Urgent Discussion needed to be made by US of American Reds

[Geiseric]

Comrades, there is a new force that is becoming the vanguard of all reactionary forces in the U.S. Namely, the Tea Party. For people who the tea party is a relatively unknown subject, it is basically a political wing as far right as the NRA, which grew as the KKK was made illegal. The membership is EXCLUSIVELY petit bourgeois and mid ranking military veterans and officers, who seek nothing other than the destruction of all unions and victories won by leftist or workers movements. Being surrounded by white petit bourgeois has given me a clear image of what this threat actually is. The Tea Party is the embryo for the future fascist movement in the U.S, the result of the failure of a workers party or a progressive alternative to the liberal democracy's failure to maintain capitalism. we seriously need a discussion on the Tea Party, the NRA, the modern KKK, and all ultra reactionary groups currently in the U.S. in order to fully fight these threats.

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm sure it also has a fair share of workers suffering from false consciousness.

[Welshy]

The tea party seems to be pretty dead as a movement now, so I don't think we really have to worry about them anymore. Of course reactionaries are not something we should ignore but the tea party is no longer their vehicle at the moment and I think we have more to worry about the smaller groups of fascists in terms of violence. So given this fact by attack the tea party at this moment we would be both putting the tea party back into the limelight and we would only appeal the hardcore obama supporters/anti-republicans. Two things I don't think we want to do.


The membership is EXCLUSIVELY petit bourgeois and mid ranking military veterans and officers, who seek nothing other than the destruction of all unions and victories won by leftist or workers movements.The part I bolded is unfortunately false. The tea party did have workers involved, though primarily white workers. I know this because during some of the wisconsin solidarity work some of the tea party counter protesters were workers and even union members. Also several people from my home town who went into traditionally working class jobs are incredible reactionaries and support the tea party. We shouldn't forget that the working class is capable are being tricked into fighting against their own interest and holding reaction views. The other stuff is true but is not being done by the tea party on the ground like the fascists would do but by the bourgeois democratic state.

[Book O'Dead]

Comrades, there is a new force that is becoming the vanguard of all reactionary forces in the U.S. Namely, the Tea Party. For people who the tea party is a relatively unknown subject, it is basically a political wing as far right as the NRA, which grew as the KKK was made illegal. The membership is EXCLUSIVELY petit bourgeois and mid ranking military veterans and officers, who seek nothing other than the destruction of all unions and victories won by leftist or workers movements. Being surrounded by white petit bourgeois has given me a clear image of what this threat actually is. The Tea Party is the embryo for the future fascist movement in the U.S, the result of the failure of a workers party or a progressive alternative to the liberal democracy's failure to maintain capitalism. we seriously need a discussion on the Tea Party, the NRA, the modern KKK, and all ultra reactionary groups currently in the U.S. in order to fully fight these threats.

Where is this "The Tea Party" headquartered? Camp Mousetrap?

[Robocommie]

The "Tea Party" you say. Tell us more.

[Geiseric]

They take their namesake from the "boston tea party" which is when a bunch of racist white "patriots" against taxes dumped a shit ton of british Tea into Boston Harbor. Which is ironic since that was defiling private property. Basically they are right wing "libertarians," who hate unions, immigrants, social security, and everything else keeping the 99% in relative well being. Ultra conservative, I cannot stress that enough. The kinds of people you'll find are small buisness owners, home realitors, reactionary ex military, workers who hate immigrants, NRA members, and in general "patriotic," white people. They may not be in the news at the moment, however they're always ready to rear their ugly heads and play capitalists advocate. They're the antipode, the reaction to the new generation of american youth, militant minorities, radical gays, and feminists who've opened their eyes to leftism since the cold war ended.

[Book O'Dead]

They take their namesake from the "boston tea party" which is when a bunch of racist white "patriots" against taxes dumped a shit ton of british Tea into Boston Harbor. Which is ironic since that was defiling private property. Basically they are right wing "libertarians," who hate unions, immigrants, social security, and everything else keeping the 99% in relative well being. Ultra conservative, I cannot stress that enough. The kinds of people you'll find are small buisness owners, home realitors, reactionary ex military, workers who hate immigrants, NRA members, and in general "patriotic," white people. They may not be in the news at the moment, however they're always ready to rear their ugly heads and play capitalists advocate. They're the antipode, the reaction to the new generation of american youth, militant minorities, radical gays, and feminists who've opened their eyes to leftism since the cold war ended.

Can we go picket their party headquarters? Where are they located, Niagara Falls or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yJBhzMWJCc

[Book O'Dead]

Is it this "party" you're talking about?

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2012/07/tea-party-maui-at-the-47th-makawao-parade/

[Comrade Samuel]

Comrades, there is a new force that is becoming the vanguard of all reactionary forces in the U.S. Namely, the Tea Party. For people who the tea party is a relatively unknown subject, it is basically a political wing as far right as the NRA, which grew as the KKK was made illegal. The membership is EXCLUSIVELY petit bourgeois and mid ranking military veterans and officers, who seek nothing other than the destruction of all unions and victories won by leftist or workers movements. Being surrounded by white petit bourgeois has given me a clear image of what this threat actually is. The Tea Party is the embryo for the future fascist movement in the U.S, the result of the failure of a workers party or a progressive alternative to the liberal democracy's failure to maintain capitalism. we seriously need a discussion on the Tea Party, the NRA, the modern KKK, and all ultra reactionary groups currently in the U.S. in order to fully fight these threats.

It's funny you should mention it because I've had this same suspicion for quite a while now myself.

I think this thread is a very good idea because if your like me you probably see the progress that the right is making in America in recent years very unsettling. I doubt that revleft has much of a problem in seeing the damage that the tea party (among other, less prevalent reactionay groups) have caused the working class in the last 4-5 years since they have gained a large influence on our government and with that most of our lives but what I'd like to ask is how do we as individuals stop the spread of these groups? Certainly campaigning for the democrats and whining about it on the internet is what most liberals choose to do about it but what do you think our obligation as revolutionary leftists is in this situation?

[passenger57]

Leon: wow you have predicted like a sort of Nostradamus in a clear cut way what might happen in the future to USA. I read some months ago, last year, an article in Truthdig by Chomsky, where he was predicting the rise of an ultra-right wing movement in America and the possibility of an ultra-right wing populist messiah Hitler rising up to the White House. You know we are not superman of the movies, we are not Spiderman. We don't have those unlimited powers. What I am trying to state is that I have been busing my fingers and body typing in the internet pro-socialism, pro-marxism messages to people. And trying to get people to become not only socialist. But more politically oriented. The main problem of americans is that most americans are not even into politics.

Most people in USA, hate politics. Or just don't see the importance of politics. I don't really understand how can people divorce the price of gasoline they buy at the gas stations, the price of their favorite foods, and their current net incomes from government affairs, politics and international politics. Most americans are so strange and weird, that I just don't know how to break the ice with people, with their introverted, avoidant, escapist gestures and attitudes that it's almost impossible to break the ice with most average joes and janes in America to try to tell them that socialism is the only solution for the USA. But beware that you might bet violent insults.

But anyways, having said all this, the leftist parties of USA are not to blame. The ones to blames are really the working unions, and working class themselves and working people that like i said above live an ULTRA-PRIVATE life thinking that THEY HAVE THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD UNDER THEIR CONTROL. And they don't need to frigging government, political party, memberships in any party, and joining any group into their lives. American workers have an ultra-narcissist world view. A Robinson Crusoe in an island world view, and that's one of the major creators and enablers of an ultra-right wing populist Adolf Hitler dictator as a solution in a country with a ZERO LEFTIST ORGANIZED FORCE.

But don't worry, there is a saying that says that God works in mysterious ways. Because I think that that maybe after the American Hitler rising from The Tea Party wins a presidential election, rises to The White House and privatizes every thing, like Peña Nieto will probably do in Mexico, maybe americans might finally wake up from their slumber, and from their Robinson Cruose "Self Service" "Do it your self" "I am special" mentality that americans have, and maybe they will cry and beg for a socialist movement, a political leftist party to help them get them out of poverty and misery


.


.



Comrades, there is a new force that is becoming the vanguard of all reactionary forces in the U.S. Namely, the Tea Party. For people who the tea party is a relatively unknown subject, it is basically a political wing as far right as the NRA, which grew as the KKK was made illegal. The membership is EXCLUSIVELY petit bourgeois and mid ranking military veterans and officers, who seek nothing other than the destruction of all unions and victories won by leftist or workers movements. Being surrounded by white petit bourgeois has given me a clear image of what this threat actually is. The Tea Party is the embryo for the future fascist movement in the U.S, the result of the failure of a workers party or a progressive alternative to the liberal democracy's failure to maintain capitalism. we seriously need a discussion on the Tea Party, the NRA, the modern KKK, and all ultra reactionary groups currently in the U.S. in order to fully fight these threats.

[Geiseric]

Well it would make sense to shed light on their reactionary nature if they grow to be a viable threat, however allying with the Democrats would be useless. if there are any misguided "patriotic" workers we need to turn them away from the cult of FOX and the Tea Party. however when the double dip depression comes around, their membership will skyrocket. We need to build a workers party basically to make sure reaction doesn't organize itself.

[Le Socialiste]

Well it would make sense to shed light on their reactionary nature if they grow to be a viable threat, however allying with the Democrats would be useless. if there are any misguided "patriotic" workers we need to turn them away from the cult of FOX and the Tea Party. however when the double dip depression comes around, their membership will skyrocket. We need to build a workers party basically to make sure reaction doesn't organize itself.

And what would yet another "workers' party" look like, much less contribute? While I agree the Tea Party movement reflects the swiftness and ease with which ruling-class interests manifest themselves through segments of the working-class and petite-bourgeoisie, these rightward impulses have been sidelined by 'progressive' struggles around the world. With the financial crisis impacting millions, workers and communities have begun pushing back, culminating in waves of resistance from those most affected by private capital's efforts to right itself. The Tea Party movement was an orchestrated event that harnessed and manipulated the effects of the economic crisis for the most reactionary result possible, whereas others like Occupy and the Indignados were products of community and worker-led initiatives targeting these same disparities - but in a relatively more 'progressive' fashion. I do not see the Tea Party making a dramatic reentry onto the political stage any time soon; what I do see is a different form of reaction paralleling the course of radicalization amongst participants in Occupy (who will in turn observe and learn from the struggles of others in different parts of the world).

As struggles against austerity continue to deepen, so too will the ways and means by which they are conducted. What's important is that we recognize the response from the general population: Occupy had, at the height of its popularity, more support than the Tea Party had at its peak. The latter peaked at the height of the Obamacare "controversy" - whether they become more visible in the coming months remains to be seen (though I doubt they will).

[cynicles]

Without an organized and militant left threatening to put an end to capitalism I can't see a fascist movement over the horizon in America quite that soon. These guys would definately be the embry though if there is one.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't understand the people on this website who are anti-gun ownership. How do you plan on overthrowing the state without guns?
Also, the tea party are not fascists. They don't have syncretic politics. They aren't in favor of a one party state.They don't advocate a "mixed economy" like traditional fascists do.
I don't think there's much potential for a fascist movement in America.

[cynicles]

Fascism! Now in 5 new amazing flavours! Get yours today!

But maybe the more operative word would be neofascism. I very much doubt any future fascism will tick off all the old fascist boxes even in Europe. Who knows, maybe the reactionary scum will pull something new and exciting out of their own excrement this time around.

[x-punk]

I hear the term 'tea party' thrown about quite a bit just now especially in relation to those associated with Ron Paul and the liberatarian movement. They have been promoting themselves by saying they want to reinstate the original US constitution and get govt out of there lives (except when its to define and defend their property rights). They seem to be drawing a lot of support from ultra-right wingers and the line between the liberatarians and these ultra-rights seems be getting blurred, not that it was very clearly defined in the first place.

They definitely seem to be gaining popularity just now especially with all the financial problems as they promise a reinstatement of the Glass–Steagall Act and a gold standard. Not that I think either of those two measures would make a huge amount of difference.

It certainly is worrying stuff.

[Geiseric]

Comrades, fascism doesn't rise in reaction to communism. Fascism grows when the exhausted petit bourgeois who've lost their small buisnesses or are in danger of doing so want to get rid of everything that's in the class's way, such as the EPA laws and labor regulations. The petit bourgeois in America has been on the downward slope for years, there are entire shopping centers in my area that used to be filled with small realitors and petit bourgeois in general, but Marxist economics always end up prevailing as those stores are closed en masse. As that happens accross the country, more and more, the tea party will grow. also despite what ISO thinks there isn't a workers party yet. All we have are sects of revolutionary intellectuals in the U.S. which is near to useless. the tea party movement might not be saying "mixed economy," or any other hitlerist mannerisms, but neither did Hitler or Mussolini. All they spoke about was "national pride," and the need for small buisnesses to grow! That is 100% mirroring tTP.

[citizen of industry]

In fact, it does. The bourgeoisie controls the finance industry, the government, etc. It has no need for fascism. Bourgeois democracy is the most suitable form of government for capitalism. Economic centralization crushes the middle-class, and forces it into the proletariat. When the proletariat rises, and threatens bourgeois democracy, the bourgeois and the remaining middle class rally around fascism as the only distateful alternative to maintaining private property. There is more polarization now due to the financial crisis. There wont be fascism until the working class actually threatens bourgeois rule, though there will be more fascists as polarization increases.

This is what happened in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc. If Occupy peters out and the economy stabilizes in the short term, the tea party will fade away as well. If the crisis worsens and there is another shock, we'll see.

[Welshy]

Comrades, fascism doesn't rise in reaction to communism. Fascism grows when the exhausted petit bourgeois who've lost their small buisnesses or are in danger of doing so want to get rid of everything that's in the class's way, such as the EPA laws and labor regulations.

Not really. This maybe a part of it but fascism is a direct reaction to either a failed workers revolution or a workers movement that is strong enough to take power but doesn't (This is pretty basic Trotsky on Fascism). Yes they are exhausted petty bourgeoisie, but they are exhausted from years of intense class struggle and fascism promises to end this struggle. THis is the reason why we fascism in Germany and Italy and not in the US during the Great Depression.



also despite what ISO thinks there isn't a workers party yet. All we have are sects of revolutionary intellectuals in the U.S. which is near to useless.

Yes, but the party cannot form with out increased class consciousness with in the working class, especially of the size you are talking about. While we can help it along, we can't force such consciousness on the working class nor should we try to build a mass party when they lack any significant class consciousness lest we want to risk creating another opportunistic social democratic party that will eventually betray the workers.



the tea party movement might not be saying "mixed economy," or any other hitlerist mannerisms, but neither did Hitler or Mussolini. All they spoke about was "national pride," and the need for small buisnesses to grow! That is 100% mirroring tTP.

Both Hitler and Mussolini were quite vocal about the fact they were try to create something that was neither capitalism nor communism. To reduce fascist positions down to just national pride and promote small business is an over simplification that isn't really correct. The fascists big point was trying to resolved class conflict with in the confines of an all encompassing state. This is something the tea party has yet to do, at all.

[campesino]

the goal of the right wing is would create a plutocracy, mixed in with cultural elements of fascism(racism, 'family values,' militarism, anti-worker). There will be no new hitler or brownshirts, just what will be the natural path of a capitalist state, Marx didn't see fascism, and neither do I.

[The Jay]

the goal of the right wing is would create a plutocracy, mixed in with cultural elements of fascism(racism, 'family values,' militarism, anti-worker). There will be no new hitler or brownshirts, just what will be the natural path of a capitalist state, Marx didn't see fascism, and neither do I.

The risk of fascism may not be especially great now but ignoring the possibility is dangerous too. Marx didn't predict everything so it doesn't matter if he didn't say that fascism would arise.

[Book O'Dead]

Comrades, fascism doesn't rise in reaction to communism. Fascism grows when the exhausted petit bourgeois who've lost their small buisnesses or are in danger of doing so want to get rid of everything that's in the class's way, such as the EPA laws and labor regulations. The petit bourgeois in America has been on the downward slope for years, there are entire shopping centers in my area that used to be filled with small realitors and petit bourgeois in general, but Marxist economics always end up prevailing as those stores are closed en masse. As that happens accross the country, more and more, the tea party will grow. also despite what ISO thinks there isn't a workers party yet. All we have are sects of revolutionary intellectuals in the U.S. which is near to useless. the tea party movement might not be saying "mixed economy," or any other hitlerist mannerisms, but neither did Hitler or Mussolini. All they spoke about was "national pride," and the need for small buisnesses to grow! That is 100% mirroring tTP.

You're just rearranging and repeating all the phrases from the OP. Are you some devilish little anarchobot?

Why won't you respond to my post with at least some condescending remark?

Why do i care? Is my ego hurt? where is my ego anyway? Oh, there it is, under Magritte's hat!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolleh_magritte.jpg

[eric922]

They take their namesake from the "boston tea party" which is when a bunch of racist white "patriots" against taxes dumped a shit ton of british Tea into Boston Harbor. Which is ironic since that was defiling private property. Basically they are right wing "libertarians," who hate unions, immigrants, social security, and everything else keeping the 99% in relative well being. Ultra conservative, I cannot stress that enough. The kinds of people you'll find are small buisness owners, home realitors, reactionary ex military, workers who hate immigrants, NRA members, and in general "patriotic," white people. They may not be in the news at the moment, however they're always ready to rear their ugly heads and play capitalists advocate. They're the antipode, the reaction to the new generation of american youth, militant minorities, radical gays, and feminists who've opened their eyes to leftism since the cold war ended.

I rather enjoy pointing out the irony of the taking the name "Tea Party" while being such stout defenders of private property.

[Manic Impressive]

Why is a discussion about the Tea party more of a pressing concern now than it was 2 years ago? I was under the assumption that they had lost a lot of their early momentum, especially as Santorum lost the Republican nomination.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmSACfPAdSE

Just don't do this.

[The Jay]

Why is a discussion about the Tea party more of a pressing concern now than it was 2 years ago? I was under the assumption that they had lost a lot of their early momentum, especially as Santorum lost the Republican nomination.

They did lose a lot of momentum.

[Book O'Dead]

Why is a discussion about the Tea party more of a pressing concern now than it was 2 years ago? I was under the assumption that they had lost a lot of their early momentum, especially as Santorum lost the Republican nomination.

The Republican party, and Romney in particular, has turned their back on this faction and it shows in their list of speakers for their upcoming convention: No Sarah Palin.

But anyway, the "Tea Party" is no real party to begin with, at least not in the sense Marxist understand and use the term.

The "Tea Party" is really a Tea faction since its ostensible leadership remains firmly entrenched in the Republican party.

[citizen of industry]

Marx didn't see fascism, and neither do I.

Marx did see fascism. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is an excellent analysis of fascism. All the elements are there. It is studied by scholars of fascism.

[DasFapital]

The tea party seems to be largely a continuation of the "Christian Patriot" movement from the 1990s, with a more socially liberal Ayn Rand wing attached to the fringes. Overall, it rehashes the same racist anti-immigration arguments that have been used since the nineteenth century along with a pervasive paranoia of what it calls "socialism" but the rest of the world would probably know as liberal capitalist democracy (it is important to point out that the terms "liberal" and "socialist" are basically now interchangeable in the US). An emphasis on limited government (except when it comes to abortion, gay marriage and immigration) and the idea of America as a Christian Nation basically put it in line to inherit the grand tradition of such visionaries as David Koresh and Randy Weaver. Thank god it kind of seems to be on the decline at the moment but I'm sure in a few years time the ideology will rebrand itself and emerge again.

[Martin Blank]

http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=198&Itemid=105

This was written at a time when the Tea Party Nativists were at their height.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Fascism isn't on the US agenda, at least not yet. The Tea Party movement is scary, but it isn't classical fascism. Their stated ostensible ideology is a radical anti-statism that equates "socialism" and "fascism".Fascism develops out of a reaction of the bourgeois against the worker's movement. The working class is almost totally prostate, so fascism isn't needed.Post WWI Germany and Italy had working class revolutionary movements which failed to take power. The result was fascism.

The Tea Party movement draws on a small radical reactionary layer which has been part of US society since the mid 19th century.The liberal hirtorian Douglas Hoftedter talked about this in "The Paranoid Style of American Politics.This element has generally been marginal but has been used at various times to mobilize people for reactionary agendas. "Kill a commie for Christ" during the Cold War, religious extremism and the militia movement in the 90s to mobilize people for continued military spending and to elect Republicans and deflect anger from the lower living standards of the working class after the recession of the early 90s,, and the Tea Party today.The Tea Party isn't ostensibly racist but has deep racist undertones.
Having said this, they are not fascist. The ruling class doesn't need or want fascism now. If the Occupy or some other movements begins to massively mobilize people, foreclosure blockades become widespread, or there is a rebirth of the union movement, then we'll have amass fascist movement.

There is a distinct possibility of a continued rise of fascism in Greece, especially if the left isn't able to organize effectively. In the recent election the neo-nazi Golden Dawn got more votes than the KKE (thanks KKE!)

The US left does need an urgent discussion, but this concerns global climate change, not the Tea Party

[Geiseric]

Guys what i'm worried about is the double dip recession that alot of economists are worried about, that will kill the petit bourgeois class. And guys there was a fascist threat in the U.S. led by Ford and Sinclair, who, and this is on official state records, planned to coup the roosevelt government with the aid of a reactionary army general, and establish a fascist state. Fascism is a threat in capitalist crisis, and the class struggle has been intensifying with the end of the last ~40 years of economic growth due to the new process of M-C-M-C-M. our growth since the end of WW2 is going to come crashing down in a depression that's worse than the 1920s, this is basic marxist economics, with the process of growth-crisis coming into effect. And i'm also worried that far right parties are attracting working memberships, which I directly attribute to the failure of the left to grow in the U.S. (for whatever reason).

[Geiseric]

And welshy, I just read Trotsky's book on this if you really want to argue. Fascism isn't a bourgeois ideology, it rises out of the classes oscillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie who as trotsky said "Are thrust into pauperism without the buffer of becoming proletarian," in the time of economic crisis. Mussolini also made that clear. The bourgeois at first denied fascism, then tried to use it in the interests of the survival of liberal democracy, and then finally learned to subject their loyalty and capital to fascism's growth, which was in their interests after all. The german center parties and conservatives at first were in conflict with fascism, because of its apparent populism, however that didn't matter as soon as Hitler's crazed ex soldier boys started killing communists in broad daylight. One question, Fascism grew in Spain as well, however was there a threat of revolution before Franco tried to overthrow the republic, or did his coup spark the quick growth of the Anarchists & the CP?

[JPSartre12]

Fascism isn't on the US agenda, at least not yet. The Tea Party movement is scary, but it isn't classical fascism

Agreed. I wouldn't say that the Tea Party is out-and-out fascism, but Leon's statement ....


The Tea Party is the embryo for the future fascist movement in the U.S, the result of the failure of a workers party or a progressive alternative to the liberal democracy's failure to maintain capitalism

... hits the nail on the head perfectly, I think. The Tea Party does have some profoundly nationalist tendencies, and a hefty majority of them subscribe to one form or another of socially conservative religious fundamentalism. I have self-described Tea Party family members, and their vehement jingoism makes me incredibly anxious. I'd agree with an earlier post that it's much more accurate to describe them as "neo-fascist" at most rather than "fascist", mainly because I see them having the potential for evolving into legitimate fascism if the political climate allows them to. However, in the immediate future, I'm not so sure that they will.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress, who unfortunately ran for the presidency) is on a witch hunt nowadays for "Muslim extremists" and the like who have "infiltrated" the U.S. government. It seems that the demographic that the ultra-right is going after these days is the Muslims, not the Jews.

[passenger57]

The problem in USA, and even in Mexico, and in many other countries is that the only left available to the masses is the centrist, social-democrat, reformist left. Which is a left not in favor of government of the workers. But, instead they advocate a regulated, protectionist economic system. With higher social spending by providing the masses with very low-cost health care services or even free. And free public education from first grade all the way to bachelors university full degrees. Which is good and a lot better than the neoliberal capitalist system of USA and Mexico. But that universal-welfare Norway, utilitarian Robin Hood tax economic system doesn't really destroy classes, doesn't cure poverty completely. And doesn't lead to a society where all people are part of a single middle class. Where the whole country would be a country of middle class people, one class without poor people and without rich people. Without misery but without Donald Trump, Ted Turners, Rockefeller Family and Rothschild Families with huge amount of money for their own families. A society without rich and without poor. Where most people would enjoy plenty of wealth and luxuries for all.

Commondreams, truthdig, the russia today news, thenation magazine and alternet which one of the main middle class bourgeoise-liberal, social-democrat alternative news websites, that have a section of debates, and discussion where people can join their websites and discuss and debate the articles and news that those pages publish, are really in favor of a sort of Norway welfare reformist capitalist system with a Robin Hood utilitarian taxing system. Those websites and many others like counterpunch, democracynow, thenation and salon do not advocate for workers-governments, for governments of the workers as a solution for the economic crisis in all countries of the world.

Most progressive centrist liberals like the members and supporters of Commondreams, Alternet, Democracy Now, Counterpunch, Salon, The Nation Magazine are middle class citizens. And most middle class people are not really very open toward supporting a dictatorship of the workers in the USA.

That's why Marx analysis of classes is real good, there is an article in marxists.org that talk about how the lower-middle class is anti-change. Well, what I am trying to state is that many of the people in USA who are progressive centrists liberals and Green Party people are part of the middle class. And that class I think are in favor of capitalism. It is very hard for a person of the middle class to advocate for a dictatorship of the workers and peasants, as a solution for their economic problems.

I used to be part of a Facebook Counterpunch group, and most of them are stuck-up, egocentrical attention-seeking people. One behaviour trait of the progressive liberals that is linked with the right-wingers is that progressive liberals tend to be egocentric, selfish, attention seekers just like any normal right-winger. Compared with real leftists, anarchists and ultra-leftists that are more cooperative, altruists and have more love toward other humans.

So having said all this, the Tea Party is a real threat to the left. But the progressive liberals who are really *centrists*, not *leftists* at all. Are another problem, because at the end of the day, prior to the elections, most of those progressive liberal news websites all support "The lesser evil" Democratic Party option.

So I think that it's the task of the real Marxism left of the USA to all unite, and even to hire leftist celebrities like Tom Morello and other famous leftist musicians and to work on propaganda and advertising real leftist options to the poor people of America. So that the poor won't fall for progressive liberal centrist options. Who will at the end of the day sway and force their supporters to endorse Obama or who ever is a candidate of The Democratic Party in all elections


.


.





Well it would make sense to shed light on their reactionary nature if they grow to be a viable threat, however allying with the Democrats would be useless. if there are any misguided "patriotic" workers we need to turn them away from the cult of FOX and the Tea Party. however when the double dip depression comes around, their membership will skyrocket. We need to build a workers party basically to make sure reaction doesn't organize itself.

[JPSartre12]

I just had to share this :lol:

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x124/doobius/twitter/fascism-palin.jpg

[Welshy]

And welshy, I just read Trotsky's book on this if you really want to argue. Fascism isn't a bourgeois ideology, it rises out of the classes oscillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie who as trotsky said "Are thrust into pauperism without the buffer of becoming proletarian," in the time of economic crisis. Mussolini also made that clear. The bourgeois at first denied fascism, then tried to use it in the interests of the survival of liberal democracy, and then finally learned to subject their loyalty and capital to fascism's growth, which was in their interests after all. The german center parties and conservatives at first were in conflict with fascism, because of its apparent populism, however that didn't matter as soon as Hitler's crazed ex soldier boys started killing communists in broad daylight. One question, Fascism grew in Spain as well, however was there a threat of revolution before Franco tried to overthrow the republic, or did his coup spark the quick growth of the Anarchists & the CP?

You just argued against a point I didn't make. I said that currently the ones attacking workers and their organizations is the bourgeois state. I never said the bourgeois state is fascist.

You argued that fascism will be on the rise just because the petty bourgeoisie is facing economic hard ship. I argued that is wrong because:


fascism is a direct reaction to either a failed workers revolution or a workers movement that is strong enough to take power but doesn't

You also argued that


the tea party movement might not be saying "mixed economy," or any other hitlerist mannerisms, but neither did Hitler or Mussolini. All they spoke about was "national pride," and the need for small buisnesses to grow! That is 100% mirroring tTP.

And I said:


Both Hitler and Mussolini were quite vocal about the fact they were try to create something that was neither capitalism nor communism. To reduce fascist positions down to just national pride and promote small business is an over simplification that isn't really correct. The fascists big point was trying to resolved class conflict with in the confines of an all encompassing state. This is something the tea party has yet to do, at all.


Please argue against the points I made, not points you wished I made.

[Geiseric]

Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power? Or, did the workers movement tighten the contradictions in capitalism in these countries, as their role is, and then the subsequent raises in minimum wages and other things that the workers won make it even harder for the petit bourgeois to exist as a class, economically? Because before WW1, the petit bourgeois in Germany was around half the population, including peasantry. After the war and through the weimar republic, these layers eventually fell victim to the super inflation and depression, losing their property and class. This happened in Italy, Spain, and Germany. the workers movement was the alternative to continuing capitalism, which fascism represented, thus it tried to destroy it, but fascism didn't rise in 1848 france nor the paris commune.

[passenger57]

Leon: I haven't read a lot about fascism. But I think, from my own personal opinion, I think that fascism rises a lot easier in societies that are very obsolete, I mean societies that still have a sort of medieval classist and very racist mentality. 2 countries today that are still a bit obsolete, where its people are very very elitist, classists and evey royalist, are Mexico and Chile. From my own humble opinions americans are not at all like the extreme feudalism and classism of Chile and Mexico. I realize that there is rascism in the whole world. There is even rascism in Haiti, but rascism alone is not a producer of fascism. I think that there needs to be feelings of ultra-nationalism, along with a merger of the state and corporations and other elements

.



Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power? Or, did the workers movement tighten the contradictions in capitalism in these countries, as their role is, and then the subsequent raises in minimum wages and other things that the workers won make it even harder for the petit bourgeois to exist as a class, economically? Because before WW1, the petit bourgeois in Germany was around half the population, including peasantry. After the war and through the weimar republic, these layers eventually fell victim to the super inflation and depression, losing their property and class. This happened in Italy, Spain, and Germany. the workers movement was the alternative to continuing capitalism, which fascism represented, thus it tried to destroy it, but fascism didn't rise in 1848 france nor the paris commune.

[Book O'Dead]

Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power?

You'd better hit the books, chappie.

In 1936 Spain had a revolution. Today it's called "The Spanish Civil War" or, if wanna show off how much more you know about it, you refer to it as La Republica, "The Republic" in English.

It is said that the German Luftwaffe did its training in Spain in preparation for the last great war.

You know what that's called? Guernica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_%28painting%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica

[citizen of industry]

Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power? Or, did the workers movement tighten the contradictions in capitalism in these countries, as their role is, and then the subsequent raises in minimum wages and other things that the workers won make it even harder for the petit bourgeois to exist as a class, economically? Because before WW1, the petit bourgeois in Germany was around half the population, including peasantry. After the war and through the weimar republic, these layers eventually fell victim to the super inflation and depression, losing their property and class. This happened in Italy, Spain, and Germany. the workers movement was the alternative to continuing capitalism, which fascism represented, thus it tried to destroy it, but fascism didn't rise in 1848 france nor the paris commune.

Well, let's look at 1848 and you can draw your own conclusions. Here's what Marx had to say about 1848:

When it came to the actual conflict, however, when the people mounted the barricades, the National Guard maintained a passive attitude, the army offered no serious resistance and the monarchy ran away, the republic appeared to be a matter of course.


While the Paris proletariat still reveled in the vision of the wide prospects that had opened before it and indulged in seriously meant discussions of social problems, the old powers of society had grouped themselves, assembled, reflected, and found unexpected support in the mass of the nation, the peasants and petty bourgeois, who all at once stormed onto the political stage after the barriers of the July Monarchy had fallen.


the Paris proletariat replied with the June insurrection, the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself. More than three thousand insurgents were butchered after the victory, and fifteen thousand were deported without trial.


During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism. They had “saved” society from “the enemies of society.” They had given out the watchwords of the old society, “property, family, religion, order,” to their army as passwords and had proclaimed to the counterrevolutionary crusaders: “In this sign thou shalt conquer!”


Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order.


Manifestly, the bourgeoisie had now no choice but to elect Bonaparte. [Despotism or anarchy. Naturally, it voted for despotism.]

The Paris commune rose after Bonaparte's army was crushed in adventures abroad, by the Prussians, and Bonaparte was exiled. Theirs used the prisoners released by Bismark to crush the commune.

As for Spain, the bulk of the bourgeoisie supported Franco. The workers rose up and created factory commities and agricultural collectives. Only a handful of the bourgeosie remained in the Republican government, and they actively tried to disarm and surpress the proletariat.

[bcbm]

So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power?

yes

[Geiseric]

Right, franco's goal was to crush the workers movement, i'm not disagreeing with fascism's relation towards communists, however did Franco's coup happen after the spanish workers movement failed to bring about revolution? No, the spanish revolutionary movement wasn't as advanced as the german or italian one, from what I gather Franco rose amidst the depression which ruined Spain's economy and forced the maximalization of profit (which to happen requires destruction of unions), not in reaction to revolution, as the White Czarist army formed. the same principle applies in my opinion to Nazism and Italian Fascism. Fascism starts out of the mad dog petit bourgeois, who find their interests in line with the big bourgeois.

[bcbm]

i think dauve pretty accurately summarizes it in when insurrections die (http://libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die), just skip down to the bits about barcelona

[Welshy]

There were uprisings in spain by workers before Franco launched his attack. One I can think of off the top of my head was the uprising in Asturias in 1934.

[Geiseric]

Right, so I agree with you that the failure of the workers movement to carry out revolution is a huge factor in fascism, but the declassed petit bourgeoisie having a central role in its historical growth is what I was arguing is the most major factor in fascism, as much as the oppressed proletariat is to marxism and all truly marxist organizations. It goes hand in hand basically, and those conditions in my opinion will exist in the next few years in the U.S. and worldwide, as we see in greece, if the workers movement can't get on its feet. sorry about the confusion, I was trying to reply to a few people at once and things get muddled.

[Welshy]

Right, so I agree with you that the failure of the workers movement to carry out revolution is a huge factor in fascism, but the declassed petit bourgeoisie having a central role in its historical growth is what I was arguing is the most major factor in fascism, as much as the oppressed proletariat is to marxism and all truly marxist organizations. It goes hand in hand basically, and those conditions in my opinion will exist in the next few years in the U.S. and worldwide, as we see in greece, if the workers movement can't get on its feet. sorry about the confusion, I was trying to reply to a few people at once and things get muddled.

I don't think we were arguing against that, it was that you ignored the bolded part in your earlier statements. Also while your other part is true, the failure of the workers movement to carry out the revolution is the spark for fascism, while the other part is the gasoline that is being poured on the wood. Because of this, unless we have a failed revolutionary workers movement in the US, fascism won't be in the US anytime soon. The bourgeois state will probably get more authoritarian and increase attacks on the working class in the mean time, but as we all no authoritarian bourgeois state ≠ fascism.

[citizen of industry]

Right, so I agree with you that the failure of the workers movement to carry out revolution is a huge factor in fascism, but the declassed petit bourgeoisie having a central role in its historical growth is what I was arguing is the most major factor in fascism, as much as the oppressed proletariat is to marxism and all truly marxist organizations. It goes hand in hand basically, and those conditions in my opinion will exist in the next few years in the U.S. and worldwide, as we see in greece, if the workers movement can't get on its feet. sorry about the confusion, I was trying to reply to a few people at once and things get muddled.

But by itself the petty bourgeois cannot implement fascism. It needs the support of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie only offers it this support when private property is threatened and it has no choice, e.g, failure of liberal democracy and a rising proletariat. Right now the bourgeoisie does not need fascism.

[passenger57]

I forgot to tell you that you might want to try the website of Ted Grant tedgrant.org there is an article there called "Why Hitler came to power", here is one of the first parts of this article:

Ted Grant

Why Hitler Came To Power

The imminent defeat of Hitler raises many questions as to the past and future of Germany. According to the reports at the Quebec Conference(1), What to do with Germany once she has been defeated has loomed large as the problem which is worrying the spokesmen of Anglo-American imperialism. They consider this to be as grave and thorny a problem as the destruction of German imperialist power itself. Their fears as to the possibility of maintaining control of Germany by means of Allied armies of occupation has led the imperialists to launch a virulent hate campaign. Now at the head of the gang, spewing forth the foul doctrines of racialism and nationalism, of indiscriminate hatred of the Germans as a nation, thus emulating the worst features of the racial doctrine of the nazis, stands the so-called Communist Party leadership. In the rear, but more cautiously, for fear of their own membership, the Labour leaders, faithfully echo the Vansittart(2) teaching of their imperialist master.

But the fate of Germany today, as it has been for many decades, remains a key question for the fate of Europe. The reason for the insistence of the ruling class and of Stalin on the formula of unconditional surrender, lies in their fear of the socialist revolution which is rapidly maturing within Germany. Once the heavy band of the Gestapo and the SS has been removed there will be no organised force capable of maintaining the repression of the German masses. During the rule of Hitler, monstrous crimes and repressions on the part of the nazis have engendered a hatred which has few parallels in history. An enormous explosion is being prepared which threatens not only to blow the Nazi Party to smithereens but threatens the whole of the capitalist system itself. Every worker in Germany knows that it is the combines, monopolies, trusts and big capitalists who organised Hitler and placed him in control. As Rauschning(3), the ex-nationalist, ex-nazi Gauleiter of Danzig has pointed out, the expropriation of the Jews leads inevitably to the posing of the problem of expropriation of all the capitalists. It is not for nothing that Hitler has attempted to give his demagogy a 'socialist' coloration. This reflects the aspirations not alone of the German workers but the overwhelming majority of the German population as a whole. In the past few decades all the forms of capitalist exploitation and political rule have been tried and found wanting. Inevitably the socialist revolution will be automatically posed with the fall of Hitler.

But this is precisely what the ruling class of Britain and America and the traitors in the Kremlin fear more than anything else. The spectre of a Geman revolution - of a new and this time completed 1918, is their main preoccupation now that German militarism is in its death throes.

The instinct of the working class in the Allied countries is, while maintaining implacable hatred for fascism, to distinguish between the fascist thugs and the ordinary German worker. Profiting from their experience after the last world war when all the armies of occupation fraternised with the German masses (who easily convinced them that they were no different from themselves) the ruling class are attempting to place barriers in the way of its reoccurrence. The army staffs of both Britain and America have backed up the ideological campaign of chauvinist incitement by strict orders threatening punishment to any soldiers fraternising with German civilians.

The attitude of the British and American workers to the German workers can decide the fate of the coming German revolution and in so doing, will also decide whether there is to be a new version of fascism and imperialist World War Three. Under these conditions the necessity to enlighten the British masses as to the history and meaning of German events, at least since the last world war, becomes doubly important. It becomes necessary to restate the most elementary propositions of Marxism. Today, those traitors who point the finger of scorn at the German workers pretend that it is the fault of the German workers that Hitler came to power. They attempt to evade their own historic responsibility for this catastrophe. In commenting on the murder of Thaelmann(4) the Daily Worker cynically says that he fought for the united front in Germany with all other working class organisations in order to destroy fascism. That is why it is all the more necessary to explain to the British and other workers exactly what did take place. The new generation, in particular, must understand the part Stalinism played in German events prior to Hitler's seizure of power, if they wish to understand its present role.

Thaelmann has been murdered by the nazis together with tens of thousands of other victims of the fascist barbarians. But it is necessary to speak the truth if there are to be no more victims of the system which produced Hitler. Now the Stalinists wish to use Thaelmann's martyrdom as a cover for their crimes against the German people. All the more necessary then, to show the role that Stalinism played in the rise of Hitler.

The truth of the matter is that the Stalinists devoted the major part of their energy to ridiculing the danger of the nazis and concentrated their whole attention on fighting the social democrats as the 'main enemy'. They fought vicously against Trotsky's suggestion that the united front was the only means of smashing Hitler and preparing the way for the victory of the working class. From the lips of Thaelmann himself we get the following:

"Trotsky wants in all seriousness a common action of the Communists with the murderer of Liebknecht and Rosa (Luxemburg), and more, with Mr Zoergiebei(5) and those police chiefs whom the Papen regime leaves in office to oppress the workers. Trotsky has attempted several times in his writings to turn aside the working class by demanding negotiations between the chiefs of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party. (Thaelmann's closing speech at the 12th Plenum, September 1932, Executive Committee of the Communist International." (Communist International No 17-18, page 1329)

The Stalinists went even further, openly inciting the communist workers to beat up socialist workers, break up their meetings, etc, even carrying the fight to the school children in the very playgrounds! Thaelmann even put forward openly the slogan "Chase the social fascists from their jobs in the plants and the trade unions." Following on this line of the leader, the Young Communist organ The Young Guard propounded the slogan: "Chase the social fascists from the plants, the employment exchanges, and the apprentice schools."

But the line has to be carried through to the end. In the organ of the Young Pioneers which catered for the communist children, the Drum, the 'unifying' slogan is put forward:

"Strike the little Zoergiebels in the schools and the playgrounds."







.



Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power? Or, did the workers movement tighten the contradictions in capitalism in these countries, as their role is, and then the subsequent raises in minimum wages and other things that the workers won make it even harder for the petit bourgeois to exist as a class, economically? Because before WW1, the petit bourgeois in Germany was around half the population, including peasantry. After the war and through the weimar republic, these layers eventually fell victim to the super inflation and depression, losing their property and class. This happened in Italy, Spain, and Germany. the workers movement was the alternative to continuing capitalism, which fascism represented, thus it tried to destroy it, but fascism didn't rise in 1848 france nor the paris commune.

[Book O'Dead]

I want to start a flame war. Comrade Leon Brotsky, can you help me out here?

I start by calling you a FASCIST in disguise.

Then you answer_____________!

Its your move.

[Mr. Natural]

I have previously posted that I live in "Tea Party Town" and I'll add that this is becoming Tea Party Nation. Be afraid. Capitalism is a systemic process that is reaching the end of its process, and the Tea Party and an increasingly reactionary "libertarianism" are proto-fascist expressions of this growing degeneration.

And there is no left in the US to oppose these extreme right movements. Be very, very afraid. Or learn to organize anarchist/communist processes into a human future.

The Tea Party began as a largely populist expression of the extreme socio-economic-political ignorance and conservatism of the American people. There are similar extreme right formations arising in Europe, but in the US, hyper-emotional, reactionary political ignorance has become an art form. Tea Partiers may not understand their world, but they can feel it collapsing around them. So they retreat into their race and fundamentalist religion and attack those who are different. Teap Partiers dress up as Ben Franklin to crap on the Constitution.

The Tea Party soon became coopted and financed by the reactionary super-rich such as the Koch brothers. It is also now the driving force in the Republican Party.

The seven regional county sheriffs held a townhall meeting in my Tea Party Town last weekend in which they advanced several reactionary causes. Over 250 people attended, which is a huge turnout here. This local Tea Party regularly holds such community meetings, while "progressives" do nothing and there is no left.

This meeting advocated retention of the four dams on the Klamath that kill the river, the salmon, the tribes, and any chance of a healthy local economy. These dams are owned by the corporation controlled by the world's second-wealthiest man, Warren Buffet, and so here we have a clear example of the "populist, grassroots" Tea Party serving a filthy rich master.

The Tea Party is not a fascist formation. Yet. But it is heading in that direction as are the socio-economic conditions in the US and elsewhere. It seems to me that the Tea Party is emerging from a classic fascist environment.

So where is the left? The left, too, has become conservative as hell and has retreated into century-old classics that failed in their day. IMO, all leftists need to consciously cultivate an openness to new, revolutionary approaches and theory. Open but critical radical minds are needed; the left must become revolutionary again. Marx and Engels would approve.

My red-green best.

[passenger57]

Leon: By the way there are other threats to socialism, other than the Tea Party. That i wrote in my last comments. One of these threats is the progressive liberals, who steal votes out of real marxist leftist parties of USA. And the existance of the large middle classes (lower middle class, middle middle classes and upper middle classes).

I think that while we still have a super-big middle class, it will be real hard to convince people in America that socialism is the only solution for the economic and social crisis of the country and of other nations


.



Sorry welshy, I was responding to somebody else and there was a miscommunication. So if fascism as you believe rises in the midst of a "failed revolution," why did fascism rise in spain? Was there a spanish revolutionary movement before franco gained power? Or, did the workers movement tighten the contradictions in capitalism in these countries, as their role is, and then the subsequent raises in minimum wages and other things that the workers won make it even harder for the petit bourgeois to exist as a class, economically? Because before WW1, the petit bourgeois in Germany was around half the population, including peasantry. After the war and through the weimar republic, these layers eventually fell victim to the super inflation and depression, losing their property and class. This happened in Italy, Spain, and Germany. the workers movement was the alternative to continuing capitalism, which fascism represented, thus it tried to destroy it, but fascism didn't rise in 1848 france nor the paris commune.

[Book O'Dead]

Leon:[...]

I think that while we still have a super-big middle class, it will be real hard to convince people in America that socialism is the only solution for the economic and social crisis of the country and of other nations
.


We don't have a "super-big middle class" in America. No such animal exists here.

We have a super-duper, motherfucking huge working class and ta eensy-weensy little capitalist class.

You know, the 99% versus the 1%? That's a sociological reality, my friend.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You know, the 99% versus the 1%? That's a sociological reality, my friend.
I'd say the working class is round 80-85% rather than 99%, with a middle class of around 14-19%.

[passenger57]

That's right, the real ratio of the exploiter-oppressor class and the oppressed classes should be: 30% oppressor (5% oligarchic rich class and 25% high-wage workers and middle class) and about 70% low-wage working class, oppressed class. And from an electoral political tastes point of view. What we have in America is really a dictatorship of the mind-controlled 80% majority against the 20% awaken, anti-status quo minority. I think about 80% of US adult citizens still trust Democrats and Republicans, and 20% hate Democrats and Republicans and would like to see a third alternative party in the government. However I don't know if that ratio is right. It would be 70% of americans who are mind-controlled by TV and that's why they trust the capitalist imperialist system we have in USA. And about 30% who would like to see an anti-war, direct democracy.

So if you think about it real well, using statistics, 80% of US adult voters are oppressors and 20% or even less who are anti-war activists, leftists, occupy protest supporters and other grass roots activists of the country are psychologically and politically oppressed by a dictatorship of the anti-marxism, anti-change, anti-third party, TV-slave majority. And we all thought that with the internet americans by now were gonna be real wide awake and vote for a third party like The Green Party. But for some reason I can't explain people in America cant get out of the duopoly paradigm of Republican Party vs. Democratic Party.


.



I'd say the working class is round 80-85% rather than 99%, with a middle class of around 14-19%.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This whole thread about the "Tea Party" makes me wonder when I stepped into the time machine and ended up back in 2009...

[Ocean Seal]

The Tea Party is decidedly reactionary and has the same class elements as most embryonic fascist parties, but there needs to be a crisis of capital for fascism to emerge so for now their cries meet deaf ears.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The thing about the Tea Party is that it got entirely co-opted by the GOP. All the energy got transfered into electing a group of GOP candidates during the 2010 midterms. The Tea Party as it once was is basically dead, I don't see what the point of talking about it is anymore.