Obama's victory

[MarxSchmarx]

So, let's have a serious discussion about this.

The fact of the matter is is that the forces of reaction and plutocracy, despite their considerale efforts, have been dealt a symbolic defeat in America.

Perhaps more tellingly, the exceedingly white-oriented opposition failed to muster sufficient votes to gain their biggest symbolic victory that was a prerequisite for their "last stand" before the older white voters start to die off.

What I'm curious to hear about is how the left, or at least people here, think we need to go from this, and what the appropriate lessons to learn are and how to apply those. To expose my biases, there are some real questions about class politics raised in this American election, and I don't think the left is well-served by glossing over it as a charade; I think the forces of reaction have been dealt a serious defeat today.

[Ostrinski]

Can you elaborate on your position? It's a controversial one on revleft.

[Grenzer]

I don't see how the forces of reaction have been dealt a defeat. Obama and the democrats represent the same bourgeois forces that the Republicans do. The only way in which they differ is in how they represent two different strategic approaches for the maintenance of bourgeois rule.

I don't even see how Obama's policies will be qualitatively different from what Romney's would be at all. We'll still see the same program of brutal austerity and imperialism. Even if Obama did represent something "progressive" such as advocacy of a nationalized health care system, which he does not, he still should be vigorously opposed as such an action would represent a tactical move on the part of the bourgeoisie for the maintenance of their dictatorship.

It is in my view that the "right-left" dichotomy doesn't have much value. Either one is for revolution and pursuing the proletariat's class interests, or they are not. The Democrats and Obama clearly and unambiguously represent the interests of the capitalist class. One cannot consider the victory of the democrats to represent anything progressive or a move towards proletarian political rule; this would be reformism.

[Zostrianos]

Last time I checked, the Democrats aren't preaching on about the "Christian nation", or how women's bodies can defend against 'legitimate' rape, or how gay marriage violates the rights of Christians (etc.....).
And most racists (except perhaps the very few Old\Southern democrats) vote Republican for a reason. Economically the 2 parties are the same, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that the Democrats are the more progressive on social issues.

[MarxSchmarx]

Can you elaborate on your position? It's a controversial one on revleft.

Comrade:

My position is that Obama is a capitalist scumbeing that serves to pull wool over the working class. In fairness, I do not see this as a controversial position here.

The only issue therefore seems to me how devoted the capitalist class is to one candidate or the other. It the capitalist class is quite explicit in its preferences for tulips, then mandating that all gardens have only roses seems to serve some useful social purpose viz. defeating the capitalist's objectives. This seems like a valid question still. Or do you see it differently?
MS.

[Grenzer]

Last time I checked, the Democrats aren't preaching on about the "Christian nation", or how women's bodies can defend against 'legitimate' rape, or how gay marriage violates the rights of Christians (etc.....).
And most racists (except perhaps the very few Old\Southern democrats) vote Republican for a reason. Economically the 2 parties are the same, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that the Democrats are the more progressive on social issues.

Last I checked, the Democrats preached capitalism, just as the Republicans do. How does a victory for the Democrats translate into a political advantage for the proletariat? If it doesn't, then there is no reason to support them.

Social-issues are red herrings that are used to goad reformists and left-liberals into giving them support. These things mean nothing to the capitalist class. Our main goal should be the achievement of the political dictatorship of the proletariat. The election of the Democrats does nothing to further this; to say otherwise is raw reformism.

The capitalists' relation to the means of production is the source of their strength. It's the only thing that matters. They must be severed from them at any cost.

[Ostrinski]

How do we measure how devoted the capitalist class is to one particular candidate? It would seem that the capitalist class is a heterogeneous bunch and that they were not all behind Romney.

[Let's Get Free]

I'd say the presidential race in the U.S., which is impassioned almost to the point of hysteria, hardly represents any healthy democratic impulses. Americans are encouraged to vote, but not participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially, the election is yet another way of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people focused on the candidates personality traits and to think "that's politics," but it's not.

The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s, the outburst in the participation in popular democracy frightened sectors of privilege and power, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign, taking many forms until today. Obama and Romney can run because they're backed by similar concentrations of private power. Both of them know the election is supposed to stay away from the issues. They're products of the PR industry. Their task is to get people to focus onthe candidates "qualities" not policies. "Is he a leader? Is he a nice guy?" Voters end up endorsing an image, not a platform.

[sixdollarchampagne]

The fact of the matter is is that the forces of reaction and plutocracy, despite their considerale efforts, have been dealt a symbolic defeat in America.

It amazes me that someone who believes that the pro-war, imperialist Democrats do not represent "reaction and plutocracy" gets to be a global moderator on revleft, presumably with the authority to order the rest of us around. And the guy gets to call himself "Marx"! Phreaking incredible! What a travesty!

[Lucretia]

I think the the obvious point here that needs to be mentioned is that a politician can subjectively proclaim to be luke-warm and far less enthusiastic in his support of capitalism, but at the same time objectively play a far more crucial role in sustaining it than the True Believers. "Symbolic victories" about what people say and think need to be understood in this context.

[Robocommie]

It looks like a few Communists here have been listening a little too non-critically to mainstream news broadcasts and have started to believe both Democrat and Republican propaganda - Obama is no less a true believer in capitalism than Romney - he is not one iota less a capitalist than he is. Obama just champions a different school of capitalist economics. Nevertheless he DOES represent the bourgeoisie.

Were you guys asleep while Obama was playing softball with the banks, handing out free money and refusing to prosecute anyone for fraud?

Did you not notice that huge surge in troops he deployed to Afghanistan, all these drone strikes on civilians the DoD has been engaging in under his watch, and his signing into law a bill which allows him to suspend practically any American's civil rights in order to prosecute terrorists?

Did you miss how many immigrants Obama's administration has been deporting?

I'm not sure if I give a damn much about symbolic victories. I'm not sure if they factor into dialectical materialism very well.

[Robocommie]

And most racists (except perhaps the very few Old\Southern democrats) vote Republican for a reason.

Honestly, I challenge this. There's a hell of a lot of liberal racists, they just tend to be really polite and middle class about it.

Seriously, a Mexican-American comrade of mine was recently told by an Obama-supporting liberal that he should be deported because he wasn't going to vote. You see shit like that all the time.

I mean yes, left-liberals are far more likely to be conscious of racial issues but all the same you'll get a lot of stupid privileged white liberals who have some really messed up attitudes - and all with the best of intentions.

[Marxaveli]

Capitalism wins either way. Yea, Obama maybe the lesser of two evils, but voting for any evil is pointless, and the last 200+ years should be evidence of this. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

[brigadista]

just asking here but wont congress remain majority republican?

[ed miliband]

It looks like a few Communists here have been listening a little too non-critically to mainstream news broadcasts and have started to believe both Democrat and Republican propaganda - Obama is no less a true believer in capitalism than Romney - he is not one iota less a capitalist than he is. Obama just champions a different school of capitalist economics. Nevertheless he DOES represent the bourgeoisie.

Were you guys asleep while Obama was playing softball with the banks, handing out free money and refusing to prosecute anyone for fraud?

Did you not notice that huge surge in troops he deployed to Afghanistan, all these drone strikes on civilians the DoD has been engaging in under his watch, and his signing into law a bill which allows him to suspend practically any American's civil rights in order to prosecute terrorists?

Did you miss how many immigrants Obama's administration has been deporting?

I'm not sure if I give a damn much about symbolic victories. I'm not sure if they factor into dialectical materialism very well.


he doesn't even do that; they're both neoliberals, romney is just more ideological with it.

[ZvP]

To say that Obama and Romney represent the EXACT same interests is a bit misleading. Why would the likes of the Koch brothers and Goldmann Sachs throw so much money at Romney's campaign if this were the case? It is a symbolic "victory" in this sense, but I don't think it means anything. The old white baby boomers will be replaced by equally reactionary libertarian youth and the radical left is as irrelevant as ever. The bottom line is that people are still scared of socialism because they think it means the government takes their money and gives it to people who don't want to work.

[robbo203]

This is an object lesson in the utter stupidity and, indeed futility, of the "lesser of two evils" strategy to which large swathes of the Left have been prone and for which reason it now finds itself, to all intents and purposes, emasculated and utterly marginalised. Hanging on to the coat tails of capitalist politicians has done it absolutely no favours and to continue doing so will only ensure its downward descent towards political oblivion

The outcome can only be what I call the "politics of the treadmill". What the opportunistic poseurs and purveyors of so called realpolitik and pragmatism among many on the left (and indeed on this forum) - those who sneer at a principled communist position and dismiss it as "dogmatism" - seemingly overlook in their infatuation with the machinations of reformist politics is that a vote for Obama is, in effect, a vote for Romney's successor later on just as a vote for Romney, if he had won, would be a vote for Obama's successor in due course. This is inevitable. It is no coincidence that capitalist politics follows a see-saw pattern. Tweedledum must, sooner or latter, replace Tweedledee only to be replaced, in turn, by Tweedledumm again or some other alternative since neither Tweedledum , Tweedledee or any other alternative team set up to manage and administer capitalism can ever succeed in what they hope to do . The inevitable failure of one will inevitably prepare the ground for the return of the other which in turn will fail, inevitably. That is why, as long as you buy into the "lesser of two evils" argument , there can be no hope whatosever of transcending the kind of society we live in today

It is not governments that control capitalism, it is capitalism that controls government and shapes government policy to fit in with its own systemic needs. You cannot operate capitalism except in the interest of capital. To think otherwise is to fall into a trap and snare which, like quiksand, will drag you down into a pit of political disenchantment. It will lower your political sights and strip you of any vision you once had of a better world. It will transform you eventually into a modeol citiizen of capitalist society


If there is a leson in all this for socialists it is that we need now to firmly draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough". A plague on both their houses! Either we socialists offer a genuine revolutionary alternative to capitalism in all its varieities or we renounce our socialism and fall into the long line of reformists backing Obama and his capitalist agenda, knowing full well that in the end we are only thereby ensuring the return of the Republican party in due course. Nothing will have changed

[ed miliband]

To say that Obama and Romney represent the EXACT same interests is a bit misleading. Why would the likes of the Koch brothers and Goldmann Sachs throw so much money at Romney's campaign if this were the case? It is a symbolic "victory" in this sense, but I don't think it means anything. The old white baby boomers will be replaced by equally reactionary libertarian youth and the radical left is as irrelevant as ever. The bottom line is that people are still scared of socialism because they think it means the government takes their money and gives it to people who don't want to work.

how the fuck are you a "left communist"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would say not that the forces of reaction and plutocracy have been dealt a defeat, but that in voting for Obama/against Romney, many Americans do believe that they have dealt a defeat to the forces of reaction and plutocracy, which is an important point.

It's important in our analysis because it's important not to imprint our own understanding of contemporary Democratic/Obama politics (As a bourgeois charade removed from Romney et al. only in character, personality and the ability to show some level of personal compassion) onto the understanding of the voters. I think the voters may well believe that Obama represents something different to Romney, which is an important point whether he does or not (I for one think it's clear he does not!), because it shows that the Americans are not interested in voting for reaction/plutocracy, but merely that is what is on offer - in different skins - in the presidential elections.

So where we go from here is not to attack the US as full of backwards idiots like some would do, but highlight in the coming four years the problems with the presidential (political) system, and the wider economic (capitalist!) system in general, and how they pertain to ordinary Americans' experiences since 2008 or so.

Just my two cents.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think my point is important because a lot of people on the left equate voting for a bourgeois asshole like Obama with supporting bourgeois asshole politics. It's important to distinguish between the objective politics of someone like Obama, and the perception of Obama. Perceptions are key, otherwise we'll just be going to the working class with ideas of them that are not necessarily true.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, let's have a serious discussion about this.

The fact of the matter is is that the forces of reaction and plutocracy, despite their considerale efforts, have been dealt a symbolic defeat in America.I would disagree with this. The amount of corporate money going to both candidates shows that the ruling class is equally confortable with either option.

Obama didn't even have to talk-left that much during this campagin because there was no primary challenger and in the general election he only promised to not be as scary as the DNC made the also moderate Romney out to be. So last time Obama's victory did have some symbolic power and he had a clear mandate for populist "change" despite always only offering New Democrat conservative policies for the most part. He then immediately ditched Labor and took universal healtcare off the table - almost before the inaguration even. So that was Obama with every opportunity to side with mild liberal reform and he wouldn't even do that - he proved right away where he stood with the TARP bailout. Now with no pretensions of promises to his liberal base, and little voter mandate even if he had made promises, and a campaign where he said he would cut medicare better than Romney, defend Israel better than Romney, push for US domination of the world better than Romney.


Perhaps more tellingly, the exceedingly white-oriented opposition failed to muster sufficient votes to gain their biggest symbolic victory that was a prerequisite for their "last stand" before the older white voters start to die off. I'd say this is actually a real and interesting thing to look at in this and the past election. However, I don't think this actually means anything significant about racism in the US since racism as a structure in capitalism relies more on Police, the Courts and Prisons, or the INS than it does on the ideas of some old bigots. And what's troubling in that regard is that the machinery of modern racism is fully supported by both parties unequivocably and a recent poll I posted in another thread shows that a huge chunck of pro-Democrat voters support implicitly racist attitudes. Obama is fully a part of that from blaming absentee or "lazy" black dads for black poverty and inequality, to supporting "tough on crime" policies, to just explicitly refusing to push back against racist claims and accusations from challengers, the tea-party, etc. We have a black president telling the racists, "Sure, do what you will and I'll hide" which has only emboldend overt racism - at the same time that materially strutural racism in hoseing, employment and policing has increased since the economic crisis leaving the black "middle class" workers attacked as "lazy postalworkers" and "entitled public workers" etc as black unemployement and forclosures rise faster than the average.

So what has been defeated though, seems to be the "Southern Strategy" of the Republicans: which was basically to rally people to their platform by covertly appealing to the racist base of the old Dixicrats and then to racist suburbanites: tieing racism to a neoliberal reform agenda against public spending (for the poor and in urban areas) and "entitlements".

The old Republican popular coalition of wingnuts: racists, libertarians, the religious-right, and gun-advocates is not as solid as it was (some animosity between these factions) and is no longer enough for natioanl election victories it seems - and the social politics needed to unite these groups to the pro-business policies pushed by the Republicans is actually driving more people over to the Democrats - gays, latinos, women specifically.

But in my opinion, this doesn't mean that racism is on the decline or that the right is now marginal. In fact, contradictorally, the country is still moving to the right even while the population has moved tentitivly to the left (which has been happening since the 1990s IMO) and continues to do so.

Republicans and Democrats are good-cop/bad-cop for our rulers and so if the Democrat's attempt to push their pro-corporate strategy hits the rocks or their coalition breaks apart (because part of the union movement or some other social movement involving people who generally support the Democrats actually is pushed to oppose the Democrats) then the logic of the two-party system means that voters will then have a chance to vote out the "disorder" caused by the Democrat's "indecisiveness" and vote-in the "order" that the Republicans will promise to restore.


What I'm curious to hear about is how the left, or at least people here, think we need to go from this, and what the appropriate lessons to learn are and how to apply those. To expose my biases, there are some real questions about class politics raised in this American election, and I don't think the left is well-served by glossing over it as a charade; I think the forces of reaction have been dealt a serious defeat today.Either President and our main goal would more or less stay the same even if how people reacted to those Presidents might varry. If Romney won maybe there'd be big protests like during the Bush years, but radicals would still have to try and organize an independant force among workers that would be able to oppose Romeny without just allowing that anger to flow right back into voting for Democrats. With Obama, it will be the same although we probably won't see big protests headed by liberal groups - we will still need to try and stich together a working class opposition to austerity, it just might mean that it starts smaller, but with more militant conclusions being drawn by people.

Obama's going to "balence the budget" which means cuts all around for us, so the pressures that brought Occypy, Wisconsin, and the Teyvon Martin protests will still be here and so I am hoping that with no-honeymoon this time Obama over-reaches and provokes at least another Occupy-type movement against austerity (even if different in form and tactics and character) which will provide a chance for workers to begin to grapple with fighting "the lesser evil".

[robbo203]

I think my point is important because a lot of people on the left equate voting for a bourgeois asshole like Obama with supporting bourgeois asshole politics. It's important to distinguish between the objective politics of someone like Obama, and the perception of Obama. Perceptions are key, otherwise we'll just be going to the working class with ideas of them that are not necessarily true.

But voting for Obama at the end of the day does amount to "supporting bourgeois asshole politics". There is no getting around this. The perception of Obama may and, in fact, often does diverge markedly from his objective role as a representative of capitalism. However, our role as socialists is not to pander to such perceptions, not to buy into the insidous argument that at least voting for Obama is better than voting for Romney because that is a recipe for political suicide as far as socialism is concerned since there will always be one option that will appear the lesser of two evils. Supporting the lesser of two evils only ensures that they continue to support "evil" - if I might put it like that. In other words we would continue to be supporting capitalism by endorsing one or other of capitalism's political representatives by giving them a blank cheque to administer capitalism


We need to break from that completely by not pandering to the wishy washy sentiment that holds that Obama is marginally better than Romney and is therefore worth supporting. He is not and none of them are. More to the point, supporting Obama only prepares the grounds for the Republicans to return, as they will, at some point when Obama will inevitably flounder and fail

You dont raise consciousness by inviting people to bang their heads against a brick wall. The only outcome of that is a concussed working class, not a class conscious one!

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think it's a good thing Obama won. When you raise issues with the conservative capitalist parties in power, a lot of that energy gets channeled into the liberal capitalist parties. I see it in the anti-austerity demos in the UK where Labour feels the need to slime up and join in (and then disgustingly call for more austerity). But raise issues with the liberal capitalist parties in power and people might actually realise that this two party capitalist system is a joke.... emphasis on 'might', of course. Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist.

[Bakunin Knight]

The point for the elite is to push and pull the populace one way and then the other in rhetoric, while in reality increasing their power and influence all the time. This way when crises occur, only the rhetoric is held responsible and the people clamour to move in the other direction rhetorically, while increasing the power of the elite further. A second term is promised to those presidents who play along, as a means of getting them to follow the elite lead. Obama must have agreed to submit to their plans in order to retain his position - does this mean war?

[robbo203]

I think it's a good thing Obama won. When you raise issues with the conservative capitalist parties in power, a lot of that energy gets channeled into the liberal capitalist parties. I see it in the anti-austerity demos in the UK where Labour feels the need to slime up and join in (and then disgustingly call for more austerity). But raise issues with the liberal capitalist parties in power and people might actually realise that this two party capitalist system is a joke.... emphasis on 'might', of course. Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist.

But it doesnt "help bring more folks over to our side" and this is surely the point!

In the long run, its only helps relentlesssly to discredit the Left and grind it down by tarring it by association if it is seen to be suggesting that it is a good thing that Obama should win and, by implication, that workers should vote for him. Its like I said - you are inviting workers to bang their heads against a brickwall in the vain hope that it will somehow change minds. It wont . Except perhaps to get said workers to change from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans when Obama fails as inevitably he will . More likely, it will just add to an already pervasive sense of disillusionment and powerlessness that you cannot ever change anything fundamentally.... That frankly for me is most troubling thing of all about this - it helps to perpetuate this stifling unifom monodimensional view of social reality

We really have to get to grips with this one, once and for all, and be absolutely crystal clear from the start where we stand. We should not be supporting Obama or Milband or whoever - however "reluctantly" or "without illusions" (ha!) - or even be seen to be suggesting that they perhaps might be slightly less worse than their rivals and therefore possibly worth vorting for. No, we must break cleanly and decisively from this whole pernicious lesser-of-two-evils argument.

Not to do so is to ensure the perpetual marginalisation of the Left and the subordination of any socialist vision it might once have entertained to the machinations of reformist politics. This opportuinism widely promoted by the poseurs of so called pragmatism and realpolitik within the Left does it no favours at all, frankly

It is only through the politics of conviction and principle that the Left can hope to advance , for all the sneering insults of "dogmatism" that the political turncoats amongst us might want to hurl at the suggestion

[Zealot]

I honestly thought Romney would win. I am kind of sad that my prophecy was unfulfilled :(

[GiantMonkeyMan]

But it doesnt "help bring more folks over to our side" and this is surely the point!

In the long run, its only helps relentlesssly to discredit the Left and grind it down by tarring it by association if it is seen to be suggesting that it is a good thing that Obama should win and, by implication, that workers should vote for him. Its like I said - you are inviting workers to bang their heads against a brickwall in the vain hope that it will somehow change minds. It wont . Except perhaps to get said workers to change from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans when Obama fails as inevitably he will . More likely, it will just add to an already pervasive sense of disillusionment and powerlessness that you cannot ever change anything fundamentally.... That frankly for me is most troubling thing of all about this - it helps to perpetuate this stifling unifom monodimensional view of social reality

We really have to get to grips with this one, once and for all, and be absolutely crystal clear from the start where we stand. We should not be supporting Obama or Milband or whoever - however "reluctantly" or "without illusions" (ha!) - or even be seen to be suggesting that they perhaps might be slightly less worse than their rivals and therefore possibly worth vorting for. No, we must break cleanly and decisively from this whole pernicious lesser-of-two-evils argument.

Not to do so is to ensure the perpetual marginalisation of the Left and the subordination of any socialist vision it might once have entertained to the machinations of reformist politics. This opportuinism widely promoted by the poseurs of so called pragmatism and realpolitik within the Left does it no favours at all, frankly

It is only through the politics of conviction and principle that the Left can hope to advance , for all the sneering insults of "dogmatism" that the political turncoats amongst us might want to hurl at the suggestion
I never said anything about Obama being a 'lesser-evil' and I never said anything about supporting Miliband either. I was just saying that there are people who voted democrat because they consider themselves leftist/socialist or whatever that will be extremely disappointed in Obama and won't want to start voting republican. These people could be educated and brought to real marxism. A similar thing happened to me. I voted libdems because I thought they would be a 'change' or whatever. What they did end up being was the catalyst that encouraged me to read more about radical changes in the system rather than continuations of the same.

[Drosophila]

To the people talking about "social issues" -

Let's not forget that Obama couldn't even put his support behind same-sex marriage until the political climate was right. Equality is unobtainable in bourgeois society.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Despite the reactionary nature of the democratic party, the fact remains that Obama won, marijuana was legalized in two states, and I think same sex marriage was legalized in two more states. The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left. We aren't on the cusp of revolution or anything, but public opinion is definitely more receptive to all degrees of the left.

[hetz]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.400.400/p403x403/559638_10151214840033934_1543116184_n.jpg

[RedHal]

Despite the reactionary nature of the democratic party, the fact remains that Obama won, marijuana was legalized in two states, and I think same sex marriage was legalized in two more states. The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left. We aren't on the cusp of revolution or anything, but public opinion is definitely more receptive to all degrees of the left.

two issues that I don't give a fuck about

[Drosophila]

The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left.

No and no. Nothing has been pushed to the left. If anything, the closeness of this race shows that Americans don't give much of a damn about left vs. right. Both candidates are on the right, as they both represent the interests of the bourgeois class. The country at this point still reflects bourgeois interests. If the country had been "pushed to the left," then the working class would be in a position to seriously challenge the bourgeois dictatorship.

[Rugged Collectivist]

No and no. Nothing has been pushed to the left. If anything, the closeness of this race shows that Americans don't give much of a damn about left vs. right. Both candidates are on the right, as they both represent the interests of the bourgeois class. The country at this point still reflects bourgeois interests. If the country had been "pushed to the left," then the working class would be in a position to seriously challenge the bourgeois dictatorship.

Obviously I meant in a more liberal direction. I specifically said that the working class was not in a position to challenge capitalism. Learn to read.

You may not consider this significant but the FAR right has been dealt a significant blow.

[Rugged Collectivist]

two issues that I don't give a fuck about

You've missed the point entirely. Congratulations.

[Drosophila]

Obviously I meant in a more liberal direction. I specifically said that the working class was not in a position to challenge capitalism. Learn to read.

Maybe you should learn to write. There is a BIG difference between the left and liberalism. The latter is centrist, while the former is characterized by proletarian interest.


You may not consider this significant but the FAR right has been dealt a significant blow.

No it hasn't. The majority of Republicans aren't the insane reactionaries that you see on the internet. Most Republicans are fairly normal people. Hell, most of them are proletarians.

For as long as this ping-pong game between Democrats and Republicans continues, the left will go nowhere. We need to organize ourselves into a party of our own.

[robbo203]

I never said anything about Obama being a 'lesser-evil' and I never said anything about supporting Miliband either. I was just saying that there are people who voted democrat because they consider themselves leftist/socialist or whatever that will be extremely disappointed in Obama and won't want to start voting republican. These people could be educated and brought to real marxism. A similar thing happened to me. I voted libdems because I thought they would be a 'change' or whatever. What they did end up being was the catalyst that encouraged me to read more about radical changes in the system rather than continuations of the same.

Well perhaps I misread you or you hadn't made yourself quite clear, but when you said "I think it's a good thing Obama won". and "Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist" , I interpeted that as meaning you were suggesting one should encourage or look favourably upon people voting for Obama , knowing full well he will fail, and that they will somehow "come over to our side" as a result when he does fail. They won't and this was my point. They are far more likely to vote Republican next time or become politicaly disenchanted altogether.

People dont come over to our side unless we are clear, principled and uncompromising about what we stand for . Sure some - a very small percentage - might be radicalised by their disappointment with Obama but there is no guarantee they will move towards socialism as a result. If you are hoping that people will do so for negative reasons then you will be hoping in vain

People need a postive reason to come over to our side and and providing tacit or implied support for, and thus tarring yourself by association with, Obama - not that I am suggesting that that is what you are doing- is definitely not that.

[Prometeo liberado]

Last time I checked, the Democrats aren't preaching on about the "Christian nation", or how women's bodies can defend against 'legitimate' rape, or how gay marriage violates the rights of Christians (etc.....).
And most racists (except perhaps the very few Old\Southern democrats) vote Republican for a reason. Economically the 2 parties are the same, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that the Democrats are the more progressive on social issues.

Last I checked it was the Obama Administration that deported more undocumented brown people than it did any other undocumented group in the U.S. It was the Obama Admin. that ramped up the forces of domestic security to infiltrate leftist groups, tap our phones, read our emails and reintroduce and refine the methods of COINTELPRO. If that does not amount to a social issue then I don't know what will.
They don't need to preach about a "Christian Nation" because when the Republicans do too many people give them a free pass to pull off far nastier shit. NEVER CUT THE ENEMY ONE BIT OF SLACK!

[Rugged Collectivist]

Maybe you should learn to write. There is a BIG difference between the left and liberalism. The latter is centrist, while the former is characterized by proletarian interest.

I said "more to the left". Still centrist, but MORE to the left.




No it hasn't. The majority of Republicans aren't the insane reactionaries that you see on the internet. Most Republicans are fairly normal people. Hell, most of them are proletarians.

For as long as this ping-pong game between Democrats and Republicans continues, the left will go nowhere. We need to organize ourselves into a party of our own.

I'm not talking about moderate republicans. I'm talking about white supremacists, forest dwelling libertarian weirdos, and Christian theocrats. For years the far right (and the moderate right to a lesser extent) has been whining about how the people hated Obama, and would throw his tyrannical ass out when they had the chance. This obviously didn't happen so they've been left embarrassed and demoralized. I've seen people on my facebook feed flipping the fuck out because their prophecy didn't come true.

Once again, I'm not saying this is some major victory for socialism, but the further this society moves to the left, even if it's just a tiny bit, the easier it will be for us to organize and make the case for socialism.

[robbo203]

. The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left. We aren't on the cusp of revolution or anything, but public opinion is definitely more receptive to all degrees of the left.

Your so called "push to the left" is only preparing the ground for the right to return again in triumph. The Obama administration like any administration that attempts to take on the adminstration of capitalism will fail and will disappoint big time. There is nothing whatsoever to celebrate in Obama's victory and if the Left wants to couple its fate and its fortunes to that victory - an act of the most astonishing myopia and stupidity, in my view - then i can confidently predict that the decline of the Left will not only continue but will accelerate in the next few years. Obama doesnt need the Left but if the Left think they need him they are in for a rude awakening when what little support they have drains away in the backlash to come. You mark my words....

[robbo203]

One good thing about this fake choice between Tweedledum and tweedledee - the voter turnout seems to have fallen significantly compared tpo 20098 at least according to this site

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/2004-george-w-bush-beats-barack-obamas-2012-numbers-mandate/

Hopefully many of those abstaining would have done so as a matter of principle rather than out of aparthy. One reason why I always prefer spoiling you ballot rather than not using it

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Well perhaps I misread you or you hadn't made yourself quite clear, but when you said "I think it's a good thing Obama won". and "Obama and his policies can go fuck themselves but tactically (or is it strategically?) it might help bring more folks over to our side if their great liberal saviour is proven as impotent and uncaring as any other capitalist" , I interpeted that as meaning you were suggesting one should encourage or look favourably upon people voting for Obama , knowing full well he will fail, and that they will somehow "come over to our side" as a result when he does fail. They won't and this was my point. They are far more likely to vote Republican next time or become politicaly disenchanted altogether.
Yeah, maybe I wasn't entirely clear. I hope you understand my position now.


People dont come over to our side unless we are clear, principled and uncompromising about what we stand for . Sure some - a very small percentage - might be radicalised by their disappointment with Obama but there is no guarantee they will move towards socialism as a result. If you are hoping that people will do so for negative reasons then you will be hoping in vain

People need a postive reason to come over to our side and and providing tacit or implied support for, and thus tarring yourself by association with, Obama - not that I am suggesting that that is what you are doing- is definitely not that.
I'm not saying we should just sit back and hope folks become communists from their frustration with Obama. There's enough capitalist propaganda about that, yes, they would simply swing to the republicans or just think 'well, at least he's not a lunatic mormon' etc. We need to see this as an opportunity to criticise the so-called 'left' from a position of revolutionary marxism, offering up a solid program for change and encouraging people to disassociate with the bourgeois parties and participate in a proletarian party because it will become clear to some people that Obama is simply the same old shit and we need to channel that into something positive.

[Lucretia]

To the people talking about "social issues" -

Let's not forget that Obama couldn't even put his support behind same-sex marriage until the political climate was right. Equality is unobtainable in bourgeois society.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think civil marriage (both opposite- and same-sex) is a highly problematic institution we should be working to abolish rather than expand, I think it should be remembered that BO only lined up behind the issue after his VP made a gaffe which left him with no other choice.

[Delenda Carthago]

If there was any other option but them two parties, I would put the matter on a workers autonomy politics. But its not, it was between them two. And Obama is not the worst option.

[Delenda Carthago]

What I m most curious, is what percentage of the working class, the real working class, not the false description they give in US, voted for Obama. How popular he is in lower wages.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The good thing with Obama winning is that this will create a vacuum once austerity is implemented under them and the economy depresses as in Greece. The goal for American comrades should be now to fight for proportional representation in which a socialist opposition can be established on the national political stage. There is of course the possibility of the far right also gaining from the looming crisis. But if you look at how Americans voted in urban areas (and factor in that millions of ethnic minority Americans were victims of voter suppression, purging and voting machine fixing), you see that the vast majority of urban workers voted for a black President against the right wingers. So this is a good sign for the left and Proletarian revolution.

[freethinker]

The good thing with Obama winning is that this will create a vacuum once austerity is implemented under them and the economy depresses as in Greece. The goal for American comrades should be now to fight for proportional representation in which a socialist opposition can be established on the national political stage. There is of course the possibility of the far right also gaining from the looming crisis. But if you look at how Americans voted in urban areas (and factor in that millions of ethnic minority Americans were victims of voter suppression, purging and voting machine fixing), you see that the vast majority of urban workers voted for a black President against the right wingers. So this is a good sign for the left and Proletarian revolution.

I think you may have a point here but let me repeat the commonly repeated phrase that Republicans love to use.
America is not Europe
The United States is as of present is the most apathetic first world nation in the world. It is likely that it will take several more years for large amounts of the poor to leave the two party system entirely and understand the left.
It is promising that the urban voters are not voting for any flavor of Tea Party, these are simply seeds in my view.

[Let's Get Free]

Now that the corporate election is over we have to push Obama in the streets (just as we would any other politician) to win whatever we can for the needs of the people, end war, and to beat back austerity. Ultimately, we need to create a grassroots political alternative to capitalist political parties entirely.

[freethinker]

Now that the corporate election is over we have to push Obama in the streets (just as we would any other politician) to win whatever we can for the needs of the people, end war, and to beat back austerity. Ultimately, we need to create a grassroots political alternative to capitalist political parties entirely.

- And how
Generally as political objects the third parties to the left have not been doing well, so where dose that leave us?

Popular Pressure?

Look I am all for taking to the streets it is the up most necessity and yes there has been organization so there is a base to work with in the cities.
But it is still not enough to turn into results not at the time being unfortunately, There are those millions who have no clue of politics beyond the two parties amd those who think that Socialism is a backward dogma.

[hatzel]

The goal for American comrades should be now to fight for proportional representation in which a socialist opposition can be established on the national political stage.

Why on Earth would we be even remotely interested in any of this?

[ed miliband]

What I m most curious, is what percentage of the working class, the real working class, not the false description they give in US, voted for Obama. How popular he is in lower wages.

you talk of a "real working class" and then conflate it with simply "lower wages". hmm.

[Geiseric]

The vast majority of people who vote are petit bourgeois, something like 40% of americans don't vote, meaning these elections don't really mean anything other than which taste of capitalism seemed more appealing to more people. Romney could of won if he wasn't such a twat towards women and non white people.

This is in no way a "victory," for socialists, materially or metaphysically. Obama is our worst enemy, and revealing the union bureaucrats and democrats as the enemies of the working class is our first goal, regardless of what "tendency," you think you are.

[Will Scarlet]

I don't know what you mean. I simply said that the party which has been known to cater to the interests of the far right and bourgeois the most has been defeated. Despite the true interests of the Democratic Party they still are perceived by the masses as the pro-worker party, and the fact that most people voted for them under this (false) impression means a symbolic "victory" was won. It means at the very least people rejected what Romney represents. This of course brings up another issue; the fact that the Democratic Party does not actually represent the interests of the working class. But that isn't the point of this thread. I don't see how that contradicts with being a left communist?
I get what you guys are saying I think, that this is a rejection of Romney presenting the honest face of capitalism and reaction. I don't doubt that many many Obama voters don't really want what Obama will do, but that he somehow symbolises something else. I think this was certainly very true in 2008 and is still somewhat true now despite his four years of government, but now I think it is fear rather than the hope he offered four years ago. But I don't get how you can see it as any kind of victory, symbolic or otherwise. Progressive energies being drained away, channeled into this illusion. That's depressing. But the first term of Obama had Occupy Wall Street so clearly there is potential for resistance against "our" president.

[sixdollarchampagne]

The point for the elite is to push and pull the populace one way and then the other in rhetoric, while in reality increasing their power and influence all the time. This way when crises occur, only the rhetoric is held responsible and the people clamour to move in the other direction rhetorically, while increasing the power of the elite further.

The notion of an unnamed elite pushing the US electorate this way and that, for the sake of distraction, is attractive. The factual difficulty with it is that, this time, the populace did not "clamor to move in the other direction rhetorically." On the contrary, they gave the incumbent four more years of an incredible amount of power.


A second term is promised to those presidents who play along, as a means of getting them to follow the elite lead. Obama must have agreed to submit to their plans in order to retain his position - does this mean war?

The difficulty with Bakunin Knight's second assertion, that "Obama must have agreed to submit to" the plans of the elite, is that there is probably very little, if any, distance between Obama and "the elite," so the incumbent does not to move ideologically to embrace the plans of "the elite." Obama came into office as a convinced supporter of the US war in Afghanistan. After his election in 2008, the "anti-war" movement, at one of its national meetings, had to decide whether or not to oppose US intervention in Afghanistan, since Obama was fond of that war, and the "anti-war" movement was super-fond of Obama and the pro-war, imperialist Democratic Party. And there actually was sentiment in the US "anti-war" movement, not to oppose US military interference in Afghanistan, indeed, not to mention the US war in Afghanistan at all, since the Democrats wouldn't like that. All of which just proves, once again, that the "social movements" in the US are merely extensions of the pro-war Democratic Party, all the time, without exception.

[Let's Get Free]

Look on the bright side everybody- the two rape apologist Republican senators were defeated.

[sixdollarchampagne]

... The goal for American comrades should be now to fight for proportional representation in which a socialist opposition can be established on the national political stage. There is of course the possibility of the far right also gaining from the looming crisis. But if you look at how Americans voted in urban areas (and factor in that millions of ethnic minority Americans were victims of voter suppression, purging and voting machine fixing), you see that the vast majority of urban workers voted for a black President against the right wingers. So this is a good sign for the left and Proletarian revolution.

I disagree that Obama's re-election is a good deal for workers in the US; workers and the poor in the US have taken it on the chin, royally, during the last four years. Obama's poverty figures increased annually, and, the last time I checked, they were higher than US poverty figures under GW Bush, the liberals' nemesis (sp?).

But, historically, to address a minor issue raised by Workers-Control, it is true that proportional representation would be a good thing for the US left. If I remember correctly, decades ago, in the mid-20th century, there was a CP-run "third party" in New York, called, I think, the American Labor Party, at a time when there was proportional representation in elections in New York, and that third party was able to win some seats consistently, which led to the disappearance of proportional representation, since the "choices" in US politics always have to reflect an extremely narrow political spectrum – that is a ruling-class imperative in this country. Even the Green Party, which, politically, is a very tame "third party," is just too much for the rulers here.

So I'm all for proportional representation. It's not the solution, but it would be a step forward.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm not advocating for a "lesser of two evils" approach here, but it's bad analysis to call liberals a "force of reaction". On the contrary, liberalism of the Obama variety prefers stasis to a swing to the far right. This doesn't mean we shouldn't critique his economic policy or social positions but it should be done on the grounds of the ineffectiveness of liberal politics to end, as opposed to engage in Imperialism or Capitalism.

People like Obama because he seems like a nice guy who cares about them. The fact that he is financed by the banks doesn't mean he doesn't ... just that liberals seeks to "reform" the system. That's the problem with liberalism ... it fails to have the answers to the social and economic contradictions we face.

[Geiseric]

I'm not advocating for a "lesser of two evils" approach here, but it's bad analysis to call liberals a "force of reaction". On the contrary, liberalism of the Obama variety prefers stasis to a swing to the far right. This doesn't mean we shouldn't critique his economic policy or social positions but it should be done on the grounds of the ineffectiveness of liberal politics to end, as opposed to engage in Imperialism or Capitalism.

People like Obama because he seems like a nice guy who cares about them. The fact that he is financed by the banks doesn't mean he doesn't ... just that liberals seeks to "reform" the system. That's the problem with liberalism ... it fails to have the answers to the social and economic contradictions we face.
Liberalism IS the problem we face. The revolution of 1848 proved there isn't a difference between the National (republicans) and the Jacobins (democrats), and these party formations have been grown in every imperialist state. Liberals and trade bureaucracies are the enemies we face as socialists. Conservatives are only around to make the liberals seem more progressive, and are funded by the rich to push the premeditated debates more to the capitalists side.

[ComingUpForAir]

I have a question for all in this forum:

Is it pointless to work in D.C. in any capacity? I have been seriously considering it for a long time and have asked before.. I believe organizations like The Democracy Collaborative and The New Economics Institute would be ideal places to work at... they are founded by Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz..

I would never want to be a reformist who simply is there to waste my energy while an activist on the reactionary end basically makes me efforts obsolete.. but then I remember Lenin's "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder".. and I wonder if working within the system is one of the ways Marxists can surreptitiously work towards a better society. I am aware that revolution is really the only way (via Luxemburg), yet I am almost positive there are Marxists or Socialists in the democratic party (The Progressives... can they really all have never read Marx, Enels, et al)?

Your thoughts? Would I be wasting my time? As a marxist I have a healthy disgust for advertising, marketing, most business.. I really don't know what else is ideal for a young college graduate..

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I disagree that Obama's re-election is a good deal for workers in the US; workers and the poor in the US have taken it on the chin, royally, during the last four years. Obama's poverty figures increased annually, and, the last time I checked, they were higher than US poverty figures under GW Bush, the liberals' nemesis (sp?).

But, historically, to address a minor issue raised by Workers-Control, it is true that proportional representation would be a good thing for the US left. If I remember correctly, decades ago, in the mid-20th century, there was a CP-run "third party" in New York, called, I think, the American Labor Party, at a time when there was proportional representation in elections in New York, and that third party was able to win some seats consistently, which led to the disappearance of proportional representation, since the "choices" in US politics always have to reflect an extremely narrow political spectrum – that is a ruling-class imperative in this country. Even the Green Party, which, politically, is a very tame "third party," is just too much for the rulers here.

So I'm all for proportional representation. It's not the solution, but it would be a step forward.


Of course I don't think Obama getting voted is in any way good for the working class. I personally could not have honestly cared who wins the US elections, but now that a result exists i will analyze it: strategically speaking it might be better for us if a collapse happens under the "Left" capitalists, is my opinion. Obama already has said many times that he will implement austerity. This will create a vacuum for the rhetorically "progressive" political section, which is the vast majority of urban US Americans as the election have shown.

If you combine the vacuum probability and the fact that the urban workers voted disproportionately for a Black person who uses more social/collectivist rhetoric (against crypto-racists), it is not a bad strategic situation for the US Socialists and Communists going into a crisis. The potential right wing danger for the US lies in the rural conservative areas, the Midwest, where the right wing capitalists won.

These are not bad signs for Proletarian revolution. Most Revolutions only have occurred in urban areas and obviously the US urban working population is in its vast majority progressive because it voted for the guy who pretends to be more anti-racist, social, collective, progressive and is black. In the sad long history of America, this is quite a positive development of the political attitudes of the proletarian masses; a development of attitudes towards the objective class interests of the Proletariat. The longer capitalism exists, the faster its annihilation comes.

[Volderbeek]

Liberalism IS the problem we face.

WTF? Liberalism (assuming you mean the left variety) is the gateway drug to socialism. I'm sure plenty of posters here started as liberals. The real problem is reaction, who continue to dominate the political narrative in America. Obama's election hurt said narrative by quite a bit it seems.


Conservatives are only around to make the liberals seem more progressive, and are funded by the rich to push the premeditated debates more to the capitalists side. Is this some kind of conspiracy shit or something? Some liberals are more progressive than others, and conservatives are "around" because a lot of people agree with them. The rich (bourgeois ones anyway) are just trying to protect their class interest.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I have a question for all in this forum:

Is it pointless to work in D.C. in any capacity? I have been seriously considering it for a long time and have asked before.. I believe organizations like The Democracy Collaborative and The New Economics Institute would be ideal places to work at... they are founded by Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz..

I would never want to be a reformist who simply is there to waste my energy while an activist on the reactionary end basically makes me efforts obsolete.. but then I remember Lenin's "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder".. and I wonder if working within the system is one of the ways Marxists can surreptitiously work towards a better society. I am aware that revolution is really the only way (via Luxemburg), yet I am almost positive there are Marxists or Socialists in the democratic party (The Progressives... can they really all have never read Marx, Enels, et al)?

Your thoughts? Would I be wasting my time? As a marxist I have a healthy disgust for advertising, marketing, most business.. I really don't know what else is ideal for a young college graduate..


Shortly put: No, you should not.

The global Capitalist system is in the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. Interest rates are near 0% everywhere, in effect even negative interest rates, workers' wages have fallen quite harshly since the crisis in 2008, subsidies are flowing to Corporations, Military Stimulus has been working since a decade and increased under Obama; and the end result is a recession, with massive debts in the system. No growth. The Capitalist system is not working, and if you want to know the future of the USA then look at Greece where austerity is being implemented. There will be a Depression within the next months, at most a few dozen months.

If the current widespread calls for Proportional Representation get louder and becomes implemented and normal Bourgeois Democracy takes hold, then the two ruling parties will shrink with each week that they implement austerity and the economy gets worse.

What all US Socialists and Communists need to do now in my opinion is to:
1) push for a popular movement for a proper parliamentary system, and
2) support the formation of a united mass Socialist party that could sometime in the future (2016, 2020) take seat in national politics and stand openly for the idea Socialism.
A party like that would most likely degenerate into a reformist Capitalist party, and if this party for Socialism were to take power and manage the capitalist system, it would necessarily fail like all other capitalist parties. But the idea of Socialism would have become popular, we could criticize the party's betrayal to the people and grow our own revolutionary organizations.

Of course there is always the option of waiting for the day when the workers will liberate themselves...

[Volderbeek]

I have a question for all in this forum:

Is it pointless to work in D.C. in any capacity? I have been seriously considering it for a long time and have asked before.. I believe organizations like The Democracy Collaborative and The New Economics Institute would be ideal places to work at... they are founded by Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz..

I would never want to be a reformist who simply is there to waste my energy while an activist on the reactionary end basically makes me efforts obsolete.. but then I remember Lenin's "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder".. and I wonder if working within the system is one of the ways Marxists can surreptitiously work towards a better society. I am aware that revolution is really the only way (via Luxemburg), yet I am almost positive there are Marxists or Socialists in the democratic party (The Progressives... can they really all have never read Marx, Enels, et al)?

Your thoughts? Would I be wasting my time? As a marxist I have a healthy disgust for advertising, marketing, most business.. I really don't know what else is ideal for a young college graduate..

You should listen to Lenin over Luxemburg because one was a successful revolutionary and the other a failure, respectively. You need to ask yourself what makes for successful revolution, and you'll realize all tactics should be on the table.

[Grenzer]

WTF? Liberalism (assuming you mean the left variety) is the gateway drug to socialism. I'm sure plenty of posters here started as liberals. The real problem is reaction, who continue to dominate the political narrative in America. Obama's election hurt said narrative by quite a bit it seems.

No, it's not at all. Broody is completely correct on this. Liberalism is probably one of the biggest obstacles to revolutionary consciousness. I had to become a social-democrat before I was open to Marxism and revolution; it took realizing the utter bankruptcy and uselessness of liberalism before I moved on. It's definitely not a gateway drug of any kind by any stretch of the imagination. By attacking liberalism, we can shatter the illusions of progressive people who would otherwise be further to the left if not for their faith in the liberals. Promoting liberalism is not going to convince reactionaries to take up leftism; sorry, but that logic is just complete trash.

If you think the biggest obstacle to revolutionary consciousness is that the liberal narrative is not the dominant one, then you are certainly no revolutionary and are living on another planet.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You should listen to Lenin over Luxemburg because one was a successful revolutionary and the other a failure, respectively. You need to ask yourself what makes for successful revolution, and you'll realize all tactics should be on the table.

Did Lenin's/Luxemburg's personalities or even their tactics lead to the success/failure of the Russian/German revolutions? Did Luxemburg's theoretical errors or whatever lead directly to the failure of the German Revolution and her own demise, or were there other factors to consider?

(Rhetorical question.) ;)

[Bakunin Knight]

The notion of an unnamed elite pushing the US electorate this way and that, for the sake of distraction, is attractive. The factual difficulty with it is that, this time, the populace did not "clamor to move in the other direction rhetorically." On the contrary, they gave the incumbent four more years of an incredible amount of power.
But I wasn't talking about this particular election, I was talking about the long-term: Clinton to Bush to Obama to ? (I'm guessing Republican). Each administration discredits itself somewhat, leading to a reaction against it that results in even more power for the elite. That could not happen if the establishment did not want it, since they control the propaganda outlets. And I think that even in the past four years there has been a significant change in rhetoric despite the fact that Obama has been given a second term (for reasons already discussed). Compare the Hope and Change and references to redistribution of '08 to the austerity propaganda of today.



The difficulty with Bakunin Knight's second assertion, that "Obama must have agreed to submit to" the plans of the elite, is that there is probably very little, if any, distance between Obama and "the elite," so the incumbent does not to move ideologically to embrace the plans of "the elite." Obama came into office as a convinced supporter of the US war in Afghanistan. After his election in 2008, the "anti-war" movement, at one of its national meetings, had to decide whether or not to oppose US intervention in Afghanistan, since Obama was fond of that war, and the "anti-war" movement was super-fond of Obama and the pro-war, imperialist Democratic Party. And there actually was sentiment in the US "anti-war" movement, not to oppose US military interference in Afghanistan, indeed, not to mention the US war in Afghanistan at all, since the Democrats wouldn't like that. All of which just proves, once again, that the "social movements" in the US are merely extensions of the pro-war Democratic Party, all the time, without exception.
That's true, but I think it's likely that Obama was in fact opposed to the continued involvement in Iraq, and did not want to initiate action in Libya, Pakistan or elsewhere. He was naive to think he would have control over those decisions. On Afghanistan he probably bought into all the 911 propaganda. In the past months, the Israel lobby has been very angry with him about his supposed lack of action on Iran, which makes me think that his re-election suggests his agreement to commit the USA to war against Iran. And don't get me wrong, I am not an Obama supporter at all and have never voted for him (not that voting means much).

[RebelDog]

Breaking news: US election result: Wall Street re-elected with 98.5% of the vote.

[Volderbeek]

No, it's not at all. Broody is completely correct on this. Liberalism is probably one of the biggest obstacles to revolutionary consciousness. I had to become a social-democrat before I was open to Marxism and revolution; it took realizing the utter bankruptcy and uselessness of liberalism before I moved on. It's definitely not a gateway drug of any kind by any stretch of the imagination. By attacking liberalism, we can shatter the illusions of progressive people who would otherwise be further to the left if not for their faith in the liberals. Promoting liberalism is not going to convince reactionaries to take up leftism; sorry, but that logic is just complete trash.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by liberal here, but it should suffice to say that liberals are not a homogenous group and would certainly include social democrats. Hell, mainstream political commentators often consider all "leftism" to just be varying degrees of liberalism. Also, liberalism is certainly not the "biggest obstacle to revolutionary consciousness". For example, a typical liberal would say something like "communism looks good on paper but..." and a typical conservative would say "socialism is the inevitable road to serfdom". Which do you think is really a "bigger obstacle"?



If you think the biggest obstacle to revolutionary consciousness is that the liberal narrative is not the dominant one, then you are certainly no revolutionary and are living on another planet.I never said anything like that. I said the reactionary/anti-communist narrative is a problem. Obviously, the liberal narrative is not the opposite of that. I don't think there really is much of a liberal narrative other than "we're not as batshit crazy as those guys". So I guess I support that... :lol:

[Rottenfruit]

So, let's have a serious discussion about this.

The fact of the matter is is that the forces of reaction and plutocracy, despite their considerale efforts, have been dealt a symbolic defeat in America.

Perhaps more tellingly, the exceedingly white-oriented opposition failed to muster sufficient votes to gain their biggest symbolic victory that was a prerequisite for their "last stand" before the older white voters start to die off.

What I'm curious to hear about is how the left, or at least people here, think we need to go from this, and what the appropriate lessons to learn are and how to apply those. To expose my biases, there are some real questions about class politics raised in this American election, and I don't think the left is well-served by glossing over it as a charade; I think the forces of reaction have been dealt a serious defeat today.

Uggh in my view it does not matter if the republicans or democrats win, they both do what wall street tells them to do.

[RedSonRising]

One the one hand, I thought there could be advantages in having a republican in office and reawakening mainstream liberal rage (which even though most mainstream liberals make me sick, they have a potential to be radicalized through social movements), instead of going through 4 more years of moral amnesia from Democrats. But it is probably more useful to radicalize people under Obama in opposition to what he represents and focus on the structural, systemic issues of capitalism as an oppressive, violent force...not just someone with an opposing identity in the white house as a Republican.

[La Comédie Noire]

It proved that you can't win a campaign with racism and xenophobia. That you can't cover up economic crisis with the sun ray cure of equilibrium economics. The Republican Party is a relic of another time that is gaudy and even foolish in it's rhetoric and just serves to remind Americans (whites included) of an embarrassing past we'd soon forget.

I mean don't get me wrong, it's the Democrats, but it was really heartening to see just how few people were willing to rally around the banner of white privilege and corporate power.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Liberalism IS the problem we face. The revolution of 1848 proved there isn't a difference between the National (republicans) and the Jacobins (democrats), and these party formations have been grown in every imperialist state. Liberals and trade bureaucracies are the enemies we face as socialists. Conservatives are only around to make the liberals seem more progressive, and are funded by the rich to push the premeditated debates more to the capitalists side.

It's not that they're not ideological opponents, it's that they're not reactionaries. To be reactionary, one must be fighting to move society to some kind of culturally pure, prior. Liberals and reactionaries are both distinct factions of the ruling class

[blake 3:17]

I'd have probably voted Obama if I were in the US on the basis of gender politics.

All this pro-rape and anti-contraception stuff from the Republicans is deeply alarming.

A couple of posters above mentioned that revolutionary politics can be better advanced when a faux "Left" is in power. I'd tend to agree. It's not an absolute, but when people's expectations rise on certain fronts that we support, we need to push for those changes and keep pushing no matter what the State leadership says or does.

[Grenzer]

So basically, we should become liberals in your opinion. Supporting Obama isn't even reformism; it's worse than that. It's just blatant and counter-revolutionary liberalism. The democrats aren't even really liberals to begin with in any case. They're centre-right technocrats.

I would actually say the opposite. Reformism and left-liberalism tend to be among the greatest obstacles to revolutionary politics. The entire point of reformism is to try to numb the damaging effects of capitalism in order to drown class consciousness and the potential for the growth of revolutionary demands.

Reaction has nothing to do with trying to move to some "culturally pure" direction. That's moralist nonsense. Reaction is simply fighting for the status quo, or a return to it. The democrats are by definition reactionary. Their political program is one of austerity and imperialism, not really qualitatively distinguishable from that of the republicans. The common theme of both the Democrats and Republicans is that they both seek to end those few social-programs that were forced by the workers during the Great Depression and the upsurge of radical politics in the 60's. This is by definition reaction.

The social issues like abortion and gay rights are a farce. Firstly, the democrats don't even seriously push those, rhetoric aside. Secondly, even if they did, that is entirely and completely inconsequential in terms of politically advancing the proletariat.

Don't get me wrong, these are very important issues; but they in and of themselves do not actually politically advance the positions of the workers. If they did, then they wouldn't bother making these concessions in the first place. We should not support the democrats at all. There can be no genuine sexual and racial equality under capitalism; to support the democrats is to be a reformist and buy into illusions that the capitalist apparatus can genuinely be re purposed to fulfill the needs of the workers.

I knew there were a lot of liberals and reformists on revleft, but fucking hell.

[Lardlad95]

Has anyone considered how Obama's presidency is a blow to the psyche of American white supremacy?

I mean the man is far from a radical, he's just as beholden to corporate interests as any other national politician, and anyone who thought that he was going to rein in the imperial excesses of the Bush administration is fooling themselves, but neither was anyone else who had an actual shot of winning.

The real success here is that my nephews are growing up in a world where at least one psychological barrier has been broken. There's no assumption that the halls of power are closed to them. Now whether or not they should be wandering those blood stained halls in the first place is a separate matter, but at least they don't have to internalize the idea that they live in a nation that is run exclusively by and for white men.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So I haven't been on this site in a while, but it is really depressing to see the things posted in this thread. I can't believe there is so much support for Obama.

[mew]

i think what you're saying is true in a sense. this might just be 'spin', but supposedly the gop is scrambling because their policy on social issues makes them unelectable with the country's new demographics. i felt like more people were voting against romney than for obama, mainly due to things like the "legitimate rape" comments. plus there was just the fact of romney being a terrible candidate (unlikable, 'flipflopping' constantly, a terrible staff read up on the ORCA debacle for instance.)

as a side note i felt frustrated by feminists/liberals sensitive to women's rights making voting for obama a huge ultimatum because of the 'legitimate rape' type of comments but also in the process making obama out to be some sort of champion for women's rights. obama made it harder to access plan b and his health care bill reaffirmed hyde amendment. not to mention his talk about birth control pills during the debate was really weak...framing it as an 'economic' issue that affects 'families' (not just women.) of course that's all true, but it was just him not wanting to come out and make a strong statement about women having reproductive choice etc.

[blake 3:17]

So I haven't been on this site in a while, but it is really depressing to see the things posted in this thread. I can't believe there is so much support for Obama.

I don't think it is so much support for Obama as opposition to the hard Right and the lack of a Left alternative. Support for him is for an unjust status quo, but in opposition to a completely wacked out misogyny, racism, and tax cheating.

I am not American, but if I were I'd have voted Nader in the past or the Greens or Socialist Party. None of them, or the other left parties, were running a serious campaign this time that would've broken a popular threshold questioning the US electoral system. You need the possibility of 1% to be anything credible.

I don't think Obama's stance on women's rights or gay and lesbian rights is meaningless. I'm pleased he had the guts to blow off Netanyahu.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that Mitt Romney was necessarily "hard right", at least on economic issues. Or if he was than Obama is "hard right" on those same issues, because I actually don't think that Romney would've been all that different from Obama on the economy, despite the bluster. As indicated by how he was so unclear about how exactly he'd lower the national debt. Most likely he'd keep up the spending on national defense, as well as the main "entitlement programs", as those programs are too popular to cut.

I don't know about social issues. I do know that Obama only started supporting gay marriage because of Joe Biden misspeaking. :rolleyes:

I can't stand Obama. I can't even give him "tactical support". He's just as cynical and slimy as any of the other flunkies in Washington DC. The only reason he's looked at as somewhat "progressive" anywhere outside the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos or whatever is because the Tea Party took a long stop at Crazy Town and started pushing very unpopular social issues & supporting cavemen like Todd Akin etc, and just about anyone looks progressive compared to those people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not advocating for a "lesser of two evils" approach here, but it's bad analysis to call liberals a "force of reaction".Yeah "force" is probably hyperbole :lol: - and calling liberals reactionary probably would not get someone very far in trying to argue their point to a liberal Obama-supporter that we might want to try and convince (there's no way that would be read as anything but "you're a reactionary" if said like that). And it's inaccurate - Obama and the Dems do all the terrible shit they do, not because they are reactionaries, but because they are liberals!


On the contrary, liberalism of the Obama variety prefers stasis to a swing to the far right. This doesn't mean we shouldn't critique his economic policy or social positions but it should be done on the grounds of the ineffectiveness of liberal politics to end, as opposed to engage in Imperialism or Capitalism.This I disagree with absolutely though. First, by standard US ideas about politics, Obama in action is a moderate leaning conservative and talking liberal. He has surrounded himself with "New Democrats" and his policies are not a stand for "the staus quo" against the Republicans on the right, but a more gentle drop into austerity and a more invisible (to the US population) imperial forign policy.

It's not that it's ineffectual, it's that there is no intent or interest in policies and refoms that might be popular and actually help workers. He dosn't want things to be the same, he wants austerity, he wan't privitized schooling, and "Obamacare" used to be the right-wing alternative to healthcare reform. In many ways he, and Democrats are more effective than Republicans in pushing austerity and definitly in selling wars to the public. When Scott Walker tries to get rid of union power, he over-reaches and provokes protests, when Obama sells out the autoworkers he does it with handsahakes and slaps on the back by union officials. If Bush had OKed exaccustions of US citizens and expanded drone strikes into other countries, there would have been opposition - with Obama, silence if not support.

But this is liberalism in a way for our modern context of austerity and more generally in the neo-liberal era. It's no longer "guns and butter" but just "guns and we have to give the rich your butter".

[Art Vandelay]

Dear god this is depressing; makes me want to puke. Liberal-"left" should be this sites new name.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Despite the reactionary nature of the democratic party, the fact remains that Obama won, marijuana was legalized in two states, and I think same sex marriage was legalized in two more states. The far right has been dealt a major blow and the political climate in this country has been given a much needed push to the left. We aren't on the cusp of revolution or anything, but public opinion is definitely more receptive to all degrees of the left.
Since these issues do not really assist in the growth of revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat, I do not think it has had the effect you hoped for. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that the illusion of democratic reform under capitalism has been slightly strengthened now. Whether the working class is subjectively "pushed" more toward the left now is immaterial since they are still firmly within the camp of bourgeois politics.

Does this mean that we should completely dismiss these reforms? No. But you seem to be approaching this from the angle that reforms are an end in itself. You're subordinating revolution to reform by doing what empiricists (or pragmatists) do--starting from these aforementioned "facts" without being able to see beyond them. This theoretical line--of accepting reform instead of engaging the reformist consciousness of the masses--is hardly a healthy starting point for revolutionary politics.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

For me it didn't really matter who won, considering I view it as two parties, one ideology but I am glad Obama won over that tool Willard, even though he, himself has also been a bigger tool than Bush.

[Ocean Seal]

I would say that perhaps its the largest defeat that the left has been dealt it recent memory, because even good leftists are treating it as a victory. That's when you know that you are fucked. People's standards have become so low because of him, that we've perhaps fucked ourselves to oblivion.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Since these issues do not really assist in the growth of revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat, I do not think it has had the effect you hoped for. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that the illusion of democratic reform under capitalism has been slightly strengthened now. Whether the working class is subjectively "pushed" more toward the left now is immaterial since they are still firmly within the camp of bourgeois politics.

Does this mean that we should completely dismiss these reforms? No. But you seem to be approaching this from the angle that reforms are an end in itself. You're subordinating revolution to reform by doing what empiricists (or pragmatists) do--starting from these aforementioned "facts" without being able to see beyond them. This theoretical line--of accepting reform instead of engaging the reformist consciousness of the masses--is hardly a healthy starting point for revolutionary politics.

No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.

[Invader Zim]

Last I checked, the Democrats preached capitalism, just as the Republicans do. How does a victory for the Democrats translate into a political advantage for the proletariat? If it doesn't, then there is no reason to support them.

Social-issues are red herrings that are used to goad reformists and left-liberals into giving them support. These things mean nothing to the capitalist class. Our main goal should be the achievement of the political dictatorship of the proletariat. The election of the Democrats does nothing to further this; to say otherwise is raw reformism.

The capitalists' relation to the means of production is the source of their strength. It's the only thing that matters. They must be severed from them at any cost.

Well, I agree with you, when it comes to the broader picture. Arguably the Obama administration, like FDR's before him, saved American capitalism from self destruction. It is undeniable, despite the miserable whining of tea-party drones, that Obama is firmly in the conservative camp of capital and that he resists serious progressive change.

However, he does accept the need to minor incremental changes, such as providing tens of thousands of Americans with healthcare. Obviously that massively aids the insurance companies, but it is still a progressive move even if not a huge one. And it is a progressive move that the more reactionary Republican party find intolerable.

[zimmerwald1915]

No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.
Anecdotal evidence isn't terribly representative. I remember reading a testimonial on here about a member who used to be a hard-core Dittohead and never made the stopover at liberalism. Should we be doing our best to make sure hard-right rhetoric becomes even more dominant than it already is in society, in the hopes that more such conversions will occur? Or should we "disdain to conceal our views and aims", no matter which faction of the ruling class runs the media machine this week?

[Grenzer]

Aye, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is progressive insofar as it is a concession that was extracted via the pressure of the working masses. It should be criticized from the standpoint that it is woefully inadequate and that a genuine solution can not be found within the framework of capitalism.

Really what I want to criticize here is the naive viewpoint of some that programs such as the PPACA are essentially the result of charitable and benevolent intentions of the Democrats, with one user here going so far as to make the absurd statement that "Just because Obama is supported by Wallstreet doesn't mean that he doesn't love the people".

Electoral support for the Democrats is a poor move, I think, especially taken from the standpoint that if large numbers of people seriously began to oppose the Democrats from the view that they were too far to the right, then the Democrats would have to lurch to the left somewhat in an attempt to compensate and reclaim some support. The Republicans wouldn't be operating in a vacuum in this either, as demonstrated by the fact that even they have a hard time going directly against Medicare and Medicaid in their rhetoric.

Providing electoral support for the Democrats supports the status quo, while opposing them from a socialist standpoint and advocating socialist demands drags the system further to the left if these demands begin to be taken up by the masses. Of course that's just a side effect; our real goal is not to merely modify the system, but to raise revolutionary consciousness so it can be abolished.

What many in this thread seem to be proposing is essentially Browderism, which has a very poor track record. The relatively large social programs put forth by the New Deal were in spite of the 'communists' unconditional and total electoral support of the Democrats, not because of it.

[zimmerwald1915]

Aye, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is progressive insofar as it is a concession that was extracted via the pressure of the working masses. It should be criticized from the standpoint that it is woefully inadequate and that a genuine solution can not be found within the framework of capitalism.
What pressure from the working masses? If I recall correctly, and I fully admit that I might not, the working masses were by and large politically and materially demobilized in the wake of the 2008 election. The Affordable Care Act cannot be explained in terms of a concession extracted from capital because there was no movement doing the extracting. How then, can it be explained? Either it really is benevolent paternalism, or it's a straight-up attack differentiated from other proposed attacks by the fact that the faction of the bourgeoisie in power felt they could get away with this one, and not with those.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.
Okay. If that's really what you meant (and I'm still not quite convinced), let's move on to what you're saying now. On the whole, I found your argument to be terribly weak.

You start by placing an "iron wall", so to speak, between what you view as a "liberal" society, with its opposite being "hardcore reactionary". How has the United States been a "liberal" society in the last twenty years? I don't think such a case could be made, even in the abstract. And no liberal, Obama included, has been wrung dry of "anti communist and pro free market rhetoric". In fact, declaring his faith in the capitalist system was the chief refrain of his entire campaign. As such, it will be more of the same, hewing closely to the very reactionary social agenda that was "begun" by his predecessor. Speaking of a distinction between these two "societies" in the context of bourgeois society is, to my mind, rather wrongheaded.

But perhaps you meant more liberal minded, as in the notion of a changing zeitgeist in the US? In that case, let's address your presumption that "liberal" people are far more receptive to socialism; or at least, more than the others. You seem to be basing this on the notion that "liberal" somehow equates to a more open mind to alternative viewpoints, at least politically if not socially. Even if you were correct, liberalism is a very far cry away from socialist class consciousness. As I said before, all of the ideologies you have listed are firmly within the bourgeois camp and their ruling ideas. You cannot simply assume that liberals are more open when the philosophical methods associated with them are reactionary and lead away from socialism. You may be able to "engage" people better, certainly, but without a revolutionary party, that's all you'll be able to do. How can the masses be more "open" to socialism when socialist parties in the US are largely ineffective? The revival of socialist idealism will not be achieved under a bourgeois liberal zeitgeist with no effective revolutionary party.

If I was wrong about your acceptance of reformism, I don't think I was wrong about your method, which I believe to be empiricism. Again, you start from the "fact" that Obama's victory actually means a defeat of the right wing, and assume that the masses will be more open to socialism. You are unnecessarily limiting your thought here.

Oh, and just for the record, I actually went to Marxism after I had embraced the Republican party for so many years. Liberalism in of itself does not necessarily make it easier to accept socialism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What pressure from the working masses? If I recall correctly, and I fully admit that I might not, the working masses were by and large politically and materially demobilized in the wake of the 2008 election. The Affordable Care Act cannot be explained in terms of a concession extracted from capital because there was no movement doing the extracting. How then, can it be explained? Either it really is benevolent paternalism, or it's a straight-up attack differentiated from other proposed attacks by the fact that the faction of the bourgeoisie in power felt they could get away with this one, and not with those.

I think that the concession to the working masses argument only makes sense if you view the election of Barack Obama and the Democrats as the result of a movement of the working masses. There really wasn't any sort of political movement going on when the affordable care act was being debated (well, besides the Tea Party).

[Rugged Collectivist]

But perhaps you meant more liberal minded, as in the notion of a changing zeitgeist in the US?

Yes.


If I was wrong about your acceptance of reformism, I don't think I was wrong about your method, which I believe to be empiricism. Again, you start from the "fact" that Obama's victory actually means a defeat of the right wing, and assume that the masses will be more open to socialism. You are unnecessarily limiting your thought here.

Oh, and just for the record, I actually went to Marxism after I had embraced the Republican party for so many years. Liberalism in of itself does not necessarily make it easier to accept socialism.

In what way am I limiting my thought?

I don't think Obama's victory was a defeat for the right wing. I think it was a defeat for the far right, a small one, but a defeat nonetheless. Though, at this point in the conversation I'm starting to think that the benefits of his re-election are less substantial than I had previously believed. Maybe even to the point that it isn't worth mentioning. Maybe I am full of shit...

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

In what way am I limiting my thought?

When I spoke of "limiting" your thought, I should have been more elaborate. I'll try to make up for that here. I meant that your perspective of viewing the right wing (far or moderate) as "defeated" or liberal people are more open to socialism is problematic. The right wing, even the "far" right, is never defeated in the sense that their policies or their influence will be thwarted by a Democratic congress or otherwise. Recall that even when Obama had a majority in both the House and Senate, the meager social reforms he attempted to push through (like ending the tax cuts for the wealthy) were dictated entirely on the terms of the Republicans. Even as a minority faction, they still "triumphed". Their influence was slightly curtailed, but not seriously in danger at any point.

I believe that with Obama's reelection, you saw that the "left" (in the abstract) was successful, heralding a new zeitgeist, and that the "right" would at least be held at bay for another few years. You took the situation as it immediately appeared to you, and formulated your position on that basis. This practice of basing arguments or opinions on this "immediate and sensory experience" is the hallmark of empiricism. I hope that is a little more clear for you now. I apologize for not going at length before.


I don't think Obama's victory was a defeat for the right wing. I think it was a defeat for the far right, a small one, but a defeat nonetheless. Though, at this point in the conversation I'm starting to think that the benefits of his re-election are less substantial than I had previously believed. Maybe even to the point that it isn't worth mentioning. Maybe I am full of shit...
Do not think that you are "full of shit" for a second. The aim of a debate, in my view, is not to show the other side up or make them look stupid. Between us leftists, we should see each debate as a learning opportunity. Although, in a debate with a bourgeois apologist, please feel free to change that. I believe that you are mistaken in this exchange, but I wouldn't say you're "full of shit" at all.

[spice756]

So, let's have a serious discussion about this.

The fact of the matter is is that the forces of reaction and plutocracy, despite their considerale efforts, have been dealt a symbolic defeat in America.

Perhaps more tellingly, the exceedingly white-oriented opposition failed to muster sufficient votes to gain their biggest symbolic victory that was a prerequisite for their "last stand" before the older white voters start to die off.

What I'm curious to hear about is how the left, or at least people here, think we need to go from this, and what the appropriate lessons to learn are and how to apply those. To expose my biases, there are some real questions about class politics raised in this American election, and I don't think the left is well-served by glossing over it as a charade; I think the forces of reaction have been dealt a serious defeat today.


I feel Obama set the left back and reforce free market in way conservatives are laughing now .

That look at it this way Americans are libertarians and believe the free market and no tax and allow the CEO and big businesses to do want they like is the answer to all problems. Any government social programs is looked at has very evile.

The Americans have these views before Obama and way more now with Obama !!

The bush administration ran high spending , big debt , wars and major recession. And Obama came in power and had to deal with this major debt and recession.But because of the recession is not over the US has high debt than ever before and people are like Obama is mad man who is spending money like the money coming from the sky thus more anti- left now.

If Mitt Romney would ran after Bush and got in and done the auto bailout , bank bailout and stimulus spending and major unemployment and recession you would have less anti- left and more people even looking at the capitalist system saying why is it such a mess. Now Obama and left is going to take the blame for it !!

[Rugged Collectivist]

When I spoke of "limiting" your thought, I should have been more elaborate. I'll try to make up for that here. I meant that your perspective of viewing the right wing (far or moderate) as "defeated" or liberal people are more open to socialism is problematic. The right wing, even the "far" right, is never defeated in the sense that their policies or their influence will be thwarted by a Democratic congress or otherwise. Recall that even when Obama had a majority in both the House and Senate, the meager social reforms he attempted to push through (like ending the tax cuts for the wealthy) were dictated entirely on the terms of the Republicans. Even as a minority faction, they still "triumphed". Their influence was slightly curtailed, but not seriously in danger at any point.

I believe that with Obama's reelection, you saw that the "left" (in the abstract) was successful, heralding a new zeitgeist, and that the "right" would at least be held at bay for another few years. You took the situation as it immediately appeared to you, and formulated your position on that basis. This practice of basing arguments or opinions on this "immediate and sensory experience" is the hallmark of empiricism. I hope that is a little more clear for you now. I apologize for not going at length before.


Do not think that you are "full of shit" for a second. The aim of a debate, in my view, is not to show the other side up or make them look stupid. Between us leftists, we should see each debate as a learning opportunity. Although, in a debate with a bourgeois apologist, please feel free to change that. I believe that you are mistaken in this exchange, but I wouldn't say you're "full of shit" at all.

You're right about the unwillingness of the democrats to push through meaningful reforms, but that wasn't the point of contention. I never believed in the democratic party. I still believe I was full of shit though in regards to the idea that liberals are more receptive to socialism.

[Robocommie]

No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.

Was it your liberalism that made you a socialist, or was it something else in your life that woke you up to the realities of class society?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Was it your liberalism that made you a socialist, or was it something else in your life that woke you up to the realities of class society?
This. Many people I know, Including me, drafted into communism because we were already hooked on leftist ideals but didn't really have a way to express them as such. I actually read somewhere that the first modern socialists developed as an antithesis to liberalism; they found the movement's ideological individualism repulsive.

If I was a liberal, I can almost guarantee that I'd have repudiated Marx before I'd even read him.

[Lucretia]

No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.

I would be curious to hear your argument about why it is easier to advocate socialist political perspectives in a society with legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage, than in a society without those things. What leverage do these policies give toward socialists? If anything, as MMT noted above, their passage under the current regime of flailing capitalism simply reinforces the idea that everything is in working "democratic" order.

[Avanti]

if you want the best kind of society for a revolution

you should have a failing dictatorship