate can develop rapidly but can also dissipate rapidly. Even in Greece, a country over ripe for a socialist revolution, most people vote for capitalist parties.


As we are still recovering from Cold War propoganda and no economic depression has arrived to precipitate a degree of suffering required for revolutionary ideals to take hold, it is only through the slow crawl of mitigation and democracy we have any hope of education and change. So before you poo-poo with an upturned nose social democracy, consider what it has done in Canada (since you specifically mentioned NDP).



In the US, according to a recent estimate, half the population is now in poverty. A huge proportion of people (including myself) has no health insurance.My guess is that you are fairly well connected and have a high paying job in (I would guess) the finance sector. Whatever your high paying job is, it is clearly reflected in your bourgeois political views.


We have universal health care, universal education, economic regulation, welfare state, large-scale unionization, wokrers rights, minimum wage, anational media channel protecting us from American excess, and the charter of human rights and freedoms



Well, good for you! I am truly happy for you! Of course you have all these goodies because you did not have the Democratic Party to coopt and diffuse class struggle. Canada has these things because the working class fought for them.


(Installed by Truedeau, who was the leader of the Marxist Party of Canada). Social democracy is not ineffective and those bandaids go a long way when we've been hemmorhaging for centuties.


Pierre Trudeau was not a Marxist, he was the leader of the Liberal Party, if memory serves correctly. I never heard of the "Marxist Party of Canada". There was the Communist Party of Canada ML, led by Hardal Bains, but I doubt Trudeau would have touched them with a ten foot pole.



I contend that social democracy is an effective and good political idea simply because it helps us live our lives to at least some degree of improvement where socialism is not yet popular. So please don't dismiss us as enemies of the people.

Don't you understand how and why the "social democratic compromise" is being rolled back? Are you aware of current events in your own country?

[#FF0000]

In the abstract; perhaps not. However; in the political landscape of the present-day United States, that's dead wrong.

I totally disagree actually. I don't think there's been a point where voting was quite so useless. I mean, look at what's happening right now, and then remember that the democrats had the executive office and a supermajority at the start of it.

[NGNM85]

I totally disagree actually. I don't think there's been a point where voting was quite so useless. I mean, look at what's happening right now, and then remember that the democrats had the executive office and a supermajority at the start of it.

As I've said before; this is somewhere between highly misleading, and factually wrong. Yes, the Democrats technically achieved a barely filibuster-proof majority, in 2009. What is left out is that many of those Democratic wins were achieved by running Democrats who were well to the Right of the party, the only kind of Democrats who could win, in those areas. They sacrificed ideological purity for numerical supremacy. The problem is that being on the Right end of their party, most of these ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats didn’t support a lot of the more progressive pieces of legislation, so, in truth, Obama didn’t really have a filibuster-proof majority. All it took was for just one of the aforementioned ‘Blue Dogs’ to vote the other way, and any initiative was dead in the water. This only underscores the importance of reforming the filibuster rules because it’s an enormous impediment to enacting any kind of progressive legislation. It's a lot easier to get 50 votes, than 60. However; without a Democratic majority; even this is impossible.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Some people here seem to forget, that social democrats want to preserve the capitalist mode of production, and can therefore only bee seen as temporary allies in the revolutionary struggle. If even that, one has only too look at current affairs in Denmark, which has a Social Demcratic-led government.

However, a large majority of the workers currently favor social democratic parties, and they can therefore not be dismissed outright.

[Peoples' War]

Because Lenin saw value in the struggle for reforms, not reforms themselves.
Well, I would argue that he saw value in both.

[Skyhilist]

Strange hearing this argument coming from an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

This isn't a good argument as you can compare this shitty US system with the N. Korea one and make it look like a paradise. I don't care about the individual systems of nations, we have to look at this on a global scale and not a national one. You know international solidarity and the likes.

Social Democracy is not a solution to the problems that capitalism has found itself in. It will not stop the wars or the starvation of the people. Social democracy is a step backwards in the sense that it temporarily prevents revolution by tossing crumbs our way.

Our goal is the utter destruction of capitalism and the social-democrats defend that system by giving it a "human face". Compromise is defeatist.

I actually agree with you on some of this stuff. I don't think that social democracy will permanently fix anything. Having said that though, I think that it is in fact a step in the right direction, because it allows the thoughts of the masses to become gradually more progressive over time, as opposed to forcing them into a direct revolution straight to anarcho-syndicalism right now, which the majority of people would probably currently resist out of ignorance. I think that it's a good transition into more progressive thinking patterns and makes a revolution more possible. If you can find me a source showing that there are suddenly less revolutionaries in Norway, or Sweden or Denmark after they turned to a more social democratic system, then I'll recognize the credibility of your point. From what I've seen so far though, the ratio of revolutionaries to lower people certainly doesn't seem to be lower than in other less progressive European countries. Norway for example has had the Blitz movement, and it was well as Sweden and Denmark (probably the three most socially democratic countries in Europe) all have communist parties, and various other left wing movements.

[#FF0000]

As I've said before; this is somewhere between highly misleading, and factually wrong. Yes, the Democrats technically achieved a barely filibuster-proof majority, in 2009. What is left out is that many of those Democratic wins were achieved by running Democrats who were well to the Right of the party, the only kind of Democrats who could win, in those areas. They sacrificed ideological purity for numerical supremacy. The problem is that being on the Right end of their party, most of these ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats didn’t support a lot of the more progressive pieces of legislation, so, in truth, Obama didn’t really have a filibuster-proof majority. All it took was for just one of the aforementioned ‘Blue Dogs’ to vote the other way, and any initiative was dead in the water. This only underscores the importance of reforming the filibuster rules because it’s an enormous impediment to enacting any kind of progressive legislation. It's a lot easier to get 50 votes, than 60. However; without a Democratic majority; even this is impossible.

And this sort of underlines why it's sort of silly to vote for the democrats, I think. They're completely incompetent even as reformist politicians.

But, yeah the act of voting itself doesn't hurt anything, in my opinion. However, I think the hilarious bungling of Wisconsin sort of shows that kowtowing to the democrats and working with them on their campaigns instead of organizing the workers and using the tactics that labor has which we know are effective is disastrous.

[Omsk]

I'm loyal to the social-Fascist theory, of course, that does not and didn't mean that the Soc-Dem's are actually Fascists, but that they are as big an obstacle to the working class on the road which leads to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the reactionary right-wing elements of society, and ultra-right wings parties or groups. Just look at post war Germany, Revolutionary Hungary post WW1 and Hungary '56 , look at the modern day Soc-Dem parties and you will understand what i am talking about.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Some people here seem to forget, that social democrats want to preserve the capitalist mode of production, and can therefore only bee seen as temporary allies in the revolutionary struggle. If even that, one has only too look at current affairs in Denmark, which has a Social Demcratic-led government.

yeah, if what we're discussing here is present social democracy, then it's no more than neo-liberalism not even draped in red. The norwegian social democratic party is in charge of implementing both the EU's Data Retention Directive and the Temporary and Agency Work Directive, as well as deporting several immigrants (even kids who are born and raised in this country). Especially as social democratic parties are in charge of countries suffering from the crisis (and that's not even the case here in Norway as we're not doing so badly), we see social democratic parties all over Europe who participate in the destruction of the same welfare and the same rights they once participated in implementing.

Maybe parties such as SYRIZA could be seen as temporary or short term allies, but I kinda doubt it, as what I believe is their sister party here in Norway are in government with the social democrats, and are unable to do shit (if they wanted to) to change the social democrats' politics which are highly unfriendly to the workers. Though the situation here is different from Greece, of course.

[#FF0000]

I don't think that social democracy will permanently fix anything. Having said that though, I think that it is in fact a step in the right direction, because it allows the thoughts of the masses to become gradually more progressive over time, as opposed to forcing them into a direct revolution straight to anarcho-syndicalism right now, which the majority of people would probably currently resist out of ignorance. I think that it's a good transition into more progressive thinking patterns and makes a revolution more possible. If you can find me a source showing that there are suddenly less revolutionaries in Norway, or Sweden or Denmark after they turned to a more social democratic system, then I'll recognize the credibility of your point. From what I've seen so far though, the ratio of revolutionaries to lower people certainly doesn't seem to be lower than in other less progressive European countries. Norway for example has had the Blitz movement, and it was well as Sweden and Denmark (probably the three most socially democratic countries in Europe) all have communist parties, and various other left wing movements.

Yeah but you're missing some huge, huge things here. Labor militancy isn't relatively huge in Europe because social democracy exists. Social democracy exists there because of labor militancy, and that militancy comes from more militancy -- taking to the streets, organizing, agitating, going on strike, shutting things down, and not voting. We don't have that in America now, for some bizarre reason. Despite America's history of class struggle being marked with things like open gun battles between armies of police and miners, I think the State and the bosses did a much better job of co-opting 'the movement', the unions, etc.

So, yeah. No one's arguing that it's probably nicer to live in a social democratic society. However, it's not acceptable, and voting certainly isn't going to get us where we need to be. Wisconsin is a huge, ugly lesson on this fact.

[Omsk]

A huge number of Soc-Dem parties in Europe actually came from the former rotten Brezhnevite parties which were left in the open after 1991 and the fall of the Berlin Wall and had to find other ways to talk about "socialism" while driving expensive cars and engaging in petty-day political deals and chatter.

[Skyhilist]

Yeah but you're missing some huge, huge things here. Labor militancy isn't relatively huge in Europe because social democracy exists. Social democracy exists there because of labor militancy, and that militancy comes from more militancy -- taking to the streets, organizing, agitating, going on strike, shutting things down, and not voting. We don't have that in America now, for some bizarre reason. Despite America's history of class struggle being marked with things like open gun battles between armies of police and miners, I think the State and the bosses did a much better job of co-opting 'the movement', the unions, etc.

So, yeah. No one's arguing that it's probably nicer to live in a social democratic society. However, it's not acceptable, and voting certainly isn't going to get us where we need to be. Wisconsin is a huge, ugly lesson on this fact.

I don't know, I don't really think it's been proven that there are much of a lower number of people taking to the streets in social democratic societies so I'd like to see some statistics and/or sources on that. As for voting, a higher percentage DO vote over there, but a lot of them vote for alternative left wing parties that are communist, or anarchist, or socialist (real socialism), so I don't think that's any less constructive than not voting. It's not helping the corrupt politicians get into office any more than not voting is, plus it can physically show through statistics that they do in fact have a voice.

[#FF0000]

I don't know, I don't really think it's been proven that there are much of a lower number of people taking to the streets in social democratic societies so I'd like to see some statistics and/or sources on that.

I didn't suggest that. In fact folks in these 'social democratic' countries are way more militant and definitely take to the streets with unbelievable ferocity. I'm saying, though, that it's not because they live in a social democracy.

[Skyhilist]

I didn't suggest that. In fact folks in these 'social democratic' countries are way more militant and definitely take to the streets with unbelievable ferocity. I'm saying, though, that it's not because they live in a social democracy.

So then what accounts for the fact that people living in social democratic countries generally have more progressive attitudes than people in non-social democratic attitudes, if not social democracy itself? I'm by no means suggesting it's a final answer, but I think if countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark had our government system they'd generally be a lot more brainwashed and a lot less progressive. Plus, despite social democracies many imperfections, I'd rather have it as a transition state, due to the fact that it does not in fact hurt protesting in numbers for more left wing forms of government like anarcho-syndicalism and communism.

Besides, let me take two quotes from the argument against me. I know that you didn't say the first one, be you both seem to have at least a similar argument against using it as a transition state.

"Social democracy is a step backwards in the sense that it temporarily prevents revolution by tossing crumbs our way."

Later on though...

"In fact folks in these 'social democratic' countries are way more militant and definitely take to the streets with unbelievable ferocity."

This argument almost seems contradictory. Surely more militant citizens wouldn't weaken the chances for a revolution?

[vagrantmoralist]

In my experience, Social Democrats are socialists without the balls to say they want a revolution. Of course, global socialist revolution isn't going to happen overnight nor in a few years or even a few decades, most like, so in the meantime, supporting social democratic policies are the only way to advance our agenda, since it's basically the only way to actually effect change in capitalist countries. I agree that the Democrats in America are a fully coopted party of the bourgeoisie, but the sad truth is the Republicans are much, much worse. Because of the two party system, the only way to stem the reactionary and outright evil laws passed by the Republicans is to support the Democrats. Non-participation will just let them steamroll whatever they want through Congress while we leftists say 'Oh we're sorry the Republicans have privatised Social Security, but if we voted for the Democrats we'd be giving material support to our capitalist enemies. Have fun starving because your already insufficient pension cheque is now non-existent!'

[#FF0000]

So then what accounts for the fact that people living in social democratic countries generally have more progressive attitudes than people in non-social democratic attitudes, if not social democracy itself? I'm by no means suggesting it's a final answer, but I think if countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark had our government system they'd generally be a lot more brainwashed and a lot less progressive. Plus, despite social democracies many imperfections, I'd rather have it as a transition state, due to the fact that it does not in fact hurt protesting in numbers for more left wing forms of government like anarcho-syndicalism and communism.

Nah what I'm saying is that the social democracies in Europe were established mostly because of working class militancy. Social democracy is a consequence of that -- not the other way around.

Your guess is as good as mine as to why America's militant labor tradition never really stuck. We went from having coal miners arm themselves to fight the army to a bunch of post-grads sleeping in tents with signs. Who knows why that happened.


"Social democracy is a step backwards in the sense that it temporarily prevents revolution by tossing crumbs our way."

Later on though...

"In fact folks in these 'social democratic' countries are way more militant and definitely take to the streets with unbelievable ferocity."

This argument almost seems contradictory. Surely more militant citizens wouldn't weaken the chances for a revolution?

Yeah, it's an old argument -- "The worst slavemasters are the ones who are kind to their slaves" -- but I don't agree with that first statement anyway, really. Secondly, the second statement (which is mine), was in comparison to the United States. I'd say that workers in Europe today are a fair bit less militant than they were at the beginning of the 20th century.

[NGNM85]

And this sort of underlines why it's sort of silly to vote for the democrats, I think. They're completely incompetent even as reformist politicians.

There are things that could have been done. The President should have lent his support. I haven't studied in depth, but I don't think Kathleen Falk, the unions' preferred candidate had any more resonance with the general public. At best, they might've barely squeaked it out, I'm not even sure that would have been possible. Between a quarter, and one-third of union members voters voted for Walker. If anything; I think this is a microciosm of the political universe, in a post-Citizens United world. I think it's fair to say that overturning Citizens is one of the most important political issues, in the US, today, if not the most important.


But, yeah the act of voting itself doesn't hurt anything, in my opinion.

It can be quite useful. For example; we decriminalized cannabis, here, in Massachusetts, a few years back, now there's an effort to put medical marijuana on the ballot.


However, I think the hilarious bungling of Wisconsin...

See above.


...sort of shows that kowtowing to the democrats...

I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the kind. I know I haven't.


...and working with them on their campaigns instead of organizing the workers and using the tactics that labor has which we know are effective is disastrous.

I'm not entirely sure what you're, specifically, referring to, but, again, roughly 30% of union members voted for Walker. The Right, very effectively, split the working class by pitting people against the public sector unions. They spent something like 80 million dollars on this thing, and it looks like they got what they paid for. Moreover; it's more than a little hypocritical for you to say nobody should bother participate in elections, in one breath, and complain about the results with the next. You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.

[NGNM85]

It doesn't work this why. As the German guy whom NG8..

Don't do that.


...likes to quote said...

Again; he also said;

Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.

So Marx's (At least, the later Marx.) position was actually less radical than my own. I never said that the American working class could emancipate itself, entirely through peaceful means. I'm much more (Small 'c.') conservative in my predictions. Yet; I get dragged over the fucking coals. I mean, to my mind, it doesn't make any difference what he said, it's not Bible law, to me. It's just a little disingenuous.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bro, Marx would be banned on Revleft. Don't you know that? :lol:

[#FF0000]

There are things that could have been done. The President should have lent his support. I haven't studied in depth, but I don't think Kathleen Falk, the unions' preferred candidate had any more resonance with the general public. At best, they might've barely squeaked it out, I'm not even sure that would have been possible. Between a quarter, and one-third of union members voters voted for Walker. If anything; I think this is a microciosm of the political universe, in a post-Citizens United world. I think it's fair to say that overturning Citizens is one of the most important political issues, in the US, today, if not the most important.

Excuses, as far as I'm concerned. Had the unions decided on the General Strike back when they had the huge support and incredible momentum they did, instead of waiting an entire year, Walker's budget wouldn't have had a chance. Things would almost certainly have been very, very different.



It can be quite useful. For example; we decriminalized cannabis, here, in Massachusetts, a few years back, now there's an effort to put medical marijuana on the ballot.

In some limited cases, maybe, but I contend that an actual, on-the-streets movement using direct action tactics is always more effective.


I'm not entirely sure what you're, specifically, referring to, but, again, roughly 30% of union members voted for Walker. The Right, very effectively, split the working class by pitting people against the public sector unions. They spent something like 80 million dollars on this thing, and it looks like they got what they paid for.

All of this happened because they let it by going with the electoral route instead of the Strike. They gave Walker a year to regroup and gather that money, just so they could try and vote in the dude who already lost to Walker in the previous election. It was stupid. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because they opted for the electoral route.


Moreover; it's more than a little hypocritical for you to say nobody should bother participate in elections, in one breath, and complain about the results with the next. You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.

I called this a year ago, though. It wasn't a surprise that Walker was re-elected at all. The democrats' co-opting of labor has, once again, caused incredible damage to the working class in America.

[#FF0000]

I'm trying to find my source for this because it was a really interesting read, but I guess I'll just point out that this is something that worker's movements throughout history pretty much understood. French Syndicalists avoided, iirc, politics or shilling for any party because, as one dude (sorta) put it, "Our method is to put the pressure on the system. Let the politicians figure out how to please the working class. Our job is to make them want to"

[Permanent Revolutionary]

In my experience, Social Democrats are socialists without the balls to say they want a revolution. Of course, global socialist revolution isn't going to happen overnight nor in a few years or even a few decades, most like, so in the meantime, supporting social democratic policies are the only way to advance our agenda, since it's basically the only way to actually effect change in capitalist countries. I agree that the Democrats in America are a fully coopted party of the bourgeoisie, but the sad truth is the Republicans are much, much worse. Because of the two party system, the only way to stem the reactionary and outright evil laws passed by the Republicans is to support the Democrats. Non-participation will just let them steamroll whatever they want through Congress while we leftists say 'Oh we're sorry the Republicans have privatised Social Security, but if we voted for the Democrats we'd be giving material support to our capitalist enemies. Have fun starving because your already insufficient pension cheque is now non-existent!'

Dafuq?

First of all. The US Democrats are no way near being a Social Democratic party.
Secondly, the outline you make is not the way forward, comrade. The democrats and republicans both, are bought and paid for by the big corporations, and these will not permit these parties to enact anything closely related to European social democratic legislation.

I'm speaking as a non-American here, but the only way forward from here, for the workers of America, is to abandon the illusion of the Democratic Party, and do what the Tunisians and Egyptians did last spring.

[NGNM85]

Excuses, as far as I'm concerned. Had the unions decided on the General Strike back when they had the huge support and incredible momentum they did, instead of waiting an entire year, Walker's budget wouldn't have had a chance. Things would almost certainly have been very, very different.

Things would have been very different, absolutely. However; it’s impossible to say, for a number of reasons, that this would have necessarily prevented Walkers’ budget from passing. This also assumes that the union rank-and-file were amenable to a general strike. I haven’t studied the situation, in-depth, but I don’t find that very persuasive. The fact that nearly a third of them voted for Walker, especially, casts serious doubt on this proposition.


In some limited cases, maybe, but I contend that an actual, on-the-streets movement using direct action tactics is always more effective.

There’s no reason why it has to be an either-or equation. They should both be componants of a broader strategy to advance the interests of the working class.


All of this happened because they let it by going with the electoral route instead of the Strike. They gave Walker a year to regroup and gather that money, just so they could try and vote in the dude who already lost to Walker in the previous election. It was stupid. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because they opted for the electoral route.

See above.


I called this a year ago, though. It wasn't a surprise that Walker was re-elected at all. The democrats' co-opting of labor has, once again, caused incredible damage to the working class in America.

Admittedly; I haven't conducted any sort of in-depth analysis, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this was the case.

[NGNM85]

Dafuq?

First of all. The US Democrats are no way near being a Social Democratic party.

I don't think anyone suggested they were.


Secondly, the outline you make is not the way forward, comrade. The democrats and republicans both, are bought and paid for by the big corporations,

They are the two wings of the business party; yes. However; they represent different elite constituencies, and this is reflected in slight differences in their political programmes. While these differences may be slim, and have narrowed over the past few years, it's worth keeping in mind that A; On the level of the state government, or, on the national level, minor differences can have significant results, and, B; generally speaking, the working class fares better under Democratic administrations.


and these will not permit these parties to enact anything closely related to European social democratic legislation.

That depends entirely by what you are referring to. We don't have to overthrow the government to get Universal Healthcare, for example, which would be an enormous win for the working class.


I'm speaking as a non-American here, but the only way forward from here, for the workers of America, is to abandon the illusion of the Democratic Party, and do what the Tunisians and Egyptians did last spring.

No offense, but you might want to consider your credentials on the subject of American politics.

As for Tunisia, and Egypt, that's not even a remote possibility in any kind of immediate future, for a whole host of reasons. For one thing; there is no broad-based, working class movement to carry out such an undertaking. It simply doesn't exist. Second; such activities can only commence after the system has been pushed to it's limit.

[#FF0000]

Things would have been very different, absolutely. However; it’s impossible to say, for a number of reasons, that this would have necessarily prevented Walkers’ budget from passing. This also assumes that the union rank-and-file were amenable to a general strike. I haven’t studied the situation, in-depth, but I don’t find that very persuasive. The fact that nearly a third of them voted for Walker, especially, casts serious doubt on this proposition.

Definitely true that it's impossible to say for certain -- but keep in mind these votes happened a year later, while Walker had tons of time to solidify his position, to gather money, to organize. Meanwhile, a year ago, unions were enjoying more support than they had in years, and absolutely had an upper hand. A strike would have definitely been a strong move to make -- instead, they relented.

Like, goddamn. It's a scenario that repeats all the time in history. One force has the enemy surrounded, weakened, on the retreat or on the defensive, with a huge advantage in power and numbers. And then the attacking force falters, relents, or retreats. That is why Walker won. The unions choked. They relented.

Full on Lopez de Santa Anna status.


There’s no reason why it has to be an either-or equation. They should both be componants of a broader strategy to advance the interests of the working class.

And that's one thing -- I don't have a problem with folks voting or with the act of voting (I think it's inconsequential and absolutely useless if one isn't already engaging in politics on the streets), but what happened in Wisconsin was they shifted their strategy TOTALLY towards the recall. Direct action tactics weren't even considered.


Admittedly; I haven't conducted any sort of in-depth analysis, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this was the case.

Oh you better believe this is a massive set-back, dogg. Sure, it's not the mandate that Walker and his buddies want to pretend it is -- the Democrats hold a majority in the state legislature iirc -- but it's a massive morale blow to labor in America.

[NGNM85]

Definitely true that it's impossible to say for certain -- but keep in mind these votes happened a year later, while Walker had tons of time to solidify his position, to gather money, to organize. Meanwhile, a year ago, unions were enjoying more support than they had in years, and absolutely had an upper hand. A strike would have definitely been a strong move to make -- instead, they relented.


Like, goddamn. It's a scenario that repeats all the time in history. One force has the enemy surrounded, weakened, on the retreat or on the defensive, with a huge advantage in power and numbers. And then the attacking force falters, relents, or retreats. That is why Walker won. The unions choked. They relented.

Full on Lopez de Santa Anna status.

That’s possible. Look; I grant a general strike would have probably would have been much more effective, although, I’m more skeptical that it would’ve necessarily prevented Walkers’ budget from passing. More to the point, and this was the heart of what I was saying; I’m especially skeptical that the rank-and-file union workers would have ever embraced such a strategy, even if the leadership endorsed it. I think this is the weakest link in this case that you’re making.


And that's one thing -- I don't have a problem with folks voting or with the act of voting (I think it's inconsequential and absolutely useless if one isn't already engaging in politics on the streets), but what happened in
Wisconsin was they shifted their strategy TOTALLY towards the recall. Direct action tactics weren't even considered.

I think they should’ve done both. However; again, this comes down to the problem that the union workers weren’t all on the same page, let alone the rest of the public, many of whom are mistrustful of public sector unions.


Oh you better believe this is a massive set-back, dogg. Sure, it's not the mandate that Walker and his buddies want to pretend it is -- the Democrats hold a majority in the state legislature iirc -- but it's a massive morale blow to labor in America.

Oh, without question. That isn’t what I was taking issue with. Again; what I take issue with is the notion that the union members would’ve embraced a general strike. If that isn’t the case, and I’m fairly skeptical, then the point is moot. Then we’re, essentially, playing fantasy football.

[#FF0000]

That’s possible. Look; I grant a general strike would have probably would have been much more effective, although, I’m more skeptical that it would’ve necessarily prevented Walkers’ budget from passing. More to the point, and this was the heart of what I was saying; I’m especially skeptical that the rank-and-file union workers would have ever embraced such a strategy, even if the leadership endorsed it. I think this is the weakest link in this case that you’re making.

I think the rank-and-file were actually supportive of a strike. The leadership, as usual, went with the strategy fed to them by the Democrats.

That is usually how these things work, tbh.


I think they should’ve done both. However; again, this comes down to the problem that the union workers weren’t all on the same page, let alone the rest of the public, many of whom are mistrustful of public sector unions.

Yeah that's true. The disconnect is usually between the membership and the leadership though, in my experience. And the unions actually had its highest approval ratings in a long time during the protests.

But yeah.

[NGNM85]

I think the rank-and-file were actually supportive of a strike. The leadership, as usual, went with the strategy fed to them by the Democrats.

That is usually how these things work, tbh.

Again; I'm just a little more skeptical about the disposition of the union membership.



Yeah that's true. The disconnect is usually between the membership and the leadership though, in my experience.

I'm in a union, believe me; I know.


And the unions actually had its highest approval ratings in a long time during the protests.

But yeah.

During the protests, I'm sure, but I'm less sure about whether that support held up to the election. It appears that it did not. The Walker campaign clearly tried this angle of attack, and it's been a winning strategy in the past. The Republicans are always trying to divide the working class, pitting public workers against private, gays against Christians, whites against ethnic minorities, etc., etc. Unfortunately; it's been extremely successful.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

That depends entirely by what you are referring to. We don't have to overthrow the government to get Universal Healthcare, for example, which would be an enormous win for the working class.


Really? How come the Democrat majority didn't pass a universal health care bill?


No offense, but you might want to consider your credentials on the subject of American politics.


You do know that American politics are newsworthy anywhere in the world, right?


As for Tunisia, and Egypt, that's not even a remote possibility in any kind of immediate future, for a whole host of reasons. For one thing; there is no broad-based, working class movement to carry out such an undertaking. It simply doesn't exist. Second; such activities can only commence after the system has been pushed to it's limit.

I never said this would happen tomorrow. I just stated that this was the only way for real change in America.

[NGNM85]

Really? How come the Democrat majority didn't pass a universal health care bill?

Not to be a dick; but this sort of proves my point about your credentials vis-à-vis American politics.

I’ll try to give you the Readers’ Digest version. Well, first of all, while it’s very popular with the American public, there wasn’t really any significant, organized movement pushing for UHC. When the health care reform debacle was going on, the original bills included what was called the Public Option, which would offer a cheap, public insurance plan to any Americans who didn’t have insurance, or were having trouble paying for insurance, or whatever. It wasn’t UHC, but it was a strong step in that direction, it would’ve provided cheap insurance, and it would’ve introduced real competition into the health insurance market, (At present, there is virtually no competition.) and driven costs down. That was passed in the House version. However; they were unable to come up with the necessary amount of votes in the Senate, and, thus, it wasn’t included in the final Bills. An interesting postscript to this story is that the public responded by giving control of the House back to the Republicans. You don’t know whether to laugh, or cry, really.

Also; as an aside, the Democrats did have a majority in the 111th congress, a greater majority than they have now, but it wasn’t sufficient to pass the Public Option. I don’t know where you’re from, but we have this parliamentary procedure called the filibuster, I think they also have it in France, and a couple other countries, anyhow; it allows the minority to, essentially, kill a Bill, unless a supermajority of 60 Senators override it. As I understand it, this was intended as a sort of safeguard. This is supposed to require a Senator to stay on the floor, and to speak, continuously, until it gets a supermajority, or it dies. I think the record was set by ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond, who spoke for something like 25 hours in a futile attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Well, the Republicans have basically mastered the art of using this as a legislative weapon of mass destruction. Amazingly; they don’t even go through with the process, it’s just sort of implied, so anything that can’t get 60 votes just basically disappears. It’s like when the US vetoes something at the UN; it’s just gone. In the 111th congress the Democrats only had 57 Senators. They didn’t have the votes.



You do know that American politics are newsworthy anywhere in the world, right?

I may have been a little hasty. It’s just that I’ve had a couple of unpleasant exchanges on the forum with Europeans brazenly proffering wildly wrong assertions about American politics, and the American government, and I hope you can imagine how aggravating that might be.


I never said this would happen tomorrow. I just stated that this was the only way for real change in America.

Well, that depends on how you define; ‘real change.’ It’s sort of subjective. I don’t think UHC would qualify, in your estimation, as ‘real change’, but we should absolutely support it. It would be an enormous victory for the working class. There are even much smaller, much more superficial changes that we should still support. For example; a few years back we decriminalized Cannabis, here, in Massachusetts. I'd classify that as a win.

[#FF0000]

Honestly I have a hard time viewing anything won through purely or mainly electoral means as that big a victory.

I mean no doubt universal healthcare would be great but there's also a massive missed opportunity for the whole educating/agitating/organizing thing when you go the electoral route. You win the battle but haven't really done much for the war.

So that's my big issue with parliamentary politics.

[social191]

If I have say one thing about social democrats is that they have become the biggest traitors to our movement since the early twentienth century. All they want to do is reform capitalism. Whenever, social democrats run for public office they make promises that they fail to keep like, for example, social democrats that run for public office say that they will support workers' self-management, but they fail at keeping that promise. It's time that we look at the social democrats as not our friends and allies, but as our adversaries to the working class movement.

[Baseball]

I
’ll try to give you the Readers’ Digest version. Well, first of all, while it’s very popular with the American public, there wasn’t really any significant, organized movement pushing for UHC. When the health care reform debacle was going on, the original bills included what was called the Public Option,

True.


which would offer a cheap, public insurance plan to any Americans who didn’t have insurance, or were having trouble paying for insurance, or whatever. It wasn’t UHC, but it was a strong step in that direction, it would’ve provided cheap insurance, and it would’ve introduced real competition into the health insurance market, (At present, there is virtually no competition.)

False. There are over a thousand health insurance companies in the USA.




Also; as an aside, the Democrats did have a majority in the 111th congress, a greater majority than they have now, but it wasn’t sufficient to pass the Public Option. I don’t know where you’re from, but we have this parliamentary procedure called the filibuster, I think they also have it in France, and a couple other countries, anyhow; it allows the minority to, essentially, kill a Bill, unless a supermajority of 60 Senators override it. As I understand it, this was intended as a sort of safeguard. This is supposed to require a Senator to stay on the floor, and to speak, continuously, until it gets a supermajority, or it dies. I think the record was set by ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond, who spoke for something like 25 hours in a futile attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Well, the Republicans have basically mastered the art of using this as a legislative weapon of mass destruction. Amazingly; they don’t even go through with the process, it’s just sort of implied, so anything that can’t get 60 votes just basically disappears. It’s like when the [/FONT][/COLOR]US vetoes something at the UN; it’s just gone. In the 111th congress the Democrats only had 57 Senators. They didn’t have the votes.

False. The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate (which includes the Independents who caucus with the Dems). The Democrats were unable to unite their party. That's why Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts was so important

[Baseball]

If I have say one thing about social democrats is that they have become the biggest traitors to our movement since the early twentienth century. All they want to do is reform capitalism. Whenever, social democrats run for public office they make promises that they fail to keep like, for example, social democrats that run for public office say that they will support workers' self-management, but they fail at keeping that promise. It's time that we look at the social democrats as not our friends and allies, but as our adversaries to the working class movement.

The Social Democrats became "reformers" of capitalism as the could not figure out how to get from capitalism to socialism while upholding the values they believe socialism holds. Judging from the comments on Revleft, and the historical record of the 20th Century, it would seem their conclusion have merit.

[NGNM85]

Honestly I have a hard time viewing anything won through purely or mainly electoral means as that big a victory.

Again; this is sort of subjective. Regardless; I'm pretty happy to take my victories, when I can get them, big, or small. It doesn't really make sense to do it any other way.


I mean no doubt universal healthcare would be great...

It would be a MASSIVE win. Crippling healthcare costs are one of the greatest hardships on the working class. It would lift an enormous financial burden, it would empower the working class by putting the healthcare system under the public's control, and it would save a lot of lives.


...but there's also a massive missed opportunity for the whole educating/agitating/organizing thing when you go the electoral route. You win the battle but haven't really done much for the war.

So that's my big issue with parliamentary politics.

Again; I think we should be doing both. In fact, in this case, I think you'd have to do both. There needs to be a broad grassroots movement demanding Universal Healthcare, for it to happen. We have to make it happen. If OWS could coalesce around that, and maybe, three, or four core issues, (Which I think they absolutely should, and must, if OWS is going to amount to anything.) then we could make it happen.

[#FF0000]

Yeah but who would we vote for? The Democrats? That seems pretty dumb to be totally honest. I remember some liberal activist I was working with was going on about Obama's newfound populist rhetoric in his last big speech and said "It'll be up to us to hold him to it!" which seemed like such an empty statement because no matter what Obama does, this dude will make excuses for him and, more importantly, vote for him.

No. Matter. What.

Because he's "better than the alternative"

And that's the other problem with the electoral thing -- the two party system is such a huge thing that, if one were to vote, the only people to vote for who are 1) even remotely 'left'ish and 2) even remotely electable are the Democrats.

So that sorta makes it easy for them to just be the Republicans-lite. I mean, when it comes to those blue-dogs, what would you have done when you noticed the democrat on the ballot is way to the right of the party? Voted Republican?

I mean even lil babby liberals aside from the young democrat douchebags recognized that putting pressure on officials through direct action is more effective than voting the right people in office -- because you can only vote for what's available, and that means it's very easy for there to be no one who wants to implement what people want implemented.

I'm just sort of thinking aloud here, though. I mean, I used to be hard on the "DON'T VOTE" thing but now I'm more ambivalent about it. Do I believe voting will help anything ever? Not likely. Do I think the act of voting hurts anything? Nah. All that hurts is making a conscious effort to pursue electoral gains for a center-right party in lieu of direct action.

I mean sure, someone can go on strike and then vote, more with the intention to get someone out than to vote someone else in, but I think organizations need to have a strategy, work out their tactics, and stick to their plan instead of saying "we'll split up our time and our resources like this", especially when I think the one route is far and away more effective.

Plus the west coast Occupies did better work and had more of an impact and were far and away more valuable than the Occupy Wall Street and MoveOn.org's 99% Spring.

Again just sort of thinking aloud, tho.

[mew]

Not to be a dick; but this sort of proves my point about your credentials vis-à-vis American politics.

I’ll try to give you the Readers’ Digest version. Well, first of all, while it’s very popular with the American public, there wasn’t really any significant, organized movement pushing for UHC. When the health care reform debacle was going on, the original bills included what was called the Public Option, which would offer a cheap, public insurance plan to any Americans who didn’t have insurance, or were having trouble paying for insurance, or whatever. It wasn’t UHC, but it was a strong step in that direction, it would’ve provided cheap insurance, and it would’ve introduced real competition into the health insurance market, (At present, there is virtually no competition.) and driven costs down. That was passed in the House version. However; they were unable to come up with the necessary amount of votes in the Senate, and, thus, it wasn’t included in the final Bills. An interesting postscript to this story is that the public responded by giving control of the House back to the Republicans. You don’t know whether to laugh, or cry, really.

Also; as an aside, the Democrats did have a majority in the 111th congress, a greater majority than they have now, but it wasn’t sufficient to pass the Public Option. I don’t know where you’re from, but we have this parliamentary procedure called the filibuster, I think they also have it in France, and a couple other countries, anyhow; it allows the minority to, essentially, kill a Bill, unless a supermajority of 60 Senators override it. As I understand it, this was intended as a sort of safeguard. This is supposed to require a Senator to stay on the floor, and to speak, continuously, until it gets a supermajority, or it dies. I think the record was set by ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond, who spoke for something like 25 hours in a futile attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Well, the Republicans have basically mastered the art of using this as a legislative weapon of mass destruction. Amazingly; they don’t even go through with the process, it’s just sort of implied, so anything that can’t get 60 votes just basically disappears. It’s like when the US vetoes something at the UN; it’s just gone. In the 111th congress the Democrats only had 57 Senators. They didn’t have the votes.




I may have been a little hasty. It’s just that I’ve had a couple of unpleasant exchanges on the forum with Europeans brazenly proffering wildly wrong assertions about American politics, and the American government, and I hope you can imagine how aggravating that might be.



Well, that depends on how you define; ‘real change.’ It’s sort of subjective. I don’t think UHC would qualify, in your estimation, as ‘real change’, but we should absolutely support it. It would be an enormous victory for the working class. There are even much smaller, much more superficial changes that we should still support. For example; a few years back we decriminalized Cannabis, here, in Massachusetts. I'd classify that as a win.

I don't know. I guess you make good points...but I can't help but think this is identical to the sorts of things I read at The Daily Kos when I was a liberal.

[eric922]

When talking about the American Democratic party it's important to keep in mind that because of the U.S.'s two party system, the Democrats are not as unified as some European parties are. The Democrats would probably be two separate parties if the U.S. got rid of its awful first-past-the-post electoral system and went with a system of proportional representation.

As it stands now the Democrats can be roughly separated into 3 broad factions, the Blue Dogs, who are conservative on both social and economic issues, but not quite as far to the right as Republicans.

The "New Democrats" who are socially liberal, but as economically conservative as the Blue Dogs.

Finally, you have the Progressive wing which is progressive on economic and social issues and are the only ones who would support Single-Payer.

The Blue Dogs and New Democrats both wouldn't support single-payer, so while the Democrats did have a 60 seat majority, the number of them willing to support UHC was much smaller. Like I said they probably would split under a different system, and honestly I'm starting to wonder if the progressive wing won't split here in the next few decades.

[NGNM85]

I don't know. I guess you make good points...but I can't help but think this is identical to the sorts of things I read at The Daily Kos when I was a liberal.

Well first of all, it's like Trotsky said; (I'm paraphrasing, here.) 'It doesn't matter who said it, it matters that it's true.'

Second; there really isn't anything controversial, here. The first two-thirds are simply a Readers' Digest version of the history of the Affordable Healthcare Act.

[NGNM85]

Yeah but who would we vote for? The Democrats? That seems pretty dumb to be totally honest.

It depends on the circumstances. Also; if you want more Leftist parties; Socialists, Greens, etc., to win more seats, and I absolutely agree, that means knocking down the barriers. That means, first, and foremost; striking down Citizens’ United, second; exhaustive campaign finance reform, and third; breaking down some of the legal, and institutional barriers blocking Third Parties.


I remember some liberal activist I was working with was going on about Obama's newfound populist rhetoric in his last big speech and said "It'll be up to us to hold him to it!" which seemed like such an empty statement because no matter what Obama does, this dude will make excuses for him and, more importantly, vote for him.
No. Matter. What.

It sounds like your friend might be suffering from a number of illusions, which is unfortunate, but he’s not entirely wrong. It’s not enough to simply elect the most Left wing candidates, we need to put pressure on them, to drag them further Leftward, by demanding more changes, more concessions.


Because he's "better than the alternative"

Unfortunately; that’s the way it is. Also; it’s not like there’s any sense in choosing the worst of two bad choices.


And that's the other problem with the electoral thing -- the two party system is such a huge thing that, if one were to vote, the only people to vote for who are 1) even remotely 'left'ish and 2) even remotely electable are the Democrats.

See above.


So that sorta makes it easy for them to just be the Republicans-lite.

Pretty much.


I mean, when it comes to those blue-dogs, what would you have done when you noticed the democrat on the ballot is way to the right of the party? Voted Republican?

I’m unaware of any contemporary election where the Democrat was to the Left of the Republican candidate. In that case; perhaps I would vote for a Third party, or simply not vote for any of the candidates.


I mean even lil babby liberals aside from the young democrat douchebags recognized that putting pressure on officials through direct action is more effective than voting the right people in office –

It’s most effective if you combine the two.


because you can only vote for what's available, and that means it's very easy for there to be no one who wants to implement what people want implemented.

See above.


I'm just sort of thinking aloud here, though. I mean, I used to be hard on the "DON'T VOTE" thing but now I'm more ambivalent about it. Do I believe voting will help anything ever? Not likely. Do I think the act of voting hurts anything? Nah. All that hurts is making a conscious effort to pursue electoral gains for a center-right party in lieu of direct action.

There’s no logical reason why anyone should make such a choice.


I mean sure, someone can go on strike and then vote, more with the intention to get someone out than to vote someone else in, but I think organizations need to have a strategy, work out their tactics, and stick to their plan instead of saying "we'll split up our time and our resources like this", especially when I think the one route is far and away more effective.

Again; the best strategy is a multi-pronged strategy, combining institutional mechanisms like voting, petitioning, introducing legislation, etc., with protests, and strikes. The biggest obstacle that I see is actually, the Radical Left, itself; the dogmatism, the factionalism, the one-dimensional thinking, etc.


Plus the west coast Occupies did better work and had more of an impact and were far and away more valuable than the Occupy Wall Street and MoveOn.org's 99% Spring.
Again just sort of thinking aloud, tho.

I think if Occupy is to have any future, it has to coalesce around a handful of key issues. However; I’m not optimistic.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Also; as an aside, the Democrats did have a majority in the 111th congress, a greater majority than they have now, but it wasn’t sufficient to pass the Public Option. I don’t know where you’re from, but we have this parliamentary procedure called the filibuster, I think they also have it in France, and a couple other countries, anyhow; it allows the minority to, essentially, kill a Bill, unless a supermajority of 60 Senators override it. As I understand it, this was intended as a sort of safeguard. This is supposed to require a Senator to stay on the floor, and to speak, continuously, until it gets a supermajority, or it dies. I think the record was set by ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond, who spoke for something like 25 hours in a futile attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Well, the Republicans have basically mastered the art of using this as a legislative weapon of mass destruction. Amazingly; they don’t even go through with the process, it’s just sort of implied, so anything that can’t get 60 votes just basically disappears. It’s like when the US vetoes something at the UN; it’s just gone. In the 111th congress the Democrats only had 57 Senators. They didn’t have the votes.


Sorry for the late reply.

First off, thanks for explaining the filibuster, which I never really understood.
But this really does not excuse anything, because this really is an easily exploitable way of doing things.
This seems like something that's only there to guarantee a "status-quo", where a bill that has too radical changes, will not be passed.
Which show that the only way to achieve real change in America is by popular action, and not by voting.

But this is only my interpretation of the situation.

[NGNM85]

Sorry for the late reply.

First off, thanks for explaining the filibuster, which I never really understood.


You're welcome.


But this really does not excuse anything, because this really is an easily exploitable way of doing things.
This seems like something that's only there to guarantee a "status-quo", where a bill that has too radical changes, will not be passed.

Unfortunately; it's the way the system works, at least, until the filibuster is fixed. There have been some proposals. I think it would be fine, if, as some have suggested, it was restricted to really big things, so that one would not need a supermajority for every...fucking...bill. That's, more, or less how it was intended to function. Harry Reid has been talking about fixing it, perhaps, in the next congress, but that depends on a lot of variables, most importantly, the demographics of the next congress. You're pretty much correct in your analysis, though; because the Republicans employ this tactic so frequently, it basically renders it almost impossible to pass anything remotely progressive.


Which show that the only way to achieve real change in America is by popular action, and not by voting.

But this is only my interpretation of the situation.

I think it's both. I mean, organizing, and educating the working class is paramount, and, ultimately, if the people holler lound enough, any administration is going to have to bend, some. However; we shouldn't be hamstringing ourselves out of some misguided dedication to 'ideological purity.'

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I agree with all that you say.
This most of all:

However; we shouldn't be hamstringing ourselves out of some misguided dedication to 'ideological purity.'

[JPSartre12]

Social Democrats still support Capitalism therefor they are still Capitalists.

I couldn't agree more. That's my biggest beef with contemporary social democrats - they readily accept the capitalist mode of production. Take the NDP, the Socialist Party in France, the Labour Party in the UK, etc - they all go around sprouting this progressive rhetoric but don't really do much to change the system fundamentally. I mean, a social democrat is better in my book that a hardline conservative, but I wouldn't consider a social democratic to be a legitimate socialist. They're capitalists through and through ... but just nicer capitalists :)

[JPSartre12]

Social democracy is not acceptable as a final state, but it's a step in the right direction. For this reason I support it as a transition state into communism. I mean lets be realistic. Attitudes aren't going to progress overnight to the point where there's enough support for communism. While social democracy isn't anywhere near perfect, it at least gets the ball rolling.

I agree .... I'm not really a fan of social democracy as an ends, but its definitely a means that can be used to start waking some people up and letting them realize that the economic system can be different.

Yes, there are ways that it can be a bit counter-revolutionary, but I'd rather live in a progressive social democracy that a neoliberal austerity pit.