Democrats are not the lesser of two evils they still just as evil as Republicans are. [Archive]

tradeunionsupporter

18th June 2012, 05:01

I really have no interest in mainstream politics or the two mainstream American political parties anymore we live in a two party dictatorship. Democrats may pretend to be for the Working Class but they are not. Democrats have been in power in the American Government many times but there has still been wealth inequality/income inequality. Democrats do support a Progressive Income Tax System but the Rich still get Richer and the Poor still get Poorer. Democrats are still Capitalists they have no interest in wanting a Classless Society. Democrats may raise the marginal tax rates but there will still always be wealth inequality under Capitalism under the Democrats even without the tax loopholes and offshore bank accounts that the Rich/Wealthy use to avoid paying taxes. Most if not all of the Democrat Politicans are Wealthy. Why do many Americans think these Wealthy Lobbyist Puppets of the Banks Politicans care about the Working Class People ?

The "Buffett Rule" charade

Gary Lapon explains how the tax system has been skewed in favor of the rich.

April 17, 2012

WITH TAX Day approaching and the Republican Party seemingly settled on nominating a super-rich parasite as its presidential candidate, Barack Obama gave us a taste of the coming general election campaign this month with a lot of talk about making the tax system fairer so the rich "pay their share."

http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/17/the-buffett-rule-charade

tradeunionsupporter

18th June 2012, 05:08

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-0)) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton). It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

Specifics

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1)

President Bill Clinton a Democrat raised Taxes on the Wealthy in 1993 yet we still had and do have wealth inequality.

It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

tradeunionsupporter

18th June 2012, 05:10

President Franklin D. Roosevelt a Democrat raised Taxes on the Wealthy in 1935 yet we still had and do have wealth inequality.

Revenue Act of 1935

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#mw-head), search (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#p-search)

The Revenue Act of 1935, 49 Stat. (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 1014 (Aug. 30, 1935), raised United States (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/United_States) federal income tax on higher income levels, by introducing the "Wealth Tax". It was a progressive tax that took up to 75 percent on incomes over 5 million.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-IRS1-0)

It was signed into law by President (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt).
The 1935 Act also was popularly known at the time as the "Soak the Rich" tax.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1)

Many wealthy people used loopholes in the existing tax code to evade these taxes, and the Revenue Act of 1937 (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Revenue_Act_of_1937&action=edit&redlink=1)[1] (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24622956/PL-75-377-Revenue-Act-of-1937) cracked down on this by revising tax laws and regulations.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-IRS1-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935

Eagle_Syr

18th June 2012, 05:14

In a way, Democrats are even more insidious than Republicans, precisely because they pretend to champion workers' liberation

tradeunionsupporter

18th June 2012, 06:20

Q: Why don't you like democracy, why is communism better?

A: Democracy and communism are not opposites. Communists believe in TRUE democracy, as opposed to our "bourgeois democracy." What that means is when you only get to choose between millionaires running for election, working class people (the vast majority of society) aren't really represented. Elections in a capitalist system are almost always decided by who can get the most corporate money. True democracy will be realized under communism because everyone will have an equal say in society.

http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1445/1/278/

Democracy in Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marxism) holds that "democracy is the road to socialism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism))," as Karl Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Karl_Marx) believed, democracy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Democracy) being Greek for "rules of the masses." The Marxist view is fundamentally opposed to what capitalists (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Capitalist) call liberal democracy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Liberal_democracy), believing that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bourgeoisie).
Marxism views liberal democracy as an unrealistic utopia (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Utopia). This is because they believe that in a capitalist state all "independent" media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists and one either needs large financial resources or to be supported by the bourgeoisie to win an election. Lenin (1917) believed that in a capitalist state, the system focuses on resolving disputes within the ruling bourgeoisie class and ignores the interests of the proletariat or labour class which are not represented and therefore dependent on the bourgeoisie's good will:

"Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty” – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.” (Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5)
Most of these restrictions no longer apply in the Western world;[citation needed (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] women have the vote and there is no property requirement. However, Marxists generally[who? (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] agree that the modern political landscape is dominated by corporate interest, due to the widespread practice of lobbying politicians, and the connections between corporations, and elected officials.
Moreover, even if representatives of the proletariat class are elected in a capitalist country, Marxists claim they have limited power over the country's affairs as the economic sphere is largely controlled by private capital and therefore the representative's power to act is curtailed. Essentially, minarchists (only a small minority of those supporting liberal democracy) claim that in the ideal liberal state the functions of the elected government should be reduced to the minimum (i.e. the court system and security). Hence Marxists-Leninists see a socialist revolution necessary to bring power into hands of oppressed classes.

Marx: “Democracy is the road to socialism."
Engels: “...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism

DasFapital

18th June 2012, 06:21

democrats are just republicans who occasionally pretend to like gays.

ed miliband

18th June 2012, 12:18

In a way, Democrats are even more insidious than Republicans, precisely because they pretend to champion workers' liberation

i highly doubt they've ever done that

tradeunionsupporter

25th June 2012, 08:15

I agree with you all.

MuscularTophFan

25th June 2012, 08:45

NGNM85

25th June 2012, 20:26

Actually you are all wrong. There is no two party dictatorship. There is a one party state.

What we have, essentially, are two wings of the Business party.

Personally I would perfer if we had a no party state. Abolish all political parties because they get corrupted by special interests.

I would prefer it if we had no Nation-States. There's nothing wrong with political parties, in the abstract. Even in a decentralized, Anarchist federation there would probably be political parties. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. As for parties representing 'special interests', which, granted, is absolutely true, the problem is capitalism, itself. Although; that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support campaign finance reform.

Because even if a third party rise in America it would just get corrupted just like the Democratic and Republican parties.

Well, there's all sorts of roadblocks to Third Parties, which is something that I think desperately needs to be changed. However; again, the biggest issue is campaign financing. As long as wealthy elites, corporations, and PACs are allowed to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections, therefore, requiring anyone who hopes to compete with them to marshall similar resources, we're not going to get anything remotely resembling what we want.

When it comes to economics, individual freedoms, foreign policy, etc. Democrats and Republicans are the same, but they implement it at vastly different scales.

The difference may be small, and getting smaller, but they aren't the same. In terms of economics, for example; the working class tends to fare significantly better under Democratic administrations.

I mean Mitt Romney makes Bush look like a fucking moderate.

He's about the same. Which, granted, is still fucking horrifying.

When it comes to social issues there are some moderate differences between the two parties.

The greatest variation is in the area of social policy.

Even though about 20-30% of Republican voters are lgbt people

I sincerely doubt it. I think that's drastically inflated.

the republican is vehemently anti-gay.

Yup.

In fact it's been getting even more anti-gay.

UIt varies. There are some more forward-thinking Republicans who have read the opinion polls, and know that, in the long run, this is a losing issue. Then, there are the hardline Evangelical types who just won't be moved. However; even Republicans who are, personally, supportive of gay rights, won't blink to use homophobia to whip up their base, like Dick Cheney, for example.

I guess the anti-gay bigots are realizing they are becoming the minority now and are lashing out. Gay rights has progressed better under Obama than under Bush.

Yes.

The federal hate crimes laws for sexual orientation and gender identity, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Prop 8 found unconstitutional are pretty big gay rights victories.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Hate Crimes laws.

There's also the extension of benefits to sme-sex partners of US diplomats, the even broader proposed benefits for same-sex partners of all Federal employees, and the President personally expressing his support for gay marriage, etc.

Republican don't just hate gays but they they hate sex in general. They hate this whole sexual liberation. That's why they seem to be waging such a vile war against women.

That's certainly possible, but, in general, I'd rather avoid such psychoanalysis. I'd rather deal with the realm of empirical fact; 'What are they doing?'

Eagle_Syr

25th June 2012, 20:31

i highly doubt they've ever done that

What do you call the New Deal and the modern appeal to the working class?

Their whole act is based on being opposed to the "free capitalism" of Republicans in the interest of "the common man"

It is undeniable that that is the image they propagate, even though it is false.

Vorchev

25th June 2012, 20:32

I'm kind of confused how communists can feel this way.

When fascists complain about Democrats, it makes sense because they argue how feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism are used to expand the labor supply and drive wages down.

When communists complain though, it seems you even forgot how unions are the primary contributors to the Democratic Party.

Maybe communists don't like syndicalism?

ed miliband

25th June 2012, 21:44

read what you wrote:

champion workers' liberation

how did the new deal do that? how does their "modern appeal to the working class" do that? ameliorate? perhaps. "liberate"? you're having a laugh.

Positivist

25th June 2012, 22:12

Eagle_Syr

25th June 2012, 22:37

read what you wrote:

how did the new deal do that? how does their "modern appeal to the working class" do that? ameliorate? perhaps. "liberate"? you're having a laugh.

Hence why I said PRETEND:rolleyes:

MuscularTophFan

25th June 2012, 23:39

What we have, essentially, are two wings of the Business party.
Yup.

Although; that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support campaign finance reform. However; again, the biggest issue is campaign financing. As long as wealthy elites, corporations, and PACs are allowed to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections, therefore, requiring anyone who hopes to compete with them to marshall similar resources, we're not going to get anything remotely resembling what we want.

:(
Supreme Court’s Montana decision strengthens Citizens United
Things are getting a lot worse because of Citizens United.

Well, there's all sorts of roadblocks to Third Parties, which is something that I think desperately needs to be changed.
The problem is our whole political system was designed solely for two parties. It wasn't designed for more than two major parties.

He's about the same. Which, granted, is still fucking horrifying.
Could you imagine a Romney presidency with a tea party controlled Congress? Jesus Christ kill me now.

I sincerely doubt it. I think that's drastically inflated.
Unfortunately there are a lot of gays who vote against their own self interests. They remind me of the jews who supported Hitler's rise to power and thought he would tone down the antisemitism later on.

UIt varies. There are some more forward-thinking Republicans who have read the opinion polls, and know that, in the long run, this is a losing issue. Then, there are the hardline Evangelical types who just won't be moved. However; even Republicans who are, personally, supportive of gay rights, won't blink to use homophobia to whip up their base, like Dick Cheney, for example.
The younger Republicans and even young evangelicals aren't homophobic but the Republican party is literally full of nothing but angry old people. We are going to have to wait till of all of the baby boomers die out. Republican party also don't give a shit or care about opinion polls say. All Republicans, except for a handful, voted to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell, even though 68% of American said they would like Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed, even a majority of Republican voters supported repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Hate Crimes laws.
Just curious but why?

There's also the extension of benefits to sme-sex partners of US diplomats, the even broader proposed benefits for same-sex partners of all Federal employees, and the President personally expressing his support for gay marriage, etc.
I don't like his position on gay marriage being left to the states but Obama's support for gay marriage did do change the opinions of African Americans greatly on the issue of gay marriage.

Black Pride: Majority of African Americans Support Gay Marriage, Says ABC News.

Notably among groups, 59 percent of African-Americans in this survey express support for gay marriage - up from 41 percent in combined ABC/Post polls this spring and last summer. Likewise, 65 percent support Obama's new position on the issue. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced its support for gay marriage last weekend.

Revolution starts with U

25th June 2012, 23:42

What do you mean by "evil?"

JPSartre12

25th June 2012, 23:50

Eagle_Syr

25th June 2012, 23:55

In the end, until we get to the revolution or get a real socialist party active in Congress, I'd much rather vote for progressive, DSA-aligned Democrats than Tea Party Republicans.

But then again, having a whole Congress full of progressives isn't going to make much fundamental difference, but it would be a step in the right direction I guess .... I'd much rather live in a progressive social democracy than a neoliberal austerity pit.

I think that's entirely the wrong approach. Don't settle.

What do you think will happen when you get these "progressives" into Congress? Their policies will make people complacent, just comfortable enough to avoid revolution. This is counter-productive.

We will never achieve socialism without revolution

L.A.P.

26th June 2012, 00:02

Actually you are all wrong. There is no two party dictatorship. There is a one party state.

I agree, the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are so generic and trivial that I think it should just be considered one party with two factions. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had opposing factions, but your history teacher will still swear it was a single-party state.

Revolution starts with U

26th June 2012, 00:05

I think that's entirely the wrong approach. Don't settle.

What do you think will happen when you get these "progressives" into Congress? Their policies will make people complacent, just comfortable enough to avoid revolution. This is counter-productive.

We will never achieve socialism without revolution

I'm not sure comfort lessens the amount of revolutionary activity, necessarily. Do you have any facts/arguments to back up this claim?

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 00:23

I agree, the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are so generic and trivial that I think it should just be considered one party with two factions. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had opposing factions, but your history teacher will still swear it was a single-party state. This. Just two different types of capitalists.

I'm not sure comfort lessens the amount of revolutionary activity, necessarily. Do you have any facts/arguments to back up this claim?

It does. The development of a middle class creates a buffer between the wealthy and the workers (I'm not using Marxist class terms here). The middle class can enjoy some level of comfort, enough that they wouldn't want the effort or risk involved in revolution.

Historically, you can examine the Mexican revolution (and indeed most Latin American struggles), Russian revolution, etc, all countries with small or nonexistent middle classes.

In the US, in the early part of the 20th century, there were huge Marxist movements (IWW, CP USA, Socialist Party, etc) and the struggle was very widespread. Then you have the rise of the middle class, and suddenly, revolutionary politics were no longer mainstream.

Howard Zinn's A Peoples' History is a good read

Klaatu

26th June 2012, 00:57

Actually you are all wrong. There is no two party dictatorship. There is a one party state. Personally I would perfer if we had a no party state. Abolish all political parties because they get corrupted by special interests. Because even if a third party rise in America it would just get corrupted just like the Democratic and Republican parties.

When it comes to economics, individual freedoms, foreign policy, etc. Democrats and Republicans are the same, but they implement it at vastly different scales. I mean Mitt Romney makes Bush look like a fucking moderate.

When it comes to social issues there are some moderate differences between the two parties. Even though about 20-30% of Republican voters are lgbt people the republican is vehemently anti-gay. In fact it's been getting even more anti-gay. I guess the anti-gay bigots are realizing they are becoming the minority now and are lashing out. Gay rights has progressed better under Obama than under Bush. The federal hate crimes laws for sexual orientation and gender identity, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Prop 8 found unconstitutional are pretty big gay rights victories.

Republican don't just hate gays but they they hate sex in general. They hate this whole sexual liberation. That's why they seem to be waging such a vile war against women.

I agree. I think there should be NO political parties what-so-ever. (Who needs 'em?) There should be direct voting on each and every issue. The only real reason we have representative democracy is that the people that originally formed the U.S. in the 18th century figured that it would be nearly impossible for everyone to vote on everything, considering immense travel time for voters to attend distant voting places, (hence the need for someone to "represent you") and other issues of that time, such as "that's the way it has always been done," etc.

But in this 21st-century environment of instantaneous communications, I see absolutely no reason not to have a system where the people truly decide.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 01:00

Revolution starts with U

26th June 2012, 01:07

This. Just two different types of capitalists.

It does. The development of a middle class creates a buffer between the wealthy and the workers (I'm not using Marxist class terms here). The middle class can enjoy some level of comfort, enough that they wouldn't want the effort or risk involved in revolution.

Historically, you can examine the Mexican revolution (and indeed most Latin American struggles), Russian revolution, etc, all countries with small or nonexistent middle classes.

In the US, in the early part of the 20th century, there were huge Marxist movements (IWW, CP USA, Socialist Party, etc) and the struggle was very widespread. Then you have the rise of the middle class, and suddenly, revolutionary politics were no longer mainstream.

Howard Zinn's A Peoples' History is a good read

How does this theory explain the large amounts of revoutionary-ish activity that comes out of universities, almost exclusively filled with wealthy and "middle class" people?

It would seem to me that revolutionary activity remained strong up until the mid-70s, which since then we've seen reductions in living standards, not gains. The rise of Occupy may support your hypothesis, but the timeframe of 70-2005 I really don't think does.

Can you quote the relevant parts of Zinn?

Revolution starts with U

26th June 2012, 01:08

Ostrinski

26th June 2012, 01:31

I don't like the idea of voting in general. Who ever thought that we should make decisions based on what some majority wants? The majority could be homophobic capitalist racists.

Just doesn't make sense to me :confused:Because you place no emphasis on the relevance of political consciousness regarding the efficiency of a majoritarian-decision making method. Your dogmatic opposition to democracy is built on the premise that people, workers in particular, don't have the capacity for political consciousness at all.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 01:37

How does this theory explain the large amounts of revoutionary-ish activity that comes out of universities, almost exclusively filled with wealthy and "middle class" people? As a college student, I am well aware of these "revolutionaries". But they are generally disconnected from reality. It's intellectual, it's just talk. Not that there isn't a need for that (otherwise this board would be pointless), but most of them have never been working-class (non-Marxist sense), have never faced hardship. They don't mobilize like they did in the good old days.

It would seem to me that revolutionary activity remained strong up until the mid-70s, which since then we've seen reductions in living standards, not gains. The rise of Occupy may support your hypothesis, but the timeframe of 70-2005 I really don't think does. It's generally agreed that liberalism and the middle class are reactions to revolutionary fervor, just like wars. Distractions.

Can you quote the relevant parts of Zinn?

I'm too tired, honestly, to write all that. But focus on the chapters post 1900 to maybe 1970 or so (WWI chapter is a good one).

Then who should make decisions effecting worker's lives? The Party? How well has that worked out?
I'd say it was working well enough in the USSR.

But anyway, why are those two the only choices?

Because you place no emphasis on the relevance of political consciousness regarding the efficiency of a majoritarian-decision making method. Your dogmatic opposition to democracy is built on the premise that people, workers in particular, don't have the capacity for political consciousness at all.
Not true. It's based on the premise that democracy is inefficient, slow, and enables capitailsts to get into power/manipulate the system

wsg1991

26th June 2012, 01:39

the lesser evil , when you practically have to pick between 2 arranged choices ,
which are the same , just one is painted with Liberalism and freedoms , and other with religion
one of the major assaults on USA workers was NAFTA agreements ( i am quoting Chris hedges , i am not sure about this , before you starts attacking me ) which was made in 1994 , under Democrats rules .

after such assault , any one who was spending his precious time on discovering those tiny differences , should do something more useful (like watching a soccer game ) or try to create a third better option , and start looking for alternatives

i do believe in choosing between lesser evils , but come on ! this looks the same product to me , just different colors

Ostrinski

26th June 2012, 01:49

Not true. It's based on the premise that democracy is inefficient, slow, and enables capitailsts to get into power/manipulate the systemNo. You said:

I don't like the idea of voting in general. Who ever thought that we should make decisions based on what some majority wants? The majority could be homophobic capitalist racists.

Just doesn't make sense to me :confused:First of all, this point has nothing to do with the inefficiency of democracy. Second of all, how the fuck can capitalists "get into power and manipulate the system" if they no longer exist?

Revolution starts with U

26th June 2012, 01:57

As a college student, I am well aware of these "revolutionaries". But they are generally disconnected from reality. It's intellectual, it's just talk. Not that there isn't a need for that (otherwise this board would be pointless), but most of them have never been working-class (non-Marxist sense), have never faced hardship. They don't mobilize like they did in the good old days.

That's exactly my point. Yet there are at least 3 anarchist organizations at Kent State, and quite a few more Marxist ones. How does your theory explain this?

It's generally agreed that liberalism and the middle class are reactions to revolutionary fervor, just like wars. Distractions.

At one time it was generally agreed that everything was made up of the four elements; earth, air, fire, and water. My question is; can you explain why your theory is correct in non-fallacious terms?

I'm too tired, honestly, to write all that. But focus on the chapters post 1900 to maybe 1970 or so (WWI chapter is a good one).

Ty. I'm an unemployed prole using another person computer that is absolutely opposed to "stealing" intellectual property. I owe money to Ohiolink, so that route is closed.
Everybody recommends these books to me and then I get pissed because I'm too poor to read them! :lol: But I'll get to it when I can. Ty.

I'd say it was working well enough in the USSR.

So basically capitalism works better if the vanguard controls it?

But anyway, why are those two the only choices?

They're not. What other choices do you have in mind?

Not true. It's based on the premise that democracy is inefficient, slow, and enables capitailsts to get into power/manipulate the system
Where are there democracies in bourgeois society? I think you mean republicanism... in which case, even Soviet republicanism was slow, inefficient, and enabled capitalists to get into power and manipulate the system.

Klaatu

26th June 2012, 02:18

I don't like the idea of voting in general. Who ever thought that we should make decisions based on what some majority wants? The majority could be homophobic capitalist racists.

Just doesn't make sense to me :confused:

Bear in mind that peoples' natural rights are always protected, and are not subject to a vote. For example, there is a right to abortion, a right to marry whom one chooses, a right to collective bargain, a right to not be poisoned by pollution, and so on. No one can take away these fundamental rights.

Anyone that tries to is a criminal.

Ostrinski

26th June 2012, 02:22

Bear in mind that peoples' natural rights are always protected, and are not subject to a vote. For example, there is a right to abortion, a right to marry whom one chooses, a right to collective bargain, a right to not be poisoned by pollution, and so on. No one can take away these fundamental rights.

Anyone that tries to is a criminal.Where the hell, pray tell, do these natural rights come from?

Klaatu

26th June 2012, 02:30

Where the hell, pray tell, do these natural rights come from?

Common sense, that's where they come from

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 02:31

First of all, this point has nothing to do with the inefficiency of democracy. Inefficiency among other things.

Second of all, how the fuck can capitalists "get into power and manipulate the system" if they no longer exist?
Reactionaries. Whatever you want to call them. People who are counter-revolutionary.

That's exactly my point. Yet there are at least 3 anarchist organizations at Kent State, and quite a few more Marxist ones. How does your theory explain this? They are very much in the minority. The rise of the middle class and liberalism destroyed mainstream Marxism.

If you disagree, tell me this: do you not think liberals are just capitalists who think concessions will avoid revolution?

The whole point of liberalism is to avoid revolution through reform. The rise of the middle class created a large group who would be opposed to revolution, in general.

So basically capitalism works better if the vanguard controls it?
I think you need the dictatorship of the proletariat initially until all elements of capitailsm are purged from society. Then, and only then, can we think about broad democracy.

Bear in mind that peoples' natural rights are always protected, and are not subject to a vote. A Marxist that believes in natural rights? Wow!

For example, there is a right to abortion Not according to many. And what about late-term abortion?

And why specifically a right to abortion? That seems awfully contemporary.

a right to not be poisoned by pollution This is an awkward way of putting it. Rights can only properly be expressed in the negative.

Something like this: Nobody has the right to pollute the air and thus harm others

No one can take away these fundamental rights. Whence cometh these rights?

Revolution starts with U

26th June 2012, 02:40

They are very much in the minority. The rise of the middle class and liberalism destroyed mainstream Marxism.

I think if you ask most people what they think of Marx they're going to say "the USSR sucked bro" not "New Deal > Marxism."
Again, how does your theory explain the prominence of Marxists and anarchists on college campuses (not to say they are the majority, just more prominent than society at large)? You still haven't answered this.

If you disagree, tell me this: do you not think liberals are just capitalists who think concessions will avoid revolution?

I think liberals think capitalism is all that is possible. I don't think most liberals support what they do because it will stave off revolution, rather than because they want to help people in the only way they know how. *Note that I'm talking about the rank-in-file, not the leadership who may or may not do it for the former reasons.

The whole point of liberalism is to avoid revolution through reform. The rise of the middle class created a large group who would be opposed to revolution, in general.

How can a proletarian be opposed to revolution in general? Its very existence is a revolt against the system. And again, lots of middle class revolutionaries.

I think you need the dictatorship of the proletariat initially until all elements of capitailsm are purged from society. Then, and only then, can we think about broad democracy.

The DotP is and can only be broad democracy, imo. Otherwise you've just traded private capitalists for state capitalists.

Klaatu

26th June 2012, 03:10

Eagle Syr

"
A Marxist that believes in natural rights? Wow!

What did you think Marxist are, dictators?

"
Not according to many. And what about late-term abortion?

Many what?" A fetus is a part of a woman's body. She can do what is necessary.
An abortion which saves the life of the mother may be a medical necessity, for example.

"
And why specifically a right to abortion? That seems awfully contemporary.

Contemporary? I challenge you sir, to locate for us a prohibition of abortion in ancient scripture. Good Luck.

"
This is an awkward way of putting it. Rights can only properly be expressed in the negative.
Something like this: Nobody has the right to pollute the air and thus harm others

Fair enough.

"
Whence cometh these rights?

Whence cometh a reason to restrict them?

Ostrinski

26th June 2012, 03:24

Common sense, that's where they come fromdamn son

NGNM85

26th June 2012, 22:08

:(

Supreme Court’s Montana decision strengthens Citizens United
Things are getting a lot worse because of Citizens United.

What’s really interesting is if you contrast the Supreme Courts’ decision concerning Montana, with the recent decision regarding Arizona. In the Arizona case Scalia made en especially shrill comment about overriding the sovereignty of the state of Arizona, then we come to the Montana case and it’s like; ‘Sovereignty? Fuck that!’ It’s just a particularly glaring instance of hypocrisy.

Speaking of which, no offense, but it’s a little bogus for you to say that elections don’t matter, and then, in the next breath, bemoan the decision of the reactionaries on the Supreme Court.

Citizens United was a disaster for the working class. It’s not a stretch to say that this is actually the most important issue that we face, in the United States, today. It should be a top priority. I think if Occupy is to have a future; it needs to coalesce around two, or three key issues, and this should be one of them.

The problem is our whole political system was designed solely for two parties. It wasn't designed for more than two major parties.

Actually; the Founders didn’t intend, at least, not initially, to have a partisan system. Washington didn’t like the idea. Hamilton, and Madison expressed concerns about the idea in the Federalist Papers. However; parties emerged very quickly, and, eventually, ossified into what they are, today.

Could you imagine a Romney presidency with a tea party controlled Congress? Jesus Christ kill me now.

That would be pretty awful. However; it should be noted this is an argument in favor of participating in establishment politics, not an argument against it.

Unfortunately there are a lot of gays who vote against their own self interests. They remind me of the jews who supported Hitler's rise to power and thought he would tone down the antisemitism later on.

There are some, but I wouldn’t say that there are a lot of them.

The younger Republicans and even young evangelicals aren't homophobic but the Republican party is literally full of nothing but angry old people. We are going to have to wait till of all of the baby boomers die out. Republican party also don't give a shit or care about opinion polls say. All Republicans, except for a handful, voted to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell, even though 68% of American said they would like Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed, even a majority of Republican voters supported repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Oh, they’re probably going to run into some serious problems in the next few years, if they stick to their guns on gays, and immigration.

Just curious but why?

We shouldn’t be prosecuting people for what is in their minds. It's totally bogus. Murder is murder, assault is assault, etc.

I don't like his position on gay marriage being left to the states

The President doesn’t have the power to, unilaterally, establish gay marriage. Eventually; it’s going to come down to the Supreme Court.

but Obama's support for gay marriage did do change the opinions of African Americans greatly on the issue of gay marriage.

Black Pride: Majority of African Americans Support Gay Marriage, Says ABC News.
Notably among groups, 59 percent of African-Americans in this survey express support for gay marriage - up from 41 percent in combined ABC/Post polls this spring and last summer. Likewise, 65 percent support Obama's new position on the issue. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced its support for gay marriage last weekend.

I’m skeptical that the change was that profound. I think the heart of the matter is simply that African-Americans aren’t going to abandon Obama simply because of his position on gay marriage.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:29

What did you think Marxist are, dictators? I simply mean most Marxists here don't believe in objective rights or morals

Many what?" A fetus is a part of a woman's body. She can do what is necessary. According to what principle?
And again, is there a difference between an abortion the day before a woman gives birth and the day of conception?

Devil's advocate

Contemporary? I challenge you sir, to locate for us a prohibition of abortion in ancient scripture. Good Luck. That isn't what I was saying. I am saying that natural rights, if they exist, should be timeless, universal, and non-specific. Otherwise they are not natural rights. How about "the right to govern one's own body"?

Did women in 2500 BC have the right to abortion?

Whence cometh a reason to restrict them?

You first have to establish them. What principles and what process lead you to these rights?

MuscularTophFan

27th June 2012, 01:39

I agree. I think there should be NO political parties what-so-ever. (Who needs 'em?) There should be direct voting on each and every issue.The only real reason we have representative democracy is that the people that originally formed the U.S. in the 18th century figured that it would be nearly impossible for everyone to vote on everything, considering immense travel time for voters to attend distant voting places, (hence the need for someone to "represent you") and other issues of that time, such as "that's the way it has always been done," etc.
Founding fathers originally thought that citizens where far to stupid and uneducated to be allowed to vote on issues. So they settlled on a representative democracy.

But in this 21st-century environment of instantaneous communications, I see absolutely no reason not to have a system where the people truly decide.
I agree somewhat with you are saying. The only thing I'm not in favor of is when someone votes on peoples civil rights, like say voting on gay marriage. There are many things we would have to combat if a true democratic system of government voted on by the people existed. We would have to combat cooperate influence which has gotten out of control in America since citizens united which has lead to a fuck ton in spending from special interests. For example there was a Prop in Califroinia recntly to increase the sales tax on cigarette. Most people in California supported this but than the cigarette companies started dumping millions into ads against the Prop and it was defeated by a very slight majority.

Brosa Luxemburg

27th June 2012, 02:04

But in this 21st-century environment of instantaneous communications, I see absolutely no reason not to have a system where the people truly decide.

I am quoting this not to start a personal war, but because I have seen many show this sentiment on revleft and I believe it to be wrong.

If we are describing democracy as "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then us communists are anti-democracy. If the world we live in today is made up of mainly two antagonistic classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the conception of the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of specifically the proletariat, not all people.
Here is a quote by Bordiga on the subject.

If the word democracy means power of the majority, the democrats should stand on our class side. But this word both in its literal sense ("power of the people") as well as in the dirty use that is more and more being made of it, means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this historical reason, just as we reject "bourgeois democracy" and "democracy in general" (as Lenin also did), we must politically and theoretically exclude, as a contradiction in terms, "class democracy" and "workers' democracy".

Of course, with communism and the abolition of classes and the state this will change and it will be a rule of the people. During the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of one class though, the proletariat and with it, the suppression of another defeated class, the bourgeoisie.

wsg1991

27th June 2012, 02:42

I am quoting this not to start a personal war, but because I have seen many show this sentiment on revleft and I believe it to be wrong.

If we are describing democracy as "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then us communists are anti-democracy. If the world we live in today is made up of mainly two antagonistic classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the conception of the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of specifically the proletariat, not all people.
Here is a quote by Bordiga on the subject.

].

first this dictatorship of the proletariat seems meaningless

let me get this straight , socialist revolution will abolish the bourgeois class , and will be either murdered ( i believe some users here will do it ), or integrated in the working force and stripped from any privileges ,

as the ex-high bourgeois are very small in size ( less than 1 %) they would have no real value , even if they are allowed to participate in any kind of democracy , their votes are meaningless and negligible

so technically the rule of people is almost dictatorship of the proletariat

but where ? you put petty bourgeois ( high skilled workers , doctors , layers , engineers ... ?)
also what about farmers ?

Leroy Brown

27th June 2012, 02:47

An abortion which saves the life of the mother may be a medical necessity, for example.

But that's an easy one. What if it's not to save the life, or even for her health, and the head and chest are both out of the birth canal but not the belly or anything else. It's even crying. All of a sudden she decides she doesn't want it.

Address that one.

Brosa Luxemburg

27th June 2012, 03:14

first this dictatorship of the proletariat seems meaningless

It is absolutely not meaningless. It is a necessary step to take to abolish classes and the state. In an industrialized and modern nation like the United States it's main role would be to abolish classes, defend the revolution from violent counter-revolutionaries, and defend the revolution from imperialist aggression. Let's take, for example, the October Revolution. After the Bolsheviks came to power, the Bolsheviks faced invasion by 14 different countries, massive sabatoge and violent counter-revolution eventually culminating into civil war, the need to industrialize, etc. etc. From this, I think we can see why the proletariat dictatorship is a necessary step.

let me get this straight , socialist revolution will abolish the bourgeois class , and will be either murdered ( i believe some users here will do it ), or integrated in the working force and stripped from any privileges

Violent counter-revolutionaries (which are sure to appear) will be killed, yes, but I never advocated killing all former bourgeois. By suppression I mean confiscating their property, wealth, taking their power, etc.

as the ex-high bourgeois are very small in size ( less than 1 %) they would have no real value , even if they are allowed to participate in any kind of democracy , their votes are meaningless and negligible

Exactly, that is why if we take the word democracy to mean "the rule of the majority" the democrats should stand on "our class side" as Bordiga put it.

Revolution starts with U

27th June 2012, 03:21

I am quoting this not to start a personal war, but because I have seen many show this sentiment on revleft and I believe it to be wrong.

If we are describing democracy as "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then us communists are anti-democracy. If the world we live in today is made up of mainly two antagonistic classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the conception of the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of specifically the proletariat, not all people.
Here is a quote by Bordiga on the subject.

Of course, with communism and the abolition of classes and the state this will change and it will be a rule of the people. During the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of one class though, the proletariat and with it, the suppression of another defeated class, the bourgeoisie.

Counterpoint being that we should support bourgeois democracy over fascism any day of the week.

wsg1991

27th June 2012, 17:17

Exactly, that is why if we take the word democracy to mean "the rule of the majority" the democrats should stand on "our class side" as Bordiga put it.

no democracy technically means the rule of people , and workers makes the majority in any industrialized society .
the thing our current democratic system have built in flaws that allow bourgeois to effectively manipulate the electoral system (propaganda) and the masses , and prevent any outcome that can threatened it's interests , while amazingly keeping it look democratic .

stripping this people from their economic power means they can no longer do any thing ,
what the term dictatorship of the proletariat is just to make a distinction between communist democracy , and capitalist ''democracy''

Brosa Luxemburg

27th June 2012, 18:13

no democracy technically means the rule of people
In that case, if it is the "rule of all people" then it is, consequently, the rule of all classes.

and workers makes the majority in any industrialized society .
Which is why proponents of democracy should stand on our class side.

the thing our current democratic system have built in flaws that allow bourgeois to effectively manipulate the electoral system (propaganda) and the masses , and prevent any outcome that can threatened it's interests , while amazingly keeping it look democratic .
Yes, that is the function of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It serves the interests of one class against another.

stripping this people from their economic power means they can no longer do any thing
They can still invoke a violent counter-revolution. As stated before, this happened after the Bolsheviks took power in Russia and will happen after any working class revolution. To believe otherwise is to be utopian.

what the term dictatorship of the proletariat is just to make a distinction between communist democracy , and capitalist ''democracy''
No, it is to make the distinction between bourgeois class rule and proletariat class rule. In fact, if we consider the soviet structure to be an organ of proletariat class rule (as most, if not all communists do) then the bourgeoisie will naturally be excluded from decision making, and, therefore, the proletariat dictatorship will not represent the rule of all people and, therefore, democracy in the sense of "the rule of all people". Only when all classes are abolished will the rule of the people develop.

Brosa Luxemburg

27th June 2012, 18:50

Counterpoint being that we should support bourgeois democracy over fascism any day of the week.

:confused: Explain, please.

Revolution starts with U

27th June 2012, 21:23

:confused: Explain, please.

What needs explained? If you're a prole, which system would you rather live under? Neither is good, but bougeois democracy is clearly > fascism. It's even more conducive to Revolution.

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 02:48

What needs explained? If you're a prole, which system would you rather live under? Neither is good, but bougeois democracy is clearly > fascism. It's even more conducive to Revolution.

You quoted my post when you said that, and I thought you were trying to disprove my post with that statement. Sorry.

Revolution starts with U

28th June 2012, 03:18

You quoted my post when you said that, and I thought you were trying to disprove my post with that statement. Sorry.

I was just adding on to your point by pointing out there are many systems of governance the bourgeoisie can take, and liberal democracy is far greater than fascism.

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 21:21

I am quoting this not to start a personal war, but because I have seen many show this sentiment on revleft and I believe it to be wrong.

If we are describing democracy as "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then us communists are anti-democracy. If the world we live in today is made up of mainly two antagonistic classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the conception of the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of specifically the proletariat, not all people.
Here is a quote by Bordiga on the subject.

Of course, with communism and the abolition of classes and the state this will change and it will be a rule of the people. During the proletariat dictatorship we seek the rule of one class though, the proletariat and with it, the suppression of another defeated class, the bourgeoisie.

Your views on 'democracy' bear a striking resemblance to those of Samuel P. Huntington.

ed miliband

28th June 2012, 21:26

Your views on 'democracy' bear a striking resemblance to those of Samuel P. Huntington.

how exactly? :confused:

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 21:48

how exactly? :confused:

I wasn't talking to you.

I was referring to the report Huntington wrote for the Trilateral Commission; The Crisis of Democracy. The 'crisis', of course, being that the public was demanding things, and getting them. Huntington, who was deeply disturbed by these events, argued that 'democracy' would function better if certain segments of the population were excluded, and marginalized. This is, of course, a complete inversion of the common, literal, understanding of; 'democracy.'

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 21:56

I wasn't talking to you.

I was referring to the report Huntington wrote for the Trilateral Commission; The Crisis of Democracy. The 'crisis', of course, being that the public was demanding things, and getting them. Huntington, who was deeply disturbed by these events, argued that 'democracy' would function better if certain segments of the population were excluded, and marginalized. This is, of course, a complete inversion of the common, literal, understanding of; 'democracy.'

Here is the major difference and why my views are nothing like Huntington's (and if you read my views you probably would have realized this). If we take the term democracy as to mean "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then all communists are anti-democracy. We seek the rule of the proletariat over that of the bourgeoisie. If we take the term "democracy" to mean "the rule of the majority" as you did in the above, then the democrats should stand on "our class side" because the majority of people are proletariat. Actually, if we seek a system, such as the system of soviets, then the bourgeoisie will naturally be excluded from decision making by the way those organs naturally work. My views have nothing in common with Huntington, who is trying to defend capital and bourgeois domination. The only way you can make a similarity is if you put it in very abstract terms and take out the real context and meaning between my ideas and Huntington's ("both advocate exclusion, der").

ed miliband

28th June 2012, 21:58

I wasn't talking to you.

wtf? you made a statement that intrigued me and i was interested as to why you thought that. jesus.

i don't quite get the connection you have made between the two. whatever.

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 21:58

No, it is to make the distinction between bourgeois class rule and proletariat class rule. In fact, if we consider the soviet structure to be an organ of proletariat class rule (as most, if not all communists do) then the bourgeoisie will naturally be excluded from decision making, and, therefore, the proletariat dictatorship will not represent the rule of all people and, therefore, democracy in the sense of "the rule of all people". Only when all classes are abolished will the rule of the people develop.

no , the bourgeoisie as a class will be eliminated in a socialist society , we are talking about ex-bourgeois , and i am making distinction between them and others workers as some of them still morally bourgeois , even if they are integrated in working force , excluding them from decision making , being candidates would be necessary , letting them elect , or choose would be negligible .
if you have the workers , which are + 90% of the population ( not counting high skilled workers such as doctors ( me) or farmers ) participate in a system where no one has economic advantageous position , what's the big different between rule of people , and rule of workers (+90% of the population ) ?

the thing is , once workers have the rightful presentation as a demographic majority , and bourgeois are eliminated what's the difference between both concept ?

you didn't answer the position of petty bourgeois high skilled workers , because it's likely i am going to work under gunpoint , with no political rights

Ocean Seal

28th June 2012, 22:14

i highly doubt they've ever done that
I disagree, Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats all champion the worker from time to time.
The Republicans say that welfare increases taxes on working people and that taxes on the rich hurt workers because they destroy jobs. Isn't it nice how much they care about us?
And as for the Democrats, just watch MSNBC particularly the ED show or Lawrence O'Donnell. They always talk about Obama standing up for working people.

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:20

no , the bourgeoisie as a class will be eliminated in a socialist society

Find just one quote where I claimed the opposite. I never did. I said that, in the proletariat dictatorship, the bourgeoisie will still exist, yet as a defeated class. The point of the proletariat dictatorship is to abolish classes and transition to socialism (a classless and stateless society).

we are talking about ex-bourgeois , and i am making distinction between them and others workers as some of them still morally bourgeois , even if they are integrated in working force , excluding them from decision making , being candidates would be necessary , letting them elect , or choose would be negligible

I am not really sure what you are saying here. It is really hard to understand (I don't mean to sound like a dick if I do here, I am just being honest). I will try to respond though. The bourgeoisie will still exist in the proletariat dictatorship because every time a social class has had their power overthrown they still exist "within the texture of the social organism" to put it elegantly. It is the job of the proletariat dictatorship to suppress them as a class, confiscate their property, end their privilege, etc. along with abolishing classes in general as to reach a classless and stateless society (socialism/communism). As I said before, most, if not all communists support the system of soviets as organs for proletariat rule. By the natural workings of these organs, they will naturally exclude any bourgeois from decision making.

if you have the workers , which are + 90% of the population ( not counting high skilled workers such as doctors ( me) or farmers ) participate in a system where no one has economic advantageous position , what's the big different between rule of people , and rule of workers (+90% of the population ) ?

Again, I never argued differently. In fact, I think I affirmed this stance in another post. I think you thought I was talking about socialism/communism in my posts when I was talking about the proletariat dictatorship.

you didn't answer the position of petty bourgeois high skilled workers , because if it's likely i am going to work under gunpoint , with no political rights

Yeah, totally, because it isn't possible that I just missed it when I was responding before and really I am just a psychopath "authoritarian". :rolleyes:

I looked back at your post, and they would be in the same boat as the proletariat, obviously. Why?

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:22

Sorry if I sounded like a dick in any of my posts. I didn't mean to. Of course, you can never tell emotion (sarcasm, joking etc.) by just text.

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 22:23

Here is the major difference and why my views are nothing like Huntington's (and if you read my views you probably would have realized this).

I read all of your posts within this thread, thus far. If there’s some other pertinent information that I’m supposed to have, then it would be your responsibility to present it, or to include a hyperlink.

If we take the term democracy as to mean "the rule of all people" and, consequently, the rule of all classes, then all communists are anti-democracy.

Speak for yourself.

We seek the rule of the proletariat over that of the bourgeoisie.

That sounds good, in theory, but, without further qualification; it’s so vague, and general as to be useless. Any number of police states have made such proclamations.

If we take the term "democracy" to mean "the rule of the majority" as you did in the above, then the democrats should stand on "our class side" because the majority of people are proletariat. Actually, if we seek a system, such as the system of soviets, then the bourgeoisie will naturally be excluded from decision making by the way those organs naturally work. My views have nothing in common with Huntington, who is trying to defend capital and bourgeois domination. The only way you can make a similarity is if you put it in very abstract terms and take out the real context and meaning between my ideas and Huntington's ("both advocate exclusion, der").

You’re talking out of both sides of your face. Under the common, literal conception of; ‘democracy’,as you phrase it; ‘the rule of the majority’, the results will reflect the demographics of the population. Therefore; being that the ‘bourgeoisie’ represent such a small fraction of the population; presuming that the working class, or some large percentage, thereof, are educated, organized, and pursuing their interests, as a class, it’s simply impossible for the elites, or, the former elites, perhaps, to impress an agenda that is divergent from the will of the general public. This is the point that wsg1991 was making, to which you ‘justified’ (I use that term exceedingly loosely.) by saying that; ‘the’ ‘bourgeoisie’ can still invoke a violent counter-revolution.’, which has nothing to do with anything. In fact; if anything, denying certain individuals any participation in the political culture only seems to exacerbate the likelihood of such an eventuality. Of course; as you’ve stated, you believe that this eventuality is preordained, therefore; it makes no difference, which only makes this non-justification more perplexing.

ed miliband

28th June 2012, 22:24

I disagree, Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats all champion the worker from time to time.
The Republicans say that welfare increases taxes on working people and that taxes on the rich hurt workers because they destroy jobs. Isn't it nice how much they care about us?
And as for the Democrats, just watch MSNBC particularly the ED show or Lawrence O'Donnell. They always talk about Obama standing up for working people.

right, but the post i was responding to suggests that the democrats champion the liberation of the working class; arguing for a few minor reforms is not the same thing as liberation, is it?

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 22:29

wtf? you made a statement that intrigued me and i was interested as to why you thought that. jesus.

i don't quite get the connection you have made between the two. whatever.

Again;

I was referring to the report Huntington wrote for the Trilateral Commission; The Crisis of Democracy. The 'crisis', of course, being that the public was demanding things, and getting them. Huntington, who was deeply disturbed by these events, argued that 'democracy' would function better if certain segments of the population were excluded, and marginalized. This is, of course, a complete inversion of the common, literal, understanding of; 'democracy.'

Ocean Seal

28th June 2012, 22:33

right, but the post i was responding to suggests that the democrats champion the liberation of the working class; arguing for a few minor reforms is not the same thing as liberation, is it?
I agree, but they would disagree as to what liberation is. They are "liberating" the workers from the evils of economic liberalism (the unrestricted powers of corporations) and at the same time liberating them from the anti-democratic evils of communism.

ed miliband

28th June 2012, 22:34

Again;

yes, i can read, thanks; i don't see brosa luxemburg arguing that however. as he says, you can possibly connect the two in a very abstract sense but there is no connection otherwise. i don't think huntington is a bordigist tbh.

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 22:39

I am not really sure what you are saying here. It is really hard to understand (I don't mean to sound like a dick if I do here, I am just being honest). I will try to respond though. The bourgeoisie will still exist in the proletariat dictatorship because every time a social class has had their power overthrown they still exist "within the texture of the social organism" to put it elegantly. It is the job of the proletariat dictatorship to suppress them as a class, confiscate their property, end their privilege, etc. along with abolishing classes in general as to reach a classless and stateless society

it appears we are sharing similar ideas , just using different language ,
except here i still didn't get it , i mean after eliminating the initial bourgeoisie and taking over , it's still alive ''within the texture of the social organism''
i mean you can restrict ex bourgeois on physical undeniable evidence , as people who owned capital are bourgeois plain and simple

but after that how can you find those ''hidden bourgeoisie'' , it would be prosecute on ideas , such privilege can be easily abused , by different Ideological group against each other ,
this obsession with finding and hunting the defeated , tiny in size , and with no economic power bourgeoisie , is useless , and can be abused

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 22:41

yes, i can read, thanks; i don't see brosa luxemburg arguing that however. as he says, you can possibly connect the two in a very abstract sense but there is no connection otherwise. i don't think huntington is a bordigist tbh.

Of course not. However; they both suscribe to the same, inverted, view of; 'democracy.' Namely; that 'democracy' is best if certain segments of the population are excluded, (Again; being the polar opposite of the popular, literal definition.) the fact that they come to the same conclusion from opposite perspectives is irrelevent.

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:45

That sounds good, in theory, but, without further qualification; it’s so vague, and general as to be useless. Any number of police states have made such proclamations.

I have given countless qualifications as to what that would look like in this thread, but I will go more in-depth here I guess. I don't want to derail this thread to much though, so I will try to keep it about what we are talking about rather than about vanguard parties, soviets, etc.

I think 3 main organs will exist in the dotp. These are the soviets, the party, and the trade unions. The soviets, as Bordiga and many other left communists like myself advocate, will take a direct approach to administering the state machine. The party will be a centralizing force and the trade unions will help with organizing production, working with the state, along with it's other functions.

If I am sounding too vague, I am sorry and it is for two reasons.

1. We can't really know how something like this will function until such material conditions show themselves.
2. I have already derailed this thread, and I don't want to derail it anymore by discussing the importance/non-importance of the soviets, party, left communism, etc.

[FONT=Verdana]You’re talking out of both sides of your face. Under the common, literal conception of; ‘democracy’,as you phrase it; ‘the rule of the majority’, the results will reflect the demographics of the population. Therefore; being that the ‘bourgeoisie’ represent such a small fraction of the population; presuming that the working class, or some large percentage, thereof, are educated, organized, and pursuing their interests, as a class, it’s simply impossible for the elites, or, the former elites, perhaps, to impress an agenda that is divergent from the will of the general public.

Again, I never argued otherwise. I even stated this in my own posts.

This is the point that wsg1991 was making, to which you ‘justified’ (I use that term exceedingly loosely.) by saying that; ‘the’ ‘bourgeoisie’ can still invoke a violent counter-revolution.’, which has nothing to do with anything.
What? He said the dotp had no importance, to which I argued that it would necessitate itself under conditions of war which are sure to come.

In fact; if anything, denying certain individuals any participation in the political culture only seems to exacerbate the likelihood of such an eventuality. Of course; as you’ve stated, you believe that this eventuality is preordained, therefore; it makes no difference, which only makes this non-justification more perplexing.

Do you really believe that after the proletariat defeat the bourgeoisie that the now defeated bourgeoisie won't try to reclaim their dominance? If so, you are turning your back on countless examples in history.

ed miliband

28th June 2012, 22:48

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:49

Of course not. However; they both suscribe to the same, inverted, view of; 'democracy.' Namely; that 'democracy' is best if certain segments of the population are excluded, (Again; being the polar opposite of the popular, literal definition.) the fact that they come to the same conclusion from opposite perspectives is irrelevent.

Again, this is taking a VERY abstract and basic view of the two ideas to attempt to make a similarity between the two. That is flawed, and i don't feel like repeating myself.

Again, I just read my response and sorry if i sound like a dick, I don't mean to but just text it might seem like it.

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 22:50

Do you really believe that after the proletariat defeat the bourgeoisie that the now defeated bourgeoisie won't try to reclaim their dominance? If so, you are turning your back on countless examples in history.

no , it's happens that former people who are so obsessed with this Bourgeois hunt , do commit crimes against the rule of workers , became authoritarian became the new bourgeois themselves

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:54

but after that how can you find those ''hidden bourgeoisie'' , it would be prosecute on ideas , such privilege can be easily abused , by different Ideological group against each other ,
this obsession with finding and hunting the defeated , tiny in size , and with no economic power bourgeoisie , is useless , and can be abused

I never advocated hunting down members of the old ruling class. I advocated taking away their privilege, confiscating their property, etc. History has shown that they won't just allow this to happen, but organize as violent counter-revolutionaries. One only has to look at history.

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 22:57

no , it's happens that former people who are so obsessed with this Bourgeois hunt , do commit crimes against the rule of workers , became authoritarian became the new bourgeois themselves

The terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" represent a false dichotomy that I have brought up 1,000 times. If you want me to bring it up again, I can. Again I have derailed this thread to hell and I don't really want to do that anymore.

You are assuming suppression mean "killing" but that is flawed. I have already described this in another post.

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 23:04

I never advocated hunting down members of the old ruling class. I advocated taking away their privilege, confiscating their property, etc. History has shown that they won't just allow this to happen, but organize as violent counter-revolutionaries. One only has to look at history.
i agree on procedure . they would be convicted on Physical evidence such as owning capital
after dealing with this guys , i don't see the point of any further procedure
however conviction on Bourgeois or reactionary Ideas or something like that , can be easily abused .

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 23:09

i agree on procedure . they would be convicted on Physical evidence such as owning capital
after dealing with this guys , i don't see the point of any further procedure
however conviction on Bourgeois or reactionary Ideas or something like that , can be easily abused .

I would be against such a measure.

NGNM85

28th June 2012, 23:09

I have given countless qualifications as to what that would look like in this thread, but I will go more in-depth here I guess. I don't want to derail this thread to much though, so I will try to keep it about what we are talking about rather than about vanguard parties, soviets, etc.
I think 3 main organs will exist in the dotp. These are the soviets, the party, and the trade unions. The soviets, as Bordiga and many other left communists like myself advocate, will take a direct approach to administering the state machine. The party will be a centralizing force and the trade unions will help with organizing production, working with the state, along with it's other functions.
If I am sounding too vague, I am sorry and it is for two reasons.
1. We can't really know how something like this will function until such material conditions show themselves.
2. I have already derailed this thread, and I don't want to derail it anymore by discussing the importance/non-importance of the soviets, party, left communism, etc.

I agree that this is, really, tangential. (Incidentally; that is about all that I agree with.)

Again, I never argued otherwise. I even stated this in my own posts.
What? He said the dotp had no importance, to which I argued that it would necessitate itself under conditions of war which are sure to come.

I’m only referring to the relevant comments. Just like wsg1991 said; presuming the destruction of the institution of capitalism, being that the (former) ‘bourgoisie’ represent a numerically insignificant strata of the population; what is the justification for stripping them of participation in the political process? Your statements on ‘democracy’ are incoherent.

Do you really believe that after the proletariat defeat the bourgeoisie that the now defeated bourgeoisie won't try to reclaim their dominance? If so, you are turning your back on countless examples in history.

I don’t even like to use words like; ‘bourgeoisie’, or ‘proletariat.’

I make no such declarations. I’m far more (small ‘c’) conservative in my predictions. The scenario you describe is theoretically possible, but it can’t be said to be inevitable.

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 23:11

I would be against such a measure.

ok then we are cool

wsg1991

28th June 2012, 23:15

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I’m only referring to the relevant comments. Just like wsg1991 said; presuming the destruction of the institution of capitalism, being that the (former) ‘bourgoisie’ represent a numerically insignificant strata of the population; what is the justification for stripping them of participation in the political process? Your statements on ‘democracy’ are incoherent.

look i am against having them as candidate or being a part of any executive branch , but they can vote , express their ideas , like they are going to make any difference

Brosa Luxemburg

28th June 2012, 23:17

I agree that this is, really, tangential. (Incidentally; that is about all that I agree with.)

I’m only referring to the relevant comments. Just like wsg1991 said; presuming the destruction of the institution of capitalism, being that the (former) ‘bourgoisie’ represent a numerically insignificant strata of the population; what is the justification for stripping them of participation in the political process? Your statements on ‘democracy’ are incoherent.

I don’t even like to use words like; ‘bourgeoisie’, or ‘proletariat.’

I make no such declarations. I’m far more (small ‘c’) conservative in my predictions. The scenario you describe is theoretically possible, but it can’t be said to be inevitable.

I tried to break your post up, but the font thing is too weird so fuck it :cool:

As for the "stripping them of political decision making" this would be done naturally by the way the soviet system works.

My views on democracy are not incoherent.

I agree, I didn't mean to sound absolutist. I was just saying that, if history has anything to teach us, it is that violent counter-revolution will most likely rear it's ugly head.

If you would like to continue discussing, I wouldn't mind. It just seems like this would be a good stopping point to a thread which has been completely derailed at this point. I mean, again, it is completely derailed so I guess it really dosen't matter at this point.

Revolution starts with U

28th June 2012, 23:21

I use bourg and prole all the time. My only regret is that outside of this site, nobody has a clue as to wtf I'm talking about :lol:

Brosa Luxemburg

29th June 2012, 00:07

NGNM85

29th June 2012, 17:24

I use bourg and prole all the time. My only regret is that outside of this site, nobody has a clue as to wtf I'm talking about :lol:

That's one of the reasons you probably shouldn't use sych jargon. Regular, working class people tend to find it confusing, and extremely alienating. Anything worth saying can be said in plain english.

Incidentally; I've long suspected that this is one of the reasons why the trend persists; it justifies the existence of a secular priesthood, and immunizes them from scrutiny.

NGNM85

29th June 2012, 17:43

I will expand on the whole "my views on democracy are not incoherent" and explain what I mean more clearly.
I said that if we break society down into 2 antagonistic classes then, as communists, we seek the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie until such a time as classes, and consequently the state, can be abolished (communism). If we take democracy to mean "the rule of the majority" then all communists are democrats. If we take democracy to mean "the rule of all people" and consequently all classes (which people do take it to mean this) then we are opposed to democracy because we do not seek the rule of all people, we seek the rule of the proletariat.
Under the proletariat dictatorship, which again will exist until a time when classes, and consequently the state, can be abolished, should not allow the bourgeoisie to participate in decision making because states are organs of class rule. Yes, the bourgeoisie are so small that there votes would not matter, so this begs the question of why even allow them in the decision making process if they do not matter? Out of principle? That would be stupid. The bourgeoisie now allow us to vote, yet our votes do not matter. The same would be under the proletariat dictatorship, except that the roles are inverted. The proletariat dictatorship should not pretend to be a state "of the people" and shouldn't hide behind a false "rule of all people" to do so as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie does now. It should be efficient and honest. It is a state for the proletariat and only cares about the proletariat's vote because the state is naturally an organ of class rule. The main organ of proletariat rule, the soviets, by it's natural operation excludes the bourgeoisie from the decision-making process.
Nothing in my earlier posts contradicts what I have just said. These views I have stated are not incoherent. You may not agree with them, but they are coherent.

You’re just saying the same thing. It’s still merely an inverted version of Huntington’s thesis. Essentially; that if you really believe in ‘democracy’, you’ll abandon the foolish, idealistic notions about everybody having a say, and accept the ‘real’, or ‘true’, democracy wherein certain segments of the public need to be marginalized, or disenfranchised, etc. You’re praising ‘democracy’, in the common, literal sense, as an ideal, then saying that anyone who believes in that ideal should do the opposite, which is somehow also the apotheosis of the aforementioned ideal. I’m getting dizzy.

You concede that the ‘bourgeoisie’ are a numerically insignificant demographic, yet, you state that allowing that they should be denied participation in the political process because that would be; ‘stupid.’ This is the closest thing to a justification you’ve produced, so far, and it simply does not follow. The numerical insignificance of the bourgeoisie does not help your side of the argument. I don’t see any point to this, at all. For example; White Supremacists, periodically, run their own candidates in various state, and national elections, but they never win anything, because Neo-Nazis are (mercifully) a numerically insignificant minority. I see no reason why they should not be permitted to lose as many elections as they like.

Comrade Trollface

3rd July 2012, 16:18

I will expand on the whole "my views on democracy are not incoherent" and explain what I mean more clearly.

I said that if we break society down into 2 antagonistic classes then, as communists, we seek the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie until such a time as classes, and consequently the state, can be abolished (communism). If we take democracy to mean "the rule of the majority" then all communists are democrats. If we take democracy to mean "the rule of all people" and consequently all classes (which people do take it to mean this) then we are opposed to democracy because we do not seek the rule of all people, we seek the rule of the proletariat.

Under the proletariat dictatorship, which again will exist until a time when classes, and consequently the state, can be abolished, should not allow the bourgeoisie to participate in decision making because states are organs of class rule. Yes, the bourgeoisie are so small that there votes would not matter, so this begs the question of why even allow them in the decision making process if they do not matter? Out of principle? That would be stupid. The bourgeoisie now allow us to vote, yet our votes do not matter. The same would be under the proletariat dictatorship, except that the roles are inverted. The proletariat dictatorship should not pretend to be a state "of the people" and shouldn't hide behind a false "rule of all people" to do so as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie does now. It should be efficient and honest. It is a state for the proletariat and only cares about the proletariat's vote because the state is naturally an organ of class rule. The main organ of proletariat rule, the soviets, by it's natural operation excludes the bourgeoisie from the decision-making process.

Nothing in my earlier posts contradicts what I have just said. These views I have stated are not incoherent. You may not agree with them, but they are coherent.This is all moot though, isn't it? Because the bourgeoisie ceases to exist once capitalist property relations have been abolished. Failure to recognize this can only lead to a nasty rehashing of the idiotic hereditary persecution that was visited upon the descendants of both real and imagined 'class enemies' in the USSR.

If you want to prevent the old schmucks from taking power, then the only answer is to insure that no minority can take power at all by instituting and protecting horizontal direct democratic institutions at all levels of society. In other words, leave the grandchildren of small family farmers alone and concentrate on not busting up the soviets :rolleyes:

Liberty

25th July 2012, 23:38

Democrats are Socialists.

La GuaneÃ±a

25th July 2012, 23:54

Democrats are Socialists.

Um, no they are not. Democrats are capitalists. They do not have the abolition of private property as an aim.

Liberty

25th July 2012, 23:56

Um, no they are not. Democrats are capitalists. They do not have the abolition of private property as an aim.
Socialism = big government.
Democrats = big government.

Democrats = Socialists.

CryingWolf

26th July 2012, 00:22

Socialism = big government.
Democrats = big government.

Democrats = Socialists.

Chickens = two legs

Humans = two legs

Humans = chickens.

cynicles

26th July 2012, 00:24

Socialism = big government.
Democrats = big government.

Democrats = Socialists.

Fascism = Conservative
Republicans = Conservative

Republicans = Fascist!

l'EnfermÃ©

26th July 2012, 00:32

Communists = Love Puppies
Conservatives = Love Puppies

Communists = Conservatives

rylasasin

26th July 2012, 22:21

Socialism = big government.
Democrats = big government.

Democrats = Socialists.

Hmmm, some guy coming here and trying to tell US LEFTISTS what communism and socialism is and isn't...

Now where have I seen THIS before?!

... Oh, that's right. Only from EVERY SINGLE TWO-BIT RIGHTARD that's ever come and gone from this board. If you think you're the first person to come here and make this stupid argument, think again.

Honestly, who do you think you are that you can just roll in here and tell US, people who have extensively studied and discussed Marxism, socialism, communism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc, what the definition of socialism is?

That might work on a Town Hall pulpit, but not here.

... Oh, and don't give us this "common knowledge" ad populum crap argument, or try to site a dictionary either. That's also been done a million times, and will end the same way as the other twenty thousand plus times that's been tried.

...At least the Misestards TRY to formulate an original sounding argument every now and then.

homegrown terror

28th July 2012, 03:29

this concept kinda mirrors a facet of my OCD: i assign character values to numbers. multiples of three are "good" but multiples of two are "evil". however, even multiples of three are the worst, because they're "evil" twos disguised as threes. democrats are just as bad as republicans, but worse in the sense that they masquerade as "the good guys".

LuÃs Henrique

28th July 2012, 12:03

It is true that the democratic party is popular within certain working class circles, which is why I support their election and failure. Once the working class can br shown that the democratic party's policies remain to he oppressive, they will seek out alternatives.

And if we haven't started building an alternative, the working class will find no alternatives, except perhaps to the right of the Democrats.

Democrats have been winning elections since before the GOP even existed, so by now it should be already pretty clear that their policies are oppressive, with no further need to vote for them.

Luís Henrique

mew

29th July 2012, 15:04

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2012, 19:32

But that's an easy one. What if it's not to save the life, or even for her health, and the head and chest are both out of the birth canal but not the belly or anything else. It's even crying. All of a sudden she decides she doesn't want it.

Address that one.

Yes, this happens all the times. Women almost always wait for half of the newborn being out from the vaginal canal to finally make up their minds on whether they want a baby or not.

:rolleyes:

Too much mind experiments seem to be actually harmful to some minds...

Luís Henrique

helot

30th July 2012, 15:51

You’re just saying the same thing. It’s still merely an inverted version of Huntington’s thesis. Essentially; that if you really believe in ‘democracy’, you’ll abandon the foolish, idealistic notions about everybody having a say, and accept the ‘real’, or ‘true’, democracy wherein certain segments of the public need to be marginalized, or disenfranchised, etc. You’re praising ‘democracy’, in the common, literal sense, as an ideal, then saying that anyone who believes in that ideal should do the opposite, which is somehow also the apotheosis of the aforementioned ideal. I’m getting dizzy.

You concede that the ‘bourgeoisie’ are a numerically insignificant demographic, yet, you state that allowing that they should be denied participation in the political process because that would be; ‘stupid.’ This is the closest thing to a justification you’ve produced, so far, and it simply does not follow. The numerical insignificance of the bourgeoisie does not help your side of the argument. I don’t see any point to this, at all. For example; White Supremacists, periodically, run their own candidates in various state, and national elections, but they never win anything, because Neo-Nazis are (mercifully) a numerically insignificant minority. I see no reason why they should not be permitted to lose as many elections as they like.

I can't make any claims as to Brosa's reasoning but i fail to see any point in even allowing the bourgeoisie to be part of the decision-making process during the DoTP. The reason's simple, in order for the DoTP to even exist the bourgeoisie would have to be separated from the MoP they currently control. In short, during the DoTP it will be war and there will be a security culture to try and reduce the amount of bourgeois infiltration. You don't let the enemy into your camp in the middle of a war to pass on information about what decisions are being made.