Limousine Liberals [Archive]

NGNM85

9th January 2013, 23:23

Depends. I have no object working with other radicals, of whatever creed. Or workers engaged in defensive struggles.
It probably goes without saying, but I would clarify, as I said before, that said cooperation should be limited to, and predicated upon, shared objectives.

My issue is empowering liberals/reformists merely because the other candidate stinks more.
First of all; let me start by saying that I can't speak authoritatively on the subject of British politics, so I'm going to confine my specific comments to American politics, although the more general principles are universal. It isn't at all clear to me what you mean by; 'empowering.' In the united States, our two establishment parties have a complete monopoly on political power. There's simply no competition. In fact; the state of third parties is so anemic that supporting them, in swing states, or contested districts, y'know; elections that aren't, essentially predetermined, (Which it is, in most cases.) is actually more likely to be counterproductive, which was (Unfortunately.) demonstrated in 2008. I think this is something that absolutely has to be changed, but loosening the domination of our political system by the two establishment parties will require substantial systemic changes, on both the federal, and state level, before something like that is even possible.

No offense; but this attitude is totally hypocritical, and counterproductive. You cannot serve two masters. If you're primary concern is the best interests of the working class; you'll dispense with such bullshit.

Like voting Democrat, or Labour, or any other centre-left person/party just because they stand up at election time and make some wishy-washy bullshit promises.

The primary issue should not be what x group, or individual says, although, that's not necessarily irrelevant, but, rather; 'what will they do?' This is usually fairly easy to predict, at least, in broad strokes. In the absence of a viable alternative; the only rational option is to choose whichever option is better for the working class, even if this simply means choosing the lesser evil. Again; most of the time, in the United States, anyhow, such things are usually predetermined, but not always.

This is what it is to be a radical.

Not in English; it isn't. Liberals, and Progressives, as well as Right-wingers, of varying stripes, operate under the illusion that the answers to our social ills lie in more superficial changes. Socialists know better. Socialists understand that the overwhelming majority of our social ills are the reflection of the fundamental deficits of the ruling institutions, namely; (but not exclusively) nation-states, and capitalism, and, thus; they must be dismantled, and/or replaced by something more just, more democratic, and more humane. That is what it means to be a Radical.

Tragically; many Radicals, and it sounds like you are one of them, make a flying leap from this totally sound premise to the fallacious, and unfounded, conclusion, that, because of this; they should never interact with those institutions, even to support reforms that benefit the working class. This has had an absolutely disastrous effect on the Radical Left. By abandoning the central obligation of Socialism, namely; to always, completely, and unequivocally support, and defend the working class, these individuals, paradoxically, by their puritanical, and idealistic opposition to superficial gains, make fundamental social change logistically impossible. Revolutionary change will only gain mass acceptance until the working class, or some sufficiently sizable fraction, thereof, has become conscious of itself, and has exhausted the limitations of the existing systems, and not a minute sooner. There's simple no other way. Furthermore; if the Radical Left are to be anything more than spectators in the class war, we need to break down the institutional barriers that divide the working class, and more importantly; we have to address the daily struggles of the working class. The longer we ignore these issues; we will become increasingly irrelevant, and ineffectual.

There's nothing to be gained by working with reformists on broad issues. The only time you'd work with them is for something that is obviously non-partisan i.e. crisis intervention, anti-fascism, working to stem a disease outbreak etc.

Again; I know people hate it when I play vocabulary police, but it sounds like you're misusing the word; 'Reformist.' 'Reformism' is Radical jargon, which refers exclusively to Socialists who believe Socialism can be achieved through parliamentary means. (Feel free to confirm this.) I think what you mean to say is; 'Reformers.'

There's no reason why either of us should be losing a lot of sleep about fascism.

There are a whole host of political issues Radicals should care about, and be working on. We should be expanding, or, at least; defending, the minimal welfare state, which is under attack, right now. We should be fighting for reproductive rights, which are also under attack. We should be fighting for gay rights, particularly marriage equality. We should be supporting the labor movement, which is in fairly dire straits. There are other examples. Again; without addressing the daily struggles of the working class, and breaking down the institutional barriers that divide them; the working class will remain divided upon itself, and we will remain ineffectual bystanders.

Let's Get Free

9th January 2013, 23:35

What's the income cut-off line before one stops being a leftist and starts being a limousine liberal?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th January 2013, 23:48

It probably goes without saying, but I would clarify, as I said before, that said cooperation should be limited to, and predicated upon, shared objectives.

First of all; let me start by saying that I can't speak authoritatively on the subject of British politics, so I'm going to confine my specific comments to American politics, although the more general principles are universal. It isn't at all clear to me what you mean by; 'empowering.' In the united States, our two establishment parties have a complete monopoly on political power. There's simply no competition. In fact; the state of third parties is so anemic that supporting them, in swing states, or contested districts, y'know; elections that aren't, essentially predetermined, (Which it is, in most cases.) is actually more likely to be counterproductive, which was (Unfortunately.) demonstrated in 2008. I think this is something that absolutely has to be changed, but loosening the domination of our political system by the two establishment parties will require substantial systemic changes, on both the federal, and state level, before something like that is even possible.

Changes that those most empowered to enact them have no interest in whatsoever. You basically admit that the American electoral system is rigged to prevent radical changes. Voting for the good cop or for the bad cop ain't gonna change that.

Yet still you think Americans should vote Democrat.

NGNM85

10th January 2013, 01:25

Changes that those most empowered to enact them have no interest in whatsoever.

If you're talking about fundamental election reform; (???) that's mostly (but not entirely) accurate. However; that doesn't mean it can't be done. The most crucial change, which would be to overturn the Citizens' United decision, and, ideally, put in place a regime of public campaign financing, is totally doable. That isn't to say it would be easy, very little that's worth doing is, but it's totally doable. Something like 11 states have already passed resolutions calling for it to be overturned, as have a number of city governments, which is really just symbolic, but it's a good sign. There a couple of ways to do this, the most serious proposal is a Constitutional Convention. Admittedly; this has no precedence in American history. However; we've come very close, in the past, I don't have the specifics in front of me, I'd have to look it up, but on several occasions, it's come very close, within just a fraction of votes, most notably in 1983, which is not that long ago, which I believe came within a single vote. Most importantly; this happens to be wildly popular. The overwhelming majority of the country absolutely hates it. That's a huge wellspring of popular outrage waiting to be capitalized upon.

basically admit that the American electoral system is rigged to prevent radical changes. Voting for the good cop or for the bad cop ain't gonna change that.

That's a gross oversimplification. Do I believe we can vote our way to Anarchosyndicalist nirvana? No. I'm not a Reformist. However; we can absolutely use the existing mechanisms built into our respective political systems to improve the lot of the working class. In fact; if we're serious, if we're not just playing; 'Soviet LARP', here; we have to, for the reasons I've already explained.

Yet still you think Americans should vote Democrat.

Democratic.

Again; this is a gross oversimplification. I'm talking about much more than simply voting. I'm also talking about proposing, and passing, ballot initiatives. I'm also talking about referendums. (In addition to more popular tactics like; sit-ins, protests, etc.) Etc., etc. So, there's much more than that.

As opposed to Republicans, yes. Again; most elections are, effectively, decided before the campaigns begin, because of gerrymandering, etc., but not all of them. This is because the platform, and policies of the Democratic party, are, comparatively, better for the working class, largely owing to the fact that they represent a different elite constituency. Even a cursory analysis of American history, and American politics will confirm this. Compare, and contrast the 2012 platforms;

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Or have a look at these two, separate empirical studies;

http://tlrii.typepad.com/thelisciore...ential-ec.html
http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)

(FYI; The Princeton study is in PDF format.)

The real problem, here, is that you lack a fundamental understanding of American politics. I know you've called me a snob, and you're not wrong. However; I don't make this point to belittle, or disparage you, I don't want to do that, (Despite the fact that you've expressed a very intense animosity towards me, for some unknown reason.) but only because it has become blindingly obvious over the course of several discussion, and it happens to be central to the matter at hand. I readily admit that I don't know very much about British politics, which is why I generally don't discuss it. The problem is that you don't seem to have the slightest bit of humility about that. At any time, you would have been (You still are, incidentally.) perfectly welcome to ask me to elaborate, or to say; 'Hey, y'know, I just don't get where you're coming from, here.' I would have been happy to elaborate. I have consistently taken the time to respond to every single one of your entreaties. Even more troubling, is that I'm not sure you even care. For example; when you thanked RadioRaheem's post where he, bafflingly, disputed by numbers relating to the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, despite the fact that these numbers are a matter of public record, and that, as I repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, tried to explain, could be easily confirmed by searching Google, or Wikipedia. For the record; I wasn't 100% accurate, the revised figures come to just 31 million, as opposed to 36 million, but I was pretty close.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001814/

Of course; you would know this, if you ever bothered to check. Clearly; you didn't. This is a bigger issue, to me, again, that I'm not sure that such details even matter to you. If that's the case; than any kind of meaningful conversation is going to be logistically impossible.

Jason

10th January 2013, 03:41

The problem with democrats is a lot of compassion, but no real solutions. The over-sensitivity to social issues (without answers) turns off many as idiotic. For instance, one can have stickers saying "Save the Whales" or "Peace for Mankind" with good intentions, but well, you get my point.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th January 2013, 13:11

If you're talking about fundamental election reform; (???) that's mostly (but not entirely) accurate. However; that doesn't mean it can't be done. The most crucial change, which would be to overturn the Citizens' United decision, and, ideally, put in place a regime of public campaign financing, is totally doable. That isn't to say it would be easy, very little that's worth doing is, but it's totally doable. Something like 11 states have already passed resolutions calling for it to be overturned, as have a number of city governments, which is really just symbolic, but it's a good sign. There a couple of ways to do this, the most serious proposal is a Constitutional Convention. Admittedly; this has no precedence in American history. However; we've come very close, in the past, I don't have the specifics in front of me, I'd have to look it up, but on several occasions, it's come very close, within just a fraction of votes, most notably in 1983, which is not that long ago, which I believe came within a single vote. Most importantly; this happens to be wildly popular. The overwhelming majority of the country absolutely hates it. That's a huge wellspring of popular outrage waiting to be capitalized upon.

How can you reasonably expect Citizens United to be overturned when the Democratic party is just as dependent on it as the Republicans?

That's a gross oversimplification. Do I believe we can vote our way to Anarchosyndicalist nirvana? No. I'm not a Reformist. However; we can absolutely use the existing mechanisms built into our respective political systems to improve the lot of the working class. In fact; if we're serious, if we're not just playing; 'Soviet LARP', here; we have to, for the reasons I've already explained.

You don't think that hasn't been tried before? What makes you think it will work this time round?

Democratic.

Again; this is a gross oversimplification. I'm talking about much more than simply voting. I'm also talking about proposing, and passing, ballot initiatives. I'm also talking about referendums. (In addition to more popular tactics like; sit-ins, protests, etc.) Etc., etc. So, there's much more than that.

As opposed to Republicans, yes. Again; most elections are, effectively, decided before the campaigns begin, because of gerrymandering, etc., but not all of them. This is because the platform, and policies of the Democratic party, are, comparatively, better for the working class, largely owing to the fact that they represent a different elite constituency. Even a cursory analysis of American history, and American politics will confirm this. Compare, and contrast the 2012 platforms;

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Or have a look at these two, separate empirical studies;

http://tlrii.typepad.com/thelisciore...ential-ec.html
http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)

(FYI; The Princeton study is in PDF format.)

Wages have been effectively stagnant since the 70s, and you can't put all the blame for that at the feet of the Republican party. The Democratic party have colluded in this and other things; they're just better at getting shit done without the liberals complaining too much.

You don't seem to realise that bourgeois politicians, at least the smarter ones, are masters at giving a few crumbs with one hand while snatching all they can with the other.

The real problem, here, is that you lack a fundamental understanding of American politics. I know you've called me a snob, and you're not wrong. However; I don't make this point to belittle, or disparage you, I don't want to do that, (Despite the fact that you've expressed a very intense animosity towards me, for some unknown reason.) but only because it has become blindingly obvious over the course of several discussion, and it happens to be central to the matter at hand. I readily admit that I don't know very much about British politics, which is why I generally don't discuss it. The problem is that you don't seem to have the slightest bit of humility about that.

Don't let me stop you talking about British politics if that is what you want. Although if you do decide that's what you want to talk about, then I think you'll find that certain aspects of British politics might start looking... worryingly familiar to you.

It was partly thanks to Tony Blair's more "presidential" style of office (plus all the fuckups and screw-overs that followed) that the scales dropped from my eyes - career politicians are selfish greedy conniving bastards who will say anything to get themselves elected, and since they suffer no repercussions for completely dispensing with their election manifesto (beyond being voted out in a few years to be be replaced by another lying shitsack politician), then there is absolutely no material incentive for them to improve anything for anyone except themselves and the other rich pieces of shit who sponsored their campaigns, who will happily give them cushy jobs once they're finished screwing over the rest of us while in office. Maybe you've heard of the MPs' expenses scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal)?

Nothing I've seen or heard from the US indicates that politicians there are any better. Applying the principle of mediocrity, is it then any wonder why I don't fucking trust bourgeois politics and bourgeois politicians in general?

At any time, you would have been (You still are, incidentally.) perfectly welcome to ask me to elaborate, or to say; 'Hey, y'know, I just don't get where you're coming from, here.' I would have been happy to elaborate. I have consistently taken the time to respond to every single one of your entreaties. Even more troubling, is that I'm not sure you even care. For example; when you thanked RadioRaheem's post where he, bafflingly, disputed by numbers relating to the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, despite the fact that these numbers are a matter of public record, and that, as I repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, tried to explain, could be easily confirmed by searching Google, or Wikipedia. For the record; I wasn't 100% accurate, the revised figures come to just 31 million, as opposed to 36 million, but I was pretty close.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001814/

Of course; you would know this, if you ever bothered to check. Clearly; you didn't. This is a bigger issue, to me, again, that I'm not sure that such details even matter to you. If that's the case; than any kind of meaningful conversation is going to be logistically impossible.

My problem is that you seem to get so wrapped up in the nitty-gritty of the bourgeois political sideshow that you forget the bigger picture, mainly that there is a class war going on and that the Democratic party ain't on the side of the workers, even if when in office they're marginally less awful.

If I were an American, I certainly wouldn't vote for a party that thinks murdering my fellow citizens in cold blood is a good idea. If I remember correctly there's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that would be apt here, something about trading liberty for security I believe?

NGNM85

14th January 2013, 21:10

How can you reasonably expect Citizens United to be overturned when the Democratic party is just as dependent on it as the Republicans?

Part of it is simply necessity. Having a bigger war chest than your opponent doesn't guarantee victory, but nobody wants to be outspent, 2-to-1. So, even politicians that genuinely want to resist it, are usually either forced to capitulate, or lose to their less principled competitors.

As far as party politics are concerned, it's important to remember that the decision in Citizens United was passed by the right-wing appointees. All of the liberal judges went the other way. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is really a testament to the importance of managing the ideological composition of the Supreme Court. The parties have been, similarly, split on the issue. The Republican party, with one or two exceptions, like Sen. John McCain, have mostly been enthusiastic supporters of the Supreme Courts' decision. What's interesting is that this represents a wild divergence from their base. 80% of registered Republicans hate it. The Democratic party has criticized the Supreme Court's decision. All of the Democratic leadership, (President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.) has criticized it, to varying degrees. The most outspoken, as far as I know, was Nancy Pelosi, who actually expressed support for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the decision, but that's more symbolic. Congressional Democrats introduced the DISCLOSE Act, which would have set some limits on campaign contributions, but were unable to get anything passed. Not to go off on a tangent, but this also highlights another vital issue, which is reforming the filibuster. So, by and large, the Democratic party has been fairly critical of the Supreme Court's decision, but real campaign finance reform is going to require pressure from the public, people are going to have to get out in the streets.

Well, there are several ways this could be accomplished, which I won't bother going into, right now, the most promising solution is a Constitutional Convention. In order for that to happen, 34 states need to pass resolutions. The easiest way to accomplish this is through something called ballot initiatives, and referenda. Policies vary slightly, from state, to state, but, basically, this allows private citizens to create petitions which can then be placed on the ballot, provided they get a sufficient amount of votes. This is how we just legalized medicinal Cannabis, here, in Massachusetts. The ACLU, and some patients' advocacy group got together, they put out petitions, and they got it on the ballot, where it passed by about a two-to-one margin, if memory serves. Gay marriage was passed, this way, in Maryland, and Maine, I believe, as well, in this past election. Not to get too far off topic, but, as I was saying, earlier; why aren't we doing this? Why aren't American Radicals leading this charge, and using these mechanisms to advance civil rights, or pass worker friendly legislation. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Where was I? Ok. So; something like 24, or 25 states have this procedure, that puts us a mere eight, or nine states shy of the magic number. I think that gap could easily be closed through targeted political pressure on the state legislatures. It should also be noted that it isn't absolutely necessary to hit the magic number. For example; in 1913, after 33 states called for a convention to make it so that senators were elected by the public, as opposed to the state legislatures, Congress passed the 17th amendment. In the 80's, which isn't that long ago, 32 states passed resolutions calling for a Convention to balance the budget. There have been other attempts to hold a second Convention, for various reasons, but I just want to illustrate that, like I said, earlier; it might not be easy, but it probably is doable.

You don't think that hasn't been tried before? What makes you think it will work this time round?

Of course it's been tried before. Virtually every substantial reform,
in American history came about through popular pressure from below. Radicals played an important part in many of those struggles. Asa Phillip Randolph, for example, a lifelong Marxist, a member of the Communist Party, (Incidentally; Randolph was also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s mentor, and close personal friend.) was instrumental in passing the Fair Employment Act, which prohibited discrimination in the defense industry, (Naval yards, munitions plants, etc.) and Executive order 9981, which desegregated the US military. Michael Harrington was instrumental
in initiating the Great Society reforms which substantially expanded the welfare state. That made a real difference in workers' lives. The list goes on, and on. Tragically; due to the peculiarities of the Radical Left today, many of these figures, and/or their accomplishments are erased from the official history, some are even branded as traitors. It really is tragic. The American Radical Left clings too tightly to it's precious irrelevance.

Wages have been effectively stagnant since the 70s, and you can't put all the blame for that at the feet of the Republican party. The Democratic party have colluded in this and other things; they're just better at getting shit done without the liberals complaining too much.

First; nothing exists in a vacuum. Second; you are basically correct, but the way those policies, or those processes have unfolded has varied, in part due to the differences between the two establishment parties. As the aforementioned studies show; the working class fare better under Democratic administrations, owing to the, admittedly, usually, fairly minimal, policy differences, mostly owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies.

You don't seem to realise that bourgeois politicians, at least the smarter ones, are masters at giving a few crumbs with one hand while snatching all they can with the other.

This is something of a crude oversimplification. Obviously; in a capitalist society, the government primarily represents the elites. However; the mechanisms built into our respective political systems can be used to advance the interests of the working class.

Don't let me stop you talking about British politics if that is what you want. Although if you do decide that's what you want to talk about, then I think you'll find that certain aspects of British politics might start looking... worryingly familiar to you.

I don't talk about British politics because I'm simply not qualified to talk about British politics.

It was partly thanks to Tony Blair's more "presidential" style of office (plus all the fuckups and screw-overs that followed) that the scales dropped from my eyes - career politicians are selfish greedy conniving bastards who will say anything to get themselves elected, and since they suffer no repercussions for completely dispensing with their election manifesto (beyond being voted out in a few years to be be replaced by another lying shitsack politician), then there is absolutely no material incentive for them to improve anything for anyone except themselves and the other rich pieces of shit who sponsored their campaigns, who will happily give them cushy jobs once they're finished screwing over the rest of us while in office. Maybe you've heard of the MPs' expenses scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal)?

Bits and pieces.

Nothing I've seen or heard from the US indicates that politicians there are any better. Applying the principle of mediocrity, is it then any wonder why I don't fucking trust bourgeois politics and bourgeois politicians in general?

I'm not asking you to trust any politicians, bourgeois, or otherwise. I'm simply asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Radicals shouldn't have this irrational aversion to the political process. Marx didn't suffer from it, neither did Lenin, etc., etc. I mean, I pretty much despise Lenin, but that's neither here, nor there.

My problem is that you seem to get so wrapped up in the nitty-gritty of the bourgeois political sideshow that you forget the bigger picture, mainly that there is a class war going on ..

That's exactly the reason why I get so wrapped up in it, because politics is the primary mechanism whereby the ruling class exercises it's hold over society. The attack on the welfare state, the attack on reproductive rights, etc., playing out, right now, in Congress, and in the state legislatures, is an attack on the working class, and the assault is being launched in the halls of power. By the same token; reforms may start in the streets, but they must, inevitably end in Congress, in the state legislatures, or the Courts.

and that the Democratic party ain't on the side
of the workers,

Granted. Of course; I've never suggested otherwise.

even if when in office they're marginally less awful.

If you care about the working class, that matters. For starters, if things had gone differently this past November; 31 million Americans might've lost their health insurance. No Socialist worthy of the name could say that's irrelevant. Again, though; I'm talking about much more than simply voting, although; that's part of it. Just another example; citizens in the state of Vermont have been trying to create their own universal healthcare system. Why Aren't Radicals interested in that? Why aren't they trying to do things like that in their own states? We need to be using the political system to defend, and empower the working class, and in order to do that; we need to understand it.

If I were an American, I certainly wouldn't vote for a party that thinks murdering my fellow citizens in cold blood is a good idea. If I remember correctly there's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that would be apt here, something about trading liberty for security I believe?

It took me a second to figure out what you were driving at. Nationality is an abstraction. It's a creation of the mind, an; 'imaginary community.' I don't subscribe to this fantasy. I certainly don't feel any loss over the death of a reactionary like Anwar-al-Awlaki. I find my government's disregard for civil rights, in the wake of the Sept. 11th atrocities very troubling, no doubt. It's something that should be criticized. However; I certainly don't have any reason to fear for my safety.

There are only two viable political parties in the United States, today.

Foreign policy is the area of greatest commonality between the parties. If anything; the Republicans, in their current incarnation, are even more aggressively imperialistic, or, at least; more enthusiastic about it.

'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th January 2013, 03:12

Part of it is simply necessity. Having a bigger war chest than your opponent doesn't guarantee victory, but nobody wants to be outspent, 2-to-1. So, even politicians that genuinely want to resist it, are usually either forced to capitulate, or lose to their less principled competitors.

As far as party politics are concerned, it's important to remember that the decision in Citizens United was passed by the right-wing appointees. All of the liberal judges went the other way. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is really a testament to the importance of managing the ideological composition of the Supreme Court. The parties have been, similarly, split on the issue. The Republican party, with one or two exceptions, like Sen. John McCain, have mostly been enthusiastic supporters of the Supreme Courts' decision. What's interesting is that this represents a wild divergence from their base. 80% of registered Republicans hate it. The Democratic party has criticized the Supreme Court's decision. All of the Democratic leadership, (President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.) has criticized it, to varying degrees. The most outspoken, as far as I know, was Nancy Pelosi, who actually expressed support for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the decision, but that's more symbolic. Congressional Democrats introduced the DISCLOSE Act, which would have set some limits on campaign contributions, but were unable to get anything passed. Not to go off on a tangent, but this also highlights another vital issue, which is reforming the filibuster. So, by and large, the Democratic party has been fairly critical of the Supreme Court's decision, but real campaign finance reform is going to require pressure from the public, people are going to have to get out in the streets.

Well, there are several ways this could be accomplished, which I won't bother going into, right now, the most promising solution is a Constitutional Convention. In order for that to happen, 34 states need to pass resolutions. The easiest way to accomplish this is through something called ballot initiatives, and referenda. Policies vary slightly, from state, to state, but, basically, this allows private citizens to create petitions which can then be placed on the ballot, provided they get a sufficient amount of votes. This is how we just legalized medicinal Cannabis, here, in Massachusetts. The ACLU, and some patients' advocacy group got together, they put out petitions, and they got it on the ballot, where it passed by about a two-to-one margin, if memory serves. Gay marriage was passed, this way, in Maryland, and Maine, I believe, as well, in this past election. Not to get too far off topic, but, as I was saying, earlier; why aren't we doing this? Why aren't American Radicals leading this charge, and using these mechanisms to advance civil rights, or pass worker friendly legislation. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Where was I? Ok. So; something like 24, or 25 states have this procedure, that puts us a mere eight, or nine states shy of the magic number. I think that gap could easily be closed through targeted political pressure on the state legislatures. It should also be noted that it isn't absolutely necessary to hit the magic number. For example; in 1913, after 33 states called for a convention to make it so that senators were elected by the public, as opposed to the state legislatures, Congress passed the 17th amendment. In the 80's, which isn't that long ago, 32 states passed resolutions calling for a Convention to balance the budget. There have been other attempts to hold a second Convention, for various reasons, but I just want to illustrate that, like I said, earlier; it might not be easy, but it probably is doable.

I'll believe it when I see it. Because until then, the track record is clear - the state of electoral reform is heavily stacked in favour of the rich bastards who helped set it up in the first place.

Of course it's been tried before. Virtually every substantial reform,
in American history came about through popular pressure from below. Radicals played an important part in many of those struggles. Asa Phillip Randolph, for example, a lifelong Marxist, a member of the Communist Party, (Incidentally; Randolph was also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s mentor, and close personal friend.) was instrumental in passing the Fair Employment Act, which prohibited discrimination in the defense industry, (Naval yards, munitions plants, etc.) and Executive order 9981, which desegregated the US military. Michael Harrington was instrumental
in initiating the Great Society reforms which substantially expanded the welfare state. That made a real difference in workers' lives. The list goes on, and on. Tragically; due to the peculiarities of the Radical Left today, many of these figures, and/or their accomplishments are erased from the official history, some are even branded as traitors. It really is tragic. The American Radical Left clings too tightly to it's precious irrelevance.

How do equal opportunities for being able to make weapons for the imperial war machine, or fight and die for it, constitute any kind of improvement in real terms?

Oh, and that welfare state? It's being rolled back and hemmed about with all sorts of ludicrous nonsense. There have been enough lunatics in the US talking about drug testing for recipients of welfare (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/welf-m18.html) for long enough that the privileged shiny-faced shitheads over in this country are now starting to talk about instituting it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/27/drugs-test-benefit-unemployed-rehab) here!

What the bourgeoisie give, they can take away as well.

First; nothing exists in a vacuum. Second; you are basically correct, but the way those policies, or those processes have unfolded has varied, in part due to the differences between the two establishment parties. As the aforementioned studies show; the working class fare better under Democratic administrations, owing to the, admittedly, usually, fairly minimal, policy differences, mostly owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies.

You need to demonstrate that this to-and-fro nonsense is actually capable of leading to a better society, otherwise all you are doing is helping to maintain the status quo by buying into the "good cop, bad cop" act provided by the Democrat and Republican parties respectively.

Because even by the metrics of bourgeouis economics, neither of the two parties have done good for US workers:

http://i45.tinypic.com/ote0s5.jpg

This is something of a crude oversimplification. Obviously; in a capitalist society, the government primarily represents the elites. However; the mechanisms built into our respective political systems can be used to advance the interests of the working class.

But who built those mechanisms? Certainly not the working class. It's fucking rigged! Why can you not understand that?

I don't talk about British politics because I'm simply not qualified to talk about British politics.

Oh, fuck off. I'm sure if the UK was still the world's top imperialist shit then you would have plenty to say. Are you saying you need a little note giving you permission to voice your opinion on a subject? You're a pathetic anarchist.

Bits and pieces.

Do you think American bourgeouis politicians are any better when it comes to ripping off the electorate and the taxpayers?

I'm not asking you to trust any politicians, bourgeois, or otherwise. I'm simply asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt.

You're effectively asking me to trust bourgeois politicians via yourself as a proxy. I simply cannot do that because I don't have anywhere near the amount of trust that you seem to have in bourgeois political institutions and the kind of people who end up heavily involved in them.

Radicals shouldn't have this irrational aversion to the political process. Marx didn't suffer from it, neither did Lenin, etc., etc. I mean, I pretty much despise Lenin, but that's neither here, nor there.

Marx didn't vote for a bourgeois party so far as I know, and if he did, that would have been one of his mistakes (although more forgiveable than it would be today because capitalism was more progressive than it is today).

Lenin ended up taking part in a revolution (and that is what put him in power no less), so I have no idea why you think anything he did supports your case.

The aversion is based on a consistent history that ends up repeating itself whenever people like you insist that "This time, it will be different. The rich and powerful really will listen to us this time!"

Bullshit. They'll only really listen to our demands if we threaten their asses for doing otherwise.

That's exactly the reason why I get so wrapped up in it, because politics is the primary mechanism whereby the ruling class exercises it's hold over society. The attack on the welfare state, the attack on reproductive rights, etc., playing out, right now, in Congress, and in the state legislatures, is an attack on the working class, and the assault is being launched in the halls of power. By the same token; reforms may start in the streets, but they must, inevitably end in Congress, in the state legislatures, or the Courts.

Reforms can be rolled back, as we are seeing now - and in these mean economic times it is easy to find excuses to do so.

Granted. Of course; I've never suggested otherwise.

So why work with them?

If you care about the working class, that matters. For starters, if things had gone differently this past November; 31 million Americans might've lost their health insurance. No Socialist worthy of the name could say that's irrelevant. Again, though; I'm talking about much more than simply voting, although; that's part of it. Just another example; citizens in the state of Vermont have been trying to create their own universal healthcare system. Why Aren't Radicals interested in that? Why aren't they trying to do things like that in their own states? We need to be using the political system to defend, and empower the working class, and in order to do that; we need to understand it.

If you want to "defend and empower the working class" then the bourgeois political system is the wrong tool for the job. It wasn't created with working class empowerment as its function.

It took me a second to figure out what you were driving at. Nationality is an abstraction. It's a creation of the mind, an; 'imaginary community.' I don't subscribe to this fantasy. I certainly don't feel any loss over the death of a reactionary like Anwar-al-Awlaki. I find my government's disregard for civil rights, in the wake of the Sept. 11th atrocities very troubling, no doubt. It's something that should be criticized. However; I certainly don't have any reason to fear for my safety.

The US government has effectively declared itself capable of killing any of its citizens for any reason which they can then refuse to disclose on the grounds of "national security". For someone who seems to display so much damn faith in the processes and procedures of bourgeois legalism, you seem remarkably blasé about it.

Which to be honest, I think is fucking horrifying. While you personally might not be risking a Hellfire missile up the arse, a precedent has been set for the US government to wack out any of their own citizens who are giving them trouble. Unless you think that "giving the US government trouble" and "being a reactionary" are synonymous, then all American citizens should be concerned.

There are only two viable political parties in the United States, today.

So why not build a third party? Surely if bourgeois democracy really is as great as you say it is...

Foreign policy is the area of greatest commonality between the parties. If anything; the Republicans, in their current incarnation, are even more aggressively imperialistic, or, at least; more enthusiastic about it.

Guantanamo Bay is still open, and there are still US boots in Afghanistan. I'm not seeing the difference, really.

NGNM85

15th January 2013, 06:43

I'll believe it when I see it. Because until then, the track record is clear - the state of electoral reform is heavily stacked in favour of the rich bastards who helped set it up in the first place.

Well, if nothing else, I think we can agree that doing nothing isn't likely to yield much in the way of substantive change.

How do equal opportunities for being able to make weapons for the imperial war machine, or fight and die for I t, constitute any kind of improvement in real terms?

How tedious... For one thing it improved the lives of black workers. For another, it was a significant step in the process of dismantling the system of institutionalized racism which served to reinforce divisions among the working class, which is to say nothing of the cruelty of said racist policies, which constitute reason, enough, by themselves.

Oh, and that welfare state? It's being rolled back and hemmed about with all sorts of ludicrous nonsense. There have been enough lunatics in the US talking about drug testing for recipients of welfare (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/welf-m18.html) for long enough that the privileged shiny-faced shitheads over in this country are now starting to talk about instituting it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/27/drugs-test-benefit-unemployed-rehab) here!

What the bourgeoisie give, they can take away as well.

Why has it taken so long? Why did these programs ever come into existence in the first place? It's because the people demanded it. I the Western, democratic societies the state doesn't have the luxury of engaging in the more crude, and violent methods of managing the public common in police states. This is why they have the most sophisticated propaganda systems. In policy literature, this is referred to as a; 'crisis of democracy', the 'crisis' is that sometimes democracy works.

You're also grossly oversimplifying things. Under capitalism'; the bourgeoisie rule, but do not govern. The state acts as an executive committee, realizing a consensus that the bourgeoisie cannot reach, on their own. Take the New Deal, for example. Much of the business community bitterly opposed it. Roosevelt was denounced as a crypto-communist. A few rich businessmen even plotted a coup against him. All this, despite the fact that the New Deal was the absolute best thing for capitalism, at that time. So, the bourgeoisie, who are by no means a homogenous, unified whole, (I absolutely hate talking like this.) rule in an indirect, and complex way. Also; politicians have other concerns, namely; staying in office. This makes them more vulnerable than say; Phil Knight. He's basically completely unaccountable. To make a long story short, these nuances, combined with the mechanisms built into our respective political systems, offer opportunities to defend, or, even; advance the interests of the working class.

Gains once achieved, can be lost, especially if they aren't defended, (unfortunately) the American Radical Left is doing a completely abysmal job of that. Regardless; nobody can win all of the time. Life doesn't work like that. Our job is to keep fighting.

You need to demonstrate that this to-and-fro nonsense is actually capable of leading to a better society, otherwise all you are doing is helping to maintain the status quo by buying into the "good cop, bad cop" act provided by the Democrat and Republican parties respectively.

Even the most casual assessment of American history, (Or British history, for that matter.) will confirm this truism. (See; Civil Rights Movement, Women's Liberation, American Labor Movement, Gay rights, Reproductive Rights, etc.)

Because even by the metrics of bourgeouis economics, neither of the two parties have done good for US workers:

That doesn't prove anything, or, rather; not what you think it proves.

But who built those mechanisms? Certainly not the working class. It's fucking rigged! Why can you not understand that?

It's a matter of pressure. Even dictators occasionally need to bend. If what you say were true, for example; women would be little more than property, slavery would be a thriving institution, and homosexuality would still be a crime, for starters. Our political systems reinforce the rule of the elites, and overwhelmingly favor them, because they are the product of a capitalist society, and because they were largely created by elites, or their proxies. However; these tools can also be used to empower the working class.

Oh, fuck off. I'm sure if the UK was still the world's top imperialist shit then you would have plenty to say. Are you saying you need a little note giving you permission to voice your opinion on a subject?

I am bound only by the laws of propriety, and common sense. I am humble, and honest enough to recognize my substantial limitations on the subject of British domestic politics, therefore; I prefer to leave it to those who are more qualified.

You're a pathetic anarchist.

That is completely incorrect, and uncalled for. You're becoming emotional, again.

You're effectively asking me to trust bourgeois politicians via yourself as a proxy. I simply cannot do that because I don't have anywhere near the amount of trust that you seem to have in bourgeois political institutions and the kind of people who end up heavily involved in them.

No, I'm asking you to trust the fact that I know more about American politics than you do, and that my intentions are not malevolent.

Marx didn't vote for a bourgeois party so far as I know, and if he did, that would have been one of his mistakes (although more forgiveable than it would be today because capitalism was more progressive than it is today).

He wasn't against participating in parliamentary politics. What's funny is that Marx was actually closer to being a Reformist than I am. He was certain that in the Western, democratic countries the working class could emancipate itself without recourse to violence. Obviously; this would be ideal, but I'm much less optimistic.

Lenin ended up taking part in a revolution (and that is what put him in power no less), so I have no idea why you think anything he did supports your case.

Lenin had absolutely no reservations about participating in parliamentary politics. He urged British Radicals to vote Labour. You can look it up, if you want. I thoroughly detest Lenin, but the underlying principle of his argument is sound, namely; that revolution will only gain mass acceptance until the existing political mechanisms are exhausted.

This also implies the false dichotomy of reform versus revolution. This has no basis in reality.

The aversion is based on a consistent history that ends up repeating itself whenever people like you insist that "This time, it will be different. The rich and powerful really will listen to us this time!"

This only confirms that you don't understand what I'm saying, although, in fairness; you're hardly the only one.

My argument, in the simplest possible terms, I think, is that it is the job of Radicals in the Western, democratic countries to use any, and all means at our disposal to advance, or defend the interests of the working class, up to, and including, parliamentary politics. As we do not live in a revolutionary time period, this primarily consists of protecting the welfare state, which supports the working class, while agitating, organizing, etc., for reforms to relieve the burdens of the working class, and to empower the working class.

Bullshit. They'll only really listen to our demands if we threaten their asses for doing otherwise.

..If enough pressure is exerted, and if it's done smart, in the right way.

Reforms can be rolled back, as we are seeing now - and in these mean economic times it is easy to find excuses to do so.

Yes. Again; especially if they aren't defended. The Radical Left in America has better things to do. I can't speak about the situation, elsewhere. Also, again; you shouldn't expect to win every fight. That doesn't mean you stop fighting.

Also; while this argument is frequently made by the professional talking heads; it's complete bullshit. For example; even with the absolutely retarded sum we are spending on our military, economist Dean Baker has shown that adopting a universal healthcare system, if it's designed properly, would erase the deficit. We might even have a surplus.

So why work with them?

Because they're the only one of the two viable parties that we could, occasionally work with. (Note; 'with', not; 'for.')

If you want to "defend and empower the working class" then the bourgeois political system is the wrong tool for the job. It wasn't created with working class empowerment as its function.

Again; this doesn't mean it can't serve that function.

The US government has effectively declared itself capable of killing any of its citizens for any reason which they can then refuse to disclose on the grounds of "national security".

Anyone deemed to be an; 'immanent threat', which is fairly subjective.

For someone who seems to display so much damn faith in the processes and procedures of bourgeois legalism, you seem remarkably blasé about it.

Look, I'm philosophically opposed to capital punishment. I think it's barbaric. However; I don't mourn for Ted Bundy.

Which to be honest, I think is fucking horrifying. While you personally might not be risking a Hellfire missile up the arse, a precedent has been set for the US government to wack out any of their own citizens who are giving them trouble. Unless you think that "giving the US government trouble" and "being a reactionary" are synonymous, then all American citizens should be concerned.

There's absolutely zero probability that I'm going to be a victim of a drone strike.

So why not build a third party? Surely if bourgeois democracy really is as great as you say it is...

I never said it was great. However; it's certainly better than a police state.

I've been trying to tell you that isn't a viable option, it's actually completely impossible. First of all; it's impossible because we are hopelessly outmatched in terms of resources. In the wake of Citizens United, the cost of campaigning is skyrocketing. We will never raise that kind of capital. That's disregarding the national party infrastructure, the hordes of experienced political operatives, etc. This brings me to my next point, which is that America is an extremely partisan country. Party loyalties run deep, and polling data (Predictably.) shows that most registered Independents are really closet partisans. The tiny sliver of the electorate that truly walks into any election with an open mind is probably so politically ignorant that they shouldn't be voting in the first place, these are the people that vote based on who's better looking, or some such equally bogus criteria. The track record of third parties is abysmal. They virtually always lose, often by enormous margins, especially in Presidential races. Even worse; voting for a third party in a contested district, or a swing state, one of the races that isn't essentially a coronation, is essentially tantamount to voting Republican. The 2000 election is a perfect example. Not only did Ralph Nader get a pitiful 2.74% of the vote, he played a decisive role in handing the election to President Bush, and we're all painfully aware of what a fucking nightmare that was. There's also a number of institutional obstacles to third parties. Etc., etc. The point is; until we change the electoral process, especially campaign finance; third parties don't have a prayer.

Guantanamo Bay is still open, and there are still US boots in Afghanistan. I'm not seeing the difference, really.

First of all; those are only two metrics. If you were really serious, you'd look at a whole range of issues; labor issues, the environment, abortion, gay rights, the welfare state, reproductive rights, etc., etc. Again; the problem is that you lack a basic literacy on the subject of American politics. Again; I don't mean to offend you by saying this, I'm putting it as nicely as I possibly can.

RadioRaheem84

19th January 2013, 19:41

Noxion doesn't lack anything NGN, he understands how bourgeoise politics work really well. He just not delusional into thinking any long term real gains are possible at this point. You keep focusing on the political points and totally ignoring the economic situation that's been happening for thirty years. No president or congress can legislate themselves out of it if they fundamentally accept the premise of free enterprise. If neo liberal economics is the name of the game than you can be an activist til you're blue in the face, it won't win any major significant gains.

You keep acting snobbish and like an insufferable liberal douche saying we do not understand the wonderful dynamics of Americas political system like a bunch of insufferable policy wonks straight out of the Kennedy School. Do we embarrass you or something in front of your liberal progressive friends? Do you wish to be taken seriously be liberals? If you do just drop the anarchist act and become a liberal for fucks sake.

If you view Marxist and anarchist theory as so vulgar then you need to join the ranks of progressive liberals that do too and go start an NGO or something.

PC LOAD LETTER

20th January 2013, 02:51

As an American, I'm siding with Noxion here.

NGNM85

20th January 2013, 04:12

Noxion doesn't lack anything NGN, he understands how bourgeoise politics work really well.

If you're referring to is oversimplification of the mechanics of bourgeois rule, as much as I dislike that kind of talk; it's hard to say; I've made this observation twice, and he hasn't responded.

What is certain is the limitations of his grasp of American politics, (Again; I'm not trying to be mean about that.) which is fine, admittedly; I, myself, know very little about the function of his government, which, as I said; is why I don't talk about it. I mean; the idea that third parties, whether we're talking about existing parties, or some theoretical, new organization, are any kind of viable option, at this time, is preposterous.

He just not delusional into thinking any long term real gains are possible at this point. You keep focusing on the political points and totally ignoring the economic situation that's been happening for thirty years. No president or congress can legislate themselves out of it if they fundamentally accept the premise of free enterprise.

I don't think any sitting US President has ever had any serious dedication to free markets, (Which are almost totally historically unprecedented.) certainly not in recent memory. Even if, by some miracle, a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist got elected, it's not like they could sign an executive order, or something, and establish communism. (Which isn't to say it wouldn't be a good thing.)

If neo liberal economics is the name of the game than you can be an activist til you're blue in the face, it won't win any major significant gains.

It's impossible to respond to that because, typically, you haven't qualified what you're considering; 'significant.' If; 'significant' means; 'fundamental', I'd say that's fairly accurate, at least, in the short term. However; there are plenty of things that we could be doing. For example; again, gay marriage was passed in Maine, and Maryland through ballot initiatives. (Which I sort of have mixed feelings about, but that's besides the point.) Private citizens got together, drafted a petition, collected signatures, and put it on the ballot. Supposedly; we all care a great deal about gay rights, here, so; why aren't Radicals involved in doing this in other states? We've decriminalized cannabis, here, in Massachusetts, this November, we legalized medical marijuana. That may seem trivial, but beyond all the other reasons to reform these absurd prohibitions is that the majority of people being locked up for possession tend to be working class, primarily black, and latino youths. So; I'd definitely consider that worth doing. Even more interesting is the fact that the state of Vermont is trying to set up it's own universal healthcare system. That's worth investigating. It's a model that could potentially be exported to other states. Obviously; that would be a major win for the working class. On the less positive side; reproductive rights in this country are under a sustained attack. It's harder to get an abortion than it was 10 years ago, we're actually going backwards. Is anybody involved in actually resisting this? I don't think so.
Like I said; there's all sorts of things.You don't have to look far.

You keep acting snobbish and like an insufferable liberal douche saying we do not understand the wonderful dynamics of Americas political system like a bunch of insufferable policy wonks straight out of the Kennedy School.

The United States government is many things, but; 'wonderful' isn't one of them. Although; it's better than some governments, but that's not saying very much.

I'm hardly a policy wonk. (Which, incidentally; is a compliment.) You give me too much credit. However; it is absolutely paramount for Socialists to understand the political system and how it works, not just the theoretical stuff, but, y'know; mechanically. Otherwise; we're never going to be very
effective at changing it.

Do we embarrass you or something in front of your liberal progressive (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2566543#) friends? Do you wish to be taken seriously be liberals? If you do just drop
the anarchist act and become a liberal for fucks sake.

I want all sorts of things. I want to live in some kind of decentralized, Anarchosyndicalist federation. I want the physique, and the stamina I had when I was sixteen. I want to get this program I've been wrestling with to function on my laptop. Etc., etc. However; I don't think that's what you're looking for. More to the point; I want the Radical Left to be relevant, again, to be a real force in American politics, to start building a real movement. Right now, from what I can see, the American Radical Left is dominated by what you might call; 'impossibilists' who are actively marginalizing themselves, and the Radical Left, as a whole, who are galloping full tilt towards irrelevance. I don't think these people are double agents, or something, I think they're genuine in their commitment to Socialism, as they understand it, I just think some very bad ideas have become wildly popular, in the modern, American, Radical community. That's something that will have to be overcome, if there is ever going to be a real Socialist movement, in this country, again.

You're accusation that I'm somehow not a; 'real' Anarchist (Which, typically, again; you've neglected to qualify.) is baseless, and wrong, as well as immaterial, because I haven't said anything, in this conversation, that is antithetical to Anarchism.

If you view Marxist and anarchist theory as so vulgar then you need to join the ranks of progressive liberals that do too and go start an NGO or something.

It's not that there aren't any Anarchist theoreticians, but Anarchists are much less inclined towards theory, at least; as far as Anarchism is concerned. This is mostly due to the fundamental differences between Anarchism, and Marxism. In any case; I haven't made any criticisms of Anarchist, or Marxist theory. I actually quoted Kautsky, but I guess you missed that.

NGNM85

20th January 2013, 04:18

As an American, I'm siding with Noxion here.

You're nationality is much less relevant than your competency vis-à-vis American politics. In any case; what is it that you are agreeing with, and why?

PC LOAD LETTER

20th January 2013, 04:31

You're nationality is much less relevant than your competency vis-à-vis American politics. In any case; what is it that you are agreeing with, and why?
That was a reference to your assertion that Noxion just "doesn't get" American politics, here

The real problem, here, is that you lack a fundamental understanding of American politics.

NGNM85

20th January 2013, 04:50

That was a reference to your assertion that Noxion just "doesn't get" American politics, here

I find it impossible to see it any other way. Again; the idea that a third party, especially an explicitly Socialist party, would have any chance of winning any kind of significant representation in Congress, or in the state legislatures (Let's not even talk about the White House.) is ridiculous. Even disregarding the institutional barriers, the astronomical disparity of resources, and the ideological demographics of the American public; just look at how third parties have performed. They don't usually lose by huge margins; they usually lose by colossal margins.

PC LOAD LETTER

20th January 2013, 04:57

I find it impossible to see it any other way. Again; the idea that a third party, especially an explicitly Socialist party, would have any chance of winning any kind of significant representation in Congress, or in the state legislatures (Let's not even talk about the White House.) is ridiculous. Even disregarding the institutional barriers, the astronomical disparity of resources, and the ideological demographics of the American public; just look at how third parties have performed. They don't usually lose by huge margins, they usually lose by colossal margins.
My interpretation of his position was not that he would support an explicitly socialist third-party in elections, but that if you're of the position that bourgeois democracy is a viable route to communism at this point in capitalist development, then why don't you support/build an explicitly socialist third party that participates in elections.

If you think the Democratic party is a viable route to socialism ... I'm going to exit stage-left.

NGNM85

20th January 2013, 05:20

My interpretation of his position was not that he would support an explicitly socialist third-party in elections,..

He's not an American citizen; so he couldn't vote for any party.

I'm also taking this in conjunction with statements he's made, both in other threads, and in private conversation. In any case; the obvious implication of mentioning that third parties exist, or that it's possible to vote for third parties, in this context; is to suggest that I might do that, or that I should do that, which, as I've explained, is totally ridiculous, and, actually, more likely to be counterproductive, as it was in the Presidential race, in 2000.

but that if you're of the position that bourgeois democracy is a viable route to communism at this point in capitalist development, then why don't you support/build an explicitly socialist third party that participates in elections.

If you think the Democratic party is a viable route to socialism ... I'm going to exit stage-left.

Not only did I not say either of these things; they are the literal opposite of what I did say.

For the billionth time; I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of establishing Socialism via parliamentary means. I don't see any evidence that would suggest that's possible, certainly not in any conceivable near-future. I'm not a Reformist. However; that does not mean that Socialists do not have a vested interest in American politics. Beyond the humanitarian aspect, which is compelling, by itself; it's simply logistically impossible to build a broad working class movement without addressing the obstacles that working class people face in their daily lives, and knocking down the institutional barriers that divide the working class. There's simply no other way to do it. That means interacting with the political system.

RadioRaheem84

20th January 2013, 18:25

NGN, you've already admitted you want American radicals to be relevant, which in no time in history were we ever relevant in the mainstream. This is just a personal thing with you. I've never ever met an anarchist with as much invested in the American political scene as you. In fact most of the anarchists I know and have met were even far too radical for my tastes, making me look like the progressive. So this whole anarchist act you've got going on is really a confusing batch of 'radical' liberalism.

Marxists and anarchists understand the system very well. The dynamics of it and the mechanics of it. We just don't see it as being a major source of change at this stage of capitalist development. The little single issues you brought up that liberals are pet peevish about are not what radical leftists are all about. We tackle the systemic root problems first in order for there to not be such a fragmented single issue left movement. That's why we are marginalized. We do not marginalize ourselves because we have this religious devotion to theory. We are marginalized because we are not reformists. If you fundamentally believed in anti capitalism you wouldn't be such a wannabe policy wonk. I take it just you're just tired of your liberal friends thinking anarchism or radical leftism is an irrelevant joke.

NGNM85

21st January 2013, 01:29

NGN, you've already admitted you want American radicals to be relevant, which in no time in history were we ever relevant in the mainstream.

Again; these terms are somewhat subjective. Even if the Radical Left never was; 'relevent', whatever that's determined to mean, and I strongly disagree, that doesn't mean we shouldn't want to be. I mean, like Marx said; the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it. If we're irrelevant to the working class; we can't very well do that.

This is just a personal thing with you. I've never ever met an anarchist with as much invested in the American political scene as you. In fact most of the anarchists I know and have met were even far too radical for my tastes, making me look like the progressive.

There are a lot of people out there who are Anarchists in name only. So-called; 'Anarcho-Primativism', for example, seems to be popular. This
warped ideology has virtually nothing to do with Anarchism.

So this whole anarchist act you've got going on is really a confusing batch of 'radical' liberalism.

It's confusing because you don't understand it. I've tried to have rational conversations with you, but, as they say; it takes two to tango. You have never been willing to do that.

You still fail to understand that; 'Radical liberalism' is a contradiction in terms.

Marxists and anarchists understand the system very well. The dynamics of it and the mechanics of it. We just don't see it as being a major source of change at this stage of capitalist development.

There's no way you can make that assessment with any certainty. Even a cursory survey of the boards will reveal otherwise. Americans, especially, seem to have the least understanding of their own government. I have my own theories about this, but that's beside the point.

The little single issues you brought up that liberals are pet peevish about are not what radical leftists are all about.

So; we don't actually care about gay rights? Or; reproductive rights? Etc., etc.? It doesn't seem like everybody else is on that page.

The systematic, institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is not a mere; 'pet peeve.'

These 'single issues' are particular fronts in the class war. They have the combined effect of weakening, and dividing the working class. If you want to create a mass Socialist movement; that's a problem. Again; this is disregarding the humanitarian aspect, which is more than sufficient, by itself. Also; historically, until fairly recently, Radicals were at the front
lines on these issues.

We tackle the systemic root problems first in order for there to not be such a fragmented single issue left movement.

Socialism can only come about through a genuine, democratic mass movement of the working class, or some large percentage, thereof, and their allies. That's not possible right now, and, much more worryingly; if we don't address the daily injustices, and institutional obstacles that are hindering this process; it might never happen.

Also; if I hear you correctly; then I was right; we're just playing a communist version of Dungeons & Dragons. I didn't get that memo. I thought we were supposed to be actively fighting for the working class.
That's what the German guy said.

That's why we are marginalized.

You're arguing with yourself. You say that the Radical Left is not marginalized, and doesn't marginalize itself, but also that the Radical Left isn't relevant, and has never ben relevant. Both of these things cannot be true.

We do not marginalize ourselves because we have this religious devotion to theory.

You marginalize yourself because you're confused. Because you are an impossibilist, an ultra-Leftist. (Although; in fairness, you aren't the only one.) That's something you'll, hopefully, be able to overcome.

We are marginalized because we are not reformists.

Nobody here is a Reformist. I've been consistently critical of Reformism. You don't even have to look outside this thread. I'm not convinced you know what; 'Reformism' means.

If you fundamentally believed in anti capitalism you wouldn't be such a wannabe policy wonk. I take it just you're just tired of your liberal friends thinking anarchism or radical leftism is an irrelevant joke.

I'm tired of seeing Radicals letting golden opportunities fade away. I'm tired of seeing the working class being battered, and bloodied, while the Radical Left sits on it's collective hands. There's a class war going on. It's long past time we got in the game, and got serious about it.

Again; if we want to make political change, we need to understand how the system works, not in the abstract, but in the specific mechanics. Otherwise; the Radical Left will never be very effective.

RadioRaheem84

21st January 2013, 03:16

Why are you so fucking dense about this? We do understand how the fucking government works. Many of us in here have took Govt 101, we know how laws work, we know about lobbies, Citizens United, and whatever else. It's ridiculous that you think of yourself as this out of the box leftist who is fighting on the front lines of the class war by engaging in bourgeois politics while the rest of us are stuck in theory land.

Work out your own insecurities instead of trolling this forum with your god awful liberalism. I am with Zizek on this one.

And shamelessly. I hate this leftist humanitarian attitude: People are starving! Children in Africa! Who needs theory? No! We need useless theory more than ever today, I claim.

- Slavoj Zizek, http://www.salon.com/2012/12/29/slavoj_zizek_i_am_not_the_worlds_hippest_philosoph er/

Thelonious

1st February 2013, 06:49

http://cdn.cnwimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Michael-Moore-House.jpg

MICHAEL MOORE'S HOUSE

Ostrinski

1st February 2013, 06:53

Michael Moore is shit but damn I would live in a house like that if I had the means to.

DancingEmma

1st February 2013, 10:15

Wow. I can't believe the audacity of this NGNM85 guy. Coming on to a board for radical leftists and telling us how it's imperative to vote for the fucking Democrats? Are you kidding? As if we haven't heard your asinine arguments from liberals a hundred times before. It's not that we don't understand. We understand perfectly. We just don't agree.

I second the observation that it's strange you take this perspective while identifying as an anarchist. I have known anarchists who have voted for Democrats while taking a "lesser of two evils" perspective to justify it. But I have never before met an anarchist who condescendingly demanded that everyone else do this and condemned those who didn't vote Democratic as "not caring about the working class." It's almost funny that you can't see how absurd you are being.

NGNM85

1st February 2013, 15:53

Wow. I can't believe the audacity of this NGNM85 guy.

Don't do this.

If you want to respond to someone's post; use the quote feature, and address them, directly.

Coming on to a board for radical leftists and telling us how it's imperative to vote for the fucking Democrats? Are you kidding?

I wasn't joking, but, more importantly, that's, at best, an extremely misleading paraphrase of what I said.

As if we haven't heard your asinine arguments from liberals a hundred times before. It's not that we don't understand. We understand perfectly. We just don't agree.

I have absolutely no way of determining what it is you do, or do not know, or do, or do not understand, or even what it is that you supposedly disagree with.

I second the observation that it's strange you take this perspective while identifying as an anarchist. I have known anarchists who have voted for Democrats while taking a "lesser of two evils" perspective to justify it.

That happens to be a sound argument, provided you live in a contested district, or a swing state, etc., otherwise; there's not much point in voting at all, unless there's an interesting ballot measure, or something.

But I have never before met an anarchist who condescendingly demanded that everyone else do this and condemned those who didn't vote Democratic as "not caring about the working class."

It's almost funny that you can't see how absurd you are being.

Again; that's not an accurate representation of what I said.

I was talking about, what seems, at least, to be the majority view; that Radicals should completely abstain from the political arena, entirely, that we shouldn't even vote on ballot initiatives, even painfully fucking obvious ones like drug legalization, or gay marriage, let alone something really proactive like actually putting initiatives on the ballot, ourselves. You get all sorts of stupid justifications for this attitude; that a vote in a bourgeois election is; 'a vote for capitalism', (As if capitalism was at stake.) or, even more commonly, that any half-step, any form of incrementalism is ideological treason, because it stops short of the immediate destruction of the status quo. (Which, of course, completely ignores the inconvenient fact that the masses aren't anywhere near revolting.) Lenin called this puritanical, dogmatic outlook; 'Ultra-leftism.' I'm no fan of Lenin, but he describes this phenomena pretty accurately. I was making two points, about that. First; that these people, the; 'Ultra-leftists', if you will, who obsess about what they perceive as ideological purity (Which, I'd argue, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.) are really primarily concerned with how they appear to others; with their street cred. This is because ideological purity has no value, if it is not perceived. Everybody has principles, I don't just do the right thing so I can be seen doing it, but the only reason to be a paragon of virtue, and, even more; to present yourself as a paragon of virtue, is to be seen. My second point, in relation to that, is that one cannot serve two masters. If our primary goal, as Radicals, is the maintenance of some abstract, and, frankly, fuzzy-minded idea of ideological purity, that means it comes before our commitment to the working class. One of those priorities must, inevitably supersede the other. I would argue that Socialists have one top priority, namely; the interests of the working class, and that this overrides any other commitments. That, in a nutshell, was what I was actually saying, which, you'll note, is a bit different.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st February 2013, 17:34

An anarchist who supports voting and referenda because to oppose it would be 'ultra-left' as espoused by Lenin :confused:

You bang on about ideological purity but you're sort of attacking something that's not there. Nobody is saying abstain from politics. After all, Marxism is only effective if it is political and social, and not merely economistic. The point is that you've taken this shit about the Democrats SO far, now you're trying to backtrack by talking about ballot initiatives and what not.

You act as though communists operate (largely) outside the mainstream political arena because we aren't for the working class, or don't have their best interests at heart, or don't care about starving Haitian children AND THE WHOLE OF STARVING AFRICA AND WE NEED MORE AID DAMMIT!

The reason we operate largely outside of the political arena is because it can do little for us, as communist workers. We cannot win power. If we can force concessions from the bourgeois state, then we can only do so (As history shows) through our own initiative, not through already established means, since those very means are the product of institutions which serve only capital, and can only serve capital. You seem to have this asinine failure or refusal to understand this.

Yes, I would love it if tomorrow the minimum wage was doubled, we had full employment and education and healthcare were free and we could work from 21-55 and then retire on a final salary pension. But this shit is just unrealistic and to go down that road is misleading and naive at best, at worst treacherous, because it wastes valuable resources and efforts on trying to achieve something that quite frankly cannot be achieved, something that capital simply will not grant, at least no more than temporarily, as we have seen with the post-war consensus that broke apart after a couple of decades.

NGNM85

2nd February 2013, 04:20

An anarchist who supports voting and referenda because to oppose it would be 'ultra-left' as espoused by Lenin :confused:

That's not entirely wrong, but it's still not an accurate paraphrase.

Anarchism, as a philosophy, does not categorically forbid participating in the political system. However; this misconception is fairly common.

Any Radical who categorically opposes political activity, or any form of incrementalism, as hopelessly compromised, is, to borrow Lenin's term, an; 'Ultra-leftist', as he defined it. (Which you can feel free to confirm.) As I've said; I pretty much despise Lenin, but he was pretty accurate in describing this phenomena, which seems to be epidemic among American Radicals, certainly. I can't make any kind of informed, comprehensive judgment about the situation in any other countries.

You bang on about ideological purity but you're sort of attacking something that's not there. Nobody is saying abstain from politics.

A lot of people are, absolutely, saying that. We don't exactly have to look very far to come up with a multitude of examples. However; in fairness, this tendency, this; 'Ultra-leftism', to use Lenin's phrase, again, is by no means uniform among all individuals. There is, clearly, a spectrum, a range, as to what degree this affliction manifests itself, varying from individual, to individual.

After all, Marxism is only effective if it is political and social, and not merely economistic. The point is that you've taken this shit about the
Democrats SO far, now you're trying to backtrack by talking about ballot initiatives and what not.

That's not accurate. You don't have to take my word for it. The record will show I have always insisted that Radicals should use all political mechanisms afforded to them by our respective political systems, not just voting for particular candidates. Again; feel encouraged to confirm this.

You act as though communists operate (largely) outside the mainstream political arena because we aren't for the working class, or don't have their best interests at heart, ..

I actually don't think that's the case. I think most of these people, yourself included, are actually pretty well-intentioned, for the most part. However; at least in terms of changing society, y'know, like the German guy said. What's in your heart matters a fuck of a lot less than what you do. If we have a plethora of well-intentioned Radicals who are not vigilant in their defense of the working class; what does it matter? That doesn't get us anywhere. I don't question your commitment to Socialism. (*Ahem*) I take that for granted. I just think that a lot of mostly well-meaning Radicals have picked up some very bad ideas that have led them down the wrong path, and that the Radical Left, and the working class are suffering for it. The Radical Left is increasingly irrelevant, in America. It's becoming more, and more of a marginal cult. Meanwhile; the situation for the working class is getting worse, and worse. We're going backwards. The labor movement is probably the weakest it's been in the better part of a century. Abortion is less accessible than it was just 10 years ago. Etc., etc. That's not progression, that's; regression, and it's happening on our watch. This is our responsibility, nobody else's. The healthcare debacle was a perfect example. Beyond being an essential human right, healthcare is the leading cause of debt, and bankruptcy, in America. It's not an exaggeration to say that this was probably the biggest issue facing the working class, and nine-tenths of American Radicals couldn't come to the painfully obvious conclusion they had a dog in that fight. It would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

or don't care about starving Haitian children AND THE WHOLE OF STARVING AFRICA AND WE NEED MORE AID DAMMIT!

If you're going to steal someone's material; I'd advise you to pick someone more intelligent, or, at least, more eloquent.

The epidemic of starvation, and malnutrition in Africa is horrifying, and criminal, however; unfortunately, there's little I can do about that. However; there are plenty of things to be done, right here, at home.

The reason we operate largely outside of the political arena is because it can do little for us, as communist workers.

I have three responses to that;

1. You wouldn't know; you've never even tried.

2. On the state level, or the national level, small differences can have a sizable impact. For example; we still have a few million uninsured Americans. However; to those millions who will get the medical treatment they so desperately need; it's a world of difference. It's everything.

3. Nothing is; 'too little' for the working class. Erase this absurd concept from your mind. If you care; you do everything in your power. Everything.

We cannot win power.

That's vague. If what you mean to say that there is no possibility of any explicitly Radical party, or any party, at all, aside from the two ruling parties, of winning any kind of significant representation in Congress, or in the state legislatures, for the foreseeable future; I'd have to agree. In fact; I've said so, repeatedly.

If we can force concessions from the bourgeois state, then we can only do so (As history shows) through our own initiative, not through already established means, since those very means are the product of institutions which serve only capital, and can only serve capital. You seem to have this asinine failure or refusal to understand this.

This is mostly bullshit. Anything we, to the very limited extent that we are a 'we', do, we do of our own initiative. The fact that the political system is designed for the benefit of the ruling class is an obvious truism. However; it does not then follow that these mechanisms cannot be used to win gains for the working class. This is not some new idea, there's loads of precedent, in history, and in Radical literature. Furthermore; the elites are deeply concerned about it. There's a whole wealth of policy literature, by people like Samuel Huntington, Harold Laswell, or Reinhold
Niebuhr, dedicated to resolving this problem of pacifying, or neutralizing the public so they don't do that.

I've also given some specific examples. In two states, in this election, citizens passed gay marriage. Private citizens put together a petition, got enough signatures, put it on the ballot, and voted for it. That's the same way we legalized medicinal cannabis, here, in Massachusetts. That's not theoretical. There are a number of states where this could be done. Supposedly; we care a lot about gay rights. Why aren't we doing this? These are just two very small examples. I also mentioned Vermont's efforts to establish it's own universal healthcare system. That should be looked at. That could be exported to other states. There's lots of other things.

Yes, I would love it if tomorrow the minimum wage was doubled, we had full employment and education and healthcare were free and we could work from 21-55 and then retire on a final salary pension.

That would be an improvement. However; I don't think all of that's likely.

Since you mentioned it; healthcare, and education are mostly free, in the United Kingdom, or, at least, comparatively inexpensive.

But this shit is just unrealistic and to go down that road is misleading and naive at best, at worst treacherous, because it wastes valuable resources and efforts on trying to achieve something that quite frankly cannot be achieved, something that capital simply will not grant, at least no more than temporarily, as we have seen with the post-war consensus that broke apart after a couple of decades.

There's nothing naïve about it. I'm being the hard-headed pragmatist, here, don't fool yourself.

The material reality of the time period sets the parameters for what is possible. There's no law of capitalism that makes, for example, universal healthcare impossible in the United States, today. That doesn't mean, then, that it will automatically happen, of it's own accord. It just means it's possible. You're also oversimplifying the mechanism of bourgeois rule. (I hate talking like this.) The bourgeoisie rules, but does not govern. The state acts like the executive committee of the bourgeoisie, affecting a consensus it is simply incapable of reaching, on it's own. Take the New Deal, for example. Among other things; it was the best thing for capitalism, at that time. Much of the business class hated it. Roosevelt was denounced as a crypto-communist. A number of businessmen even sponsored a coup against him. This consensus is affected by the proxies of the master class; our elected officials. However; politicians have their own priorities. First among them being staying in office. These things can be exploited.

Gains once achieved can be lost, especially if you don't defend them, which is what's happening now. We built this Pro-Choice movement, we got the verdict in Roe, then somewhere along the line we lost interest and passively allowed the religious Right, and their mouthpieces in the Republican party, erode those victories. (Which was hella stupid, mind.) However; the reason why they it's taking so long, as I've said before, is because they can't do it in a single stroke. Same thing with Medicare, and Social Security. There would be riots. That's the reason. They recognize that power, and, more importantly; they're afraid of it, and have produced a wealth of literature to confirm this. Also; some gains are by nature permanent. The 19th Amendment is staying. Forever. Women are not going to be political nonentities, again. Soon; gay marriage will be legal, in all 50 states, we can help, we can hinder it, we can do nothing, (I'd advise the former.) but it will happen, and soon. When it does happen; it will be forever, and we will have a more just, more decent society because of it, and, more relevant to this conversation; the working class will be strengthened, because there will no longer be an institutional barrier between gay, and straight workers.

Rurkel

2nd February 2013, 04:58

as we have seen with the post-war consensus that broke apart after a couple of decades.
The decline of post-war social-democracy is, perhaps, the strongest argument against left-reformism. Social-democrats, as I noticed, can't really offer a stronger analysis of it then "the workers just should be more vigilant against neo-liberalism next time".

Regardless, Obama isn't even a social-democrat. Heck, he isn't even a left-liberal. True, some reformist gains are fairly staying, but I can't see any potential staying gains right now. Gay marriage, arguably, is the only one. A more active mass worker's movement is needed for other reformist gains - but in that case, see the experience of social-democracy.

DancingEmma

2nd February 2013, 05:01

Lenina Rosenweg

2nd February 2013, 05:23

Briefly, there will not be riots if social security is abolished or radically diminished, the trick is to set up a frenzy of alarm, "oh my god, we're going off the fiscal cliff" and then begin gradualyl but inexorable cutbacks,both parties will cooperate in further screwing us. Its good cop/bad cop.

A few years ago when protests began in Europe and the US was markedly quiet I talked about the relative passivity of the US working class with a friend. My friend remarked that this was "an eloquent testimony to the role of the Democratic Party".The Dems are the graveyard of social movements. Ask anyone who's been a left activist for any length of time.

BTW The man who coined the expression that "politics is the art of the possible" was Otto Von Bismark, the guy who enjoyed watching the Revolution of 1848 crushed, then presided over the development of a militarized "capitalism with feudal characteristics", a high tech society presided over by Prussian Junkers, a development which culminated in the horrific slaughter of the First World War.Art of the possible indeed!

Also no gains made by the working class are "forever". Women's reproductive rights are being rather dramatically rolled back, while the pre-1960s Jim Crow system is officially gone we obviously have a new Jim Crow, called the "war on drugs", with vast numbers of African-Americans in prison, same sex marriage is legal in more states but this had NOTHING to do with the Dems (who opportunistically latched on to this only when support shifted) but from much hard work by grass roots activists, Obama can propose all the DREAM Acts he wants, he's deported something like 2 million undocumented workers and its not over stating matters to say the US is only a few steps from introducing an apartheid/slavery system...

I could go on and on. Anything granted by the ruling class under pressure from below can and will be taken away when its no longer useful.Remember the NEW Deal reforms? Oh wait...

Gains can and will be lost, not if people don't fight for them, but if the fightback is manipulated and then dissipated by liberals, union tops and the Dems. Remember what happened in Wisconsin? My organisation proposed a general strike to remove Scott Walker. The Dems channeled the anger into a recall vote, and put up the unpopular anti-union mayor of Madison. The result was predictable.

The role of the Democratic Party is to stabilize the system, basically to co-opt and marginalize working class struggle. They are very good at this.The rile leftists is to build an alternative politics.

NGNM85

2nd February 2013, 05:41

Stop prattling on about how gay marriage will erase the "institutional barrier between gay and straight workers." LGBT people are oppressed in a hundred different ways that legal gay marriage won't even begin to touch. We're more likely to be murdered, to die of AIDS, to commit suicide because of society's stigmatization of us. I don't see the government doing much to address these problems.

No government could completely solve all of those problems.

The government can't even get its act together to ban discrimination against us at a federal level. . .meaning that in most US states we can be arbitrarily fired from our job and have absolutely no legal discourse. But apparently gay marriage will fully unite us with "straight workers" in some sort of assimilationist wet dream?

Prejudice will not disappear overnight. It may never entirely disappear. However; gay workers, and straight workers will never be social equals until they are legally equal. Institutional discrimination reinforces prejudice, and legitimizes it. It creates a discrete canton for gay workers.

All of this aside; you support gay marriage, yes? Then; why not make it happen? Why is that a bad thing?

What kind of radical are you, anyway?

An Anarchist.

Rurkel

2nd February 2013, 05:48

NGNM85: Do you perceive any kind of negatives in voting for the Dems? If yes, why do you think that the positives outweigh them?

NGNM85

2nd February 2013, 06:19

Briefly, there will not be riots if social security is abolished

There absolutely would be. Without question.

or radically diminished,

This is called; 'moving the goalposts.'

the trick is to set up a frenzy of alarm, "oh my god, we're going off the fiscal cliff" and then begin gradualyl but inexorable cutbacks,both parties will cooperate in further screwing us. Its good cop/bad cop.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but this does bear some resemblance to reality. The establishment parties set a framework for the acceptable authorized discourse.

A few years ago when protests began in Europe and the US was markedly quiet I talked about the relative passivity of the US working class with a friend. My friend remarked that this was "an eloquent testimony to the role of the Democratic Party".The Dems are the graveyard of social
movements. Ask anyone who's been a left activist for any length of time.

I'll ask myself.

He disagrees.

Consider the implications of what you're saying. You're suggesting that we should actually prefer the Right wing of the establishment, the more brutal wing of the establishment, because it's easier to sustain, and grow Radical movements, under those conditions. In that case; we should privatize social security, overturn Roe, bust the remaining unions, etc., etc. Imagine how easy it would be to stir up the masses, then. Thus; the ideal Radical looks a lot like.....Sen. Rick Santorum. This kind of thinking is a dead end. It reduces the question of tactics to; 'How much should we torture the working class?' I don't think I need to go any further.

BTW The man who coined the expression that "politics is the art of the possible" was Otto Von Bismark, the guy who enjoyed watching the Revolution of 1848 crushed, then presided over the development of a militarized "capitalism with feudal characteristics", a high tech society presided over by Prussian Junkers, a development which culminated in the horrific slaughter of the First World War.Art of the possible indeed!

I didn't use that phrase, however; it's not wrong. I also refuse to be cowed by this bogus association. I'm not obligated to apologize for the sins of Otto von Bismarck, because I'm not Otto von Bismarck. Trotsky was once criticized for echoing the Right in his criticism of the USSR under Stalin. He, essentially, said; 'So what? What matters is what's true, not who said it.' By definition; we cannot do the impossible. That's why it's called; 'impossible.'

Also no gains made by the working class are "forever".

Some are. The 19th amendment, for example, which was one of the examples I gave.

Women's reproductive rights are being rather dramatically rolled back,

That was not one of my examples.

It's correct that abortion is less accessible than it was even ten years ago. I actually just said so. Part of the reason for that is the Radical Left doesn't seem to have any interest in defending it. Radicals put up zero resistance. That's unfortunate, especially for women who need to have an abortion.

while the pre-1960s Jim Crow system is officially gone we obviously have a new Jim Crow, called the "war on
drugs", with vast numbers of African-Americans in prison,

That's not example of an accomplishment being undone, but of the emergence of an entirely new problem. However; you are correct. A staggering number of Americans, primarily blacks, and latinos, are imprisoned for drug offenses, many for simple possession. I explained this, in detail, in the other thread, just a few days ago. That's one reason why I think it's a good idea to reform our drug laws. There seems to be immense hostility to this idea. It's baffling.

same sex marriage is legal in more states but this had NOTHING to do with the Dems (who opportunistically latched on to this only when support shifted) but from much hard work by grass roots activists,

I didn't say otherwise.

Obama can propose all the DREAM Acts he wants, he's deported something like 2 million undocumented workers and its not over stating matters to say the US is only a few steps from introducing an apartheid/slavery system...

That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but only a little. However; I'm puzzled as to why you think the Republicans have better ideas about immigration.

I could go on and on. Anything granted by the ruling class under pressure from below can and will be taken away when its no longer useful.Remember the NEW Deal reforms? Oh wait...

They can, sometimes, but that doesn't mean they will.

Gains can and will be lost, not if people don't fight for them, but if the fightback is manipulated and then dissipated by liberals, union tops and the Dems. Remember what happened in Wisconsin? My organisation proposed a general strike to remove Scott Walker. The Dems channeled the anger into a recall vote, and put up the unpopular anti-union mayor of Madison. The result was predictable.

The fact that nearly a third of union members voted for Walker casts serious doubt on the efficacy of such a plan. Even if you did have this general strike; that doesn't get him out of office. He would have to step down, or be arrested for a crime, or be recalled, which is what was tried, and failed, in part because, as I said, even a significant percentage of union members weren't behind it.

The role of the Democratic Party is to stabilize the system, basically to co-opt and marginalize working class struggle. They are very good at this.The rile leftists is to build an alternative politics.

I'm assuming that's supposed to be; 'role.' That's nice rhetoric, but, in practical terms, specifically; what does that even mean? Also; how does that improve the lot of workers, today?

NGNM85

2nd February 2013, 06:29

NGNM85: Do you perceive any kind of negatives in voting for the Dems? If yes, why do you think that the positives outweigh them?

First; I want to thank you for being so polite.

The only conceivable circumstance I can imagine, where it would actually be destructive to vote Democratic, would be if there was a viable ('Viable' being the operative word.) candidate from a more Left-wing party. That would be totally counterproductive. There would be no excuse, in that case. Incidentally; even if something is not counterproductive doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. I didn't vote for the President, because I live in Massachusetts. I just left it blank. I voted for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, or, more accurately; against Sen. Scott Brown, I also voted for a few other candidates, and for Prop. #3; legalizing medicinal cannabis, which passed, by a considerable margin, incidentally.

DancingEmma

2nd February 2013, 06:31

All of this aside; you support gay marriage, yes? Then; why not make it happen? Why is that a bad thing?

I support all people being equal in status regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or living arrangements. As such, I'd like to see the abolition of marriage as a legal institution, as part of a larger abolition of all legal institutions of any kind. I never intend to become married myself and have no strong feelings about same sex marriage one way or another. To the extent that other queer people want it and are working toward it, however, I stand in solidarity with them.

It's ridiculous, though, to imply (as you were doing) that same sex marriage would in some way unite queer and straight people in some fundamental sense. We'd still be hated, we'd still be dying, we'd still be getting fired from our jobs, we'd still be homeless. I reject this overemphasis that liberals and mainstream LGBT institutions put on achieving legal recognition for same sex marriage. The fact that there's such a big fuss about this is evidence of how rich, white, cis, gender-conforming, monogamous gay men dominate the entire LGBT movement. Their exclusion from legal marriage is one of the only ways in which they are still marginalized, and so they are using their comparatively high level of status to pursue marriage even though the community as a whole faces bigger concerns. They are pursuing their dream of assimilation into the elite while throwing the rest of us under the bus.

As a radical, I want to stand in solidarity with the people who are the most oppressed, the most on the margins. I want to work for the eventual total liberation of all people. Not drone on about flavor-of-the-month single issues like gay marriage and medical marijuana like some wannabe policy wonk.

B5C

2nd February 2013, 07:14

A little late coming in, but here is my thought on "Limousine Liberal."

I know you may view Moore as an Limousine Liberal, but everyone little thing he does did help push more people into thinking of Socialism & Communism.

Like the poster before said that the film "Capitalism: A Love Story." That movie also helped me show the right direction for me to become an Socialist of today.

He maybe using the Capitalist system to promote his views, but he is using capitalist against it self.

Did any of you all seen the documentary "The Corporation?" This is what Moore said at the end of the film:

You know, I've often thought it's very ironic that I'm able to do all this and yet what am I on? I'm on networks. I'm distributed by studios that are owned by large corporate entities. Now, why would they put me out there when I am opposed to everything that they stand for? And I spend my time on their dime opposing what they believe in. Well, it's because they don't believe in anything. They put me on there because they know that there's millions of people that want to see my film or watch the TV show, and so they're gonna make money. And I've been able to get my stuff out there because I'm driving my truck through this incredible flaw in capitalism, the greed flaw. The thing that says that the rich man will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he make a buck off it. Well, I'm the rope. I hope. I'm part of the rope. And they also believe that when people watch my stuff, or maybe watch this film, or whatever, they think that, you know, they'll watch this and they won't do anything because we've done such a good job of numbing their minds and dumbing them down, you know. People aren't gonna leave the couch and go an do something political. They're convinced of that. I'm convinced of the opposite. I'm convinced that a few people are gonna leave this movie theatre or get up off the couch and go and do something, anything, to get this world back in our hands.

Telling people that it's wrong to use Capitalism against it self is like saying I don't want to use that M-16 because it was created by my enemy. Use the tool against it's creator and destroy the tool when when the revolution is successful. I don't mind other people like Moore, Rage Against of the Machine, and others to use Capitalism to kill it self and promote the Socialist cause.

Remember also what Tom Morello said before:

When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.

Rurkel

2nd February 2013, 17:19

The only conceivable circumstance I can imagine, where it would actually be destructive to vote Democratic, would be if there was a viable ('Viable' being the operative word.) candidate from a more Left-wing party.Doesn't that logic prevent the emergence of any kind of left-wing party, even a militant social-democratic one? If every radical thinks like you, and is busy cheering for Obama, it doesn't leave much place for 'True Leftism' without some severe cognitive dissonance - or, at least, looking completely opportunist and confused to the workers and pretty much to everyone else. "Vote for Obama, he's the best of all the capitalistic de-facto swindlers we have" doesn't sound productive, and "Vote for Obama, he's really cool... and now let's start building a radical party that will overthrow that capitalist imperialist!!!" is schizophrenic.

There's reason why opportunism - abandoning political principles in favour of minor gains - is a Bad Thing. Even if we accept that revolutionary politics require some compromise (arguable by itself), supporting Obama, who isn't even in the left-wing of the Democratic party, clearly goes beyond any reasonable wiggle room. And trying entryism on the Dems sounds, if anything, even more hopeless then these Trots who attempt to do so with the Labour Party in UK.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2013, 17:29

I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to study Marxism.

Me neither. Rather an angel appeared to me and revealed the truth.

Including the fact that God doesn't exist, and the correct position in the Brenner debate.

That's the reason I am the only real, perfect, flawless Marxist in the world.

Oh wait...

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2013, 17:34

What's the income cut-off line before one stops being a leftist and starts being a limousine liberal?

It varies; an in-depth analysis of the actual situation of wages and the class strength relations.

But, as a rule of thumb, it changes every time I get a wage rise.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2013, 17:39

An anarchist who supports voting and referenda because to oppose it would be 'ultra-left' as espoused by Lenin :confused:

And in the same week when a market socialist argued that Gregor Strasser was a socialist while Lenin was a State capitalist.

And you still don't believe the world is quickly coming to its end?

Luís Henrique

The Red Comet

2nd February 2013, 17:45

I'm not gonna lie. Seeing 'Capitalism: A Love Story' was a big step on my road to becoming a commie.

I was studying more about Socialism when I saw this movie. And I showed it to a few people I knew in real life. It's what made them start checking out Socialism more - Since the movie was effective at showing the faults of Capitalism to a degree.

I think Moore is a hypocrit, but if his movies can be used to further our cause... Then he's entitled to keep making movies that help us. It's probably not his intent, but it's nice anyhow.

NGNM85

3rd February 2013, 04:47

Doesn't that logic prevent the emergence of any kind of left-wing party, even a militant social-democratic one?

The short answer is; no. The slightly longer answer is that to even suggest this reflects a severe misunderstanding of the political reality of the United States, today. There is absolutely no chance, whatsoever, today, for any third party to win significant representation in the state legislatures or Congress, and don't even ask about the White House.

For one thing; in the wake of Citizens United, the cost of mounting a campaign is increasing dramatically, with no signs of slowing down anytime soon. Who has that kind of capital? Certainly no-one in the Radical Left, that's for sure. That's not even taking into consideration the other massive advantages that the ruling parties have; the entrenched, complex infrastructure, the teams of seasoned political operatives, etc., etc. Furthermore; the American electorate is overwhelmingly aligned with on of the ruling parties. Registered independents make up a large piece of the electorate, but survey, after survey shows that independent voters are, overwhelmingly, secret partisans. Then there are the various institutional barriers to third parties, etc., etc. In short; there is no possibility, for any third party, especially a Radical party, in American politics, today, because the system is rigged against it, because the resources are unattainable, and because the American public almost certainly wouldn't support it. Just look at the track record of third parties. Why in the world would anyone think a new radical party wouldn't fail as miserably as the existing Radical parties? So; to bring things around full circle, it would be difficult to make third parties any less viable than they already are, the, currently, insurmountable institutional barriers take care of that. We need to knock down those institutional barriers, campaign finance reform, in particular, before that could even be possible. Beyond being utterly hopeless, and irrational, backing third parties, in swing states, or contested districts is likely to actually be counterproductive, as it was in the 2000 election.

If every radical thinks like you, and is busy cheering for Obama, it doesn't leave much place for 'True Leftism' without some severe cognitive dissonance - or, at least, looking completely opportunist and confused to the workers and pretty much to everyone else. "Vote for Obama, he's the best of all the capitalistic de-facto swindlers we have" doesn't sound productive, and "Vote for Obama, he's really cool... and now let's start building a radical party that will overthrow that capitalist imperialist!!!" is schizophrenic.

First of all; I've never cheered for any establishment party, or politician, quite the contrary. We should never internalize, or reinforce any illusions. The suggestion that we cannot tactically vote for the better of the viable candidates, or encourage others to do likewise, without doing one, or the other is ridiculous. This is extraordinarily easy. I have difficulty believing your imagination is that limited. You just tell people the truth. If workers walk away from you thinking they should vote Republican; you fucked up, royally. I had several conversations with my co-workers prior to the election, and never, once, did I reinforce any illusions. In a nutshell, I said; 'Look, neither of these candidates, or their parties, are on your side. They both represent big business. However; there are policy differences between them. Here are some of the differences, and here's how it could affect you, and your fellow Americans.' That's the condensed version, but it's really that easy.

There's reason why opportunism - abandoning political principles in favour of minor gains - is a Bad Thing.

I don't agree with your characterization. First; what are our starting principles? I have no idea what philosophy you subscribe to. If you are a Maoist, for example; we're not going to be able to find a lot of common ground, because Maoism, and Anarchism are fundamentally incompatible doctrines. One of my primary principles is total, universal, unequivocal support for the working class, this happens to be my top priority, in terms of politics. As such; fighting for reforms, and extracting concessions to defend, or ideally; empower the working class is totally consistent with my principles, in fact; to not do so would be a severe dereliction of my aforementioned primary obligation.

Even if we accept that revolutionary politics require some compromise (arguable by itself),

If you categorically reject any form of incrementalism; you're an Ultra-leftist, which is politically useless. We can't make any progress, if we never take a single step. This attitude guarantees failure.

supporting Obama, who isn't even in the left-wing of the Democratic party, clearly goes beyond any reasonable wiggle room.

I never suggested that anyone should support either of the ruling parties, or any particular politician, at least; not as the word; 'support' is commonly understood.

And trying entryism on the Dems sounds, if anything, even more hopeless then these Trots who attempt to do so with the Labour Party in UK.

I agree; that is probably a lost cause. That's one of the reasons I didn't suggest it.

Rurkel

3rd February 2013, 13:26

I never suggested that anyone should support either of the ruling parties, or any particular politician, at least; not as the word; 'support' is commonly understood.

Well, voting for a politician is giving your support to him. That's why I separate single-issue referenda like the one on cannabis legislation and stuff like the presidential elections.

If you categorically reject any form of incrementalism; you're an Ultra-leftist, which is politically useless. We can't make any progress, if we never take a single step. This attitude guarantees failure.
Depends on why kind of incrementalism it is. Lenin, and whatever you make of the bastard, he did found himself in the leadership of a mass revolutionary movement, never suggested voting for parties like the Kadets, or approved of other leftist radicals doing so. On the contrary, he bashed the Kadets with his typical expressive style, never suggesting that they are a lesser evil in any positive sense.

And he was sure, for a while, that he'll never see any kind of revolution in his lifetime.

NGNM85

3rd February 2013, 18:51

Well, voting for a politician is giving your support to him.

First; you should always attribute quotes. If you're having trouble using this feature; all you have to do is ask.

Calling what I suggested; 'support', without qualification, or some modifier, like; 'electoral', is highly misleading. Again; what I suggested, is that people who live in swing states, or contested districts, and only people who live in swing states, or contested districts, should vote for the less brutal wing of capital, without illusions, while continuing to criticize them, and while working to change the political system so that a better party can actually have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and then voting for that party. Again; calling that; 'support', without qualification, is extremely misleading, at best.

Look at it this way; if someone said that you were an asshole, but that you were slightly better than a worse asshole, so they prefer you, since they have no other choice, but that they intend to continually criticize you, until they can replace you with someone who is less of an asshole; would you say that person 'supports' you, without qualification? I think not.

That's why I separate single-issue referenda like the one on cannabis legislation and stuff like the presidential elections.

This makes no sense. Let's say we've made up our minds, and come to what should be the painfully obvious conclusion that what we need to do, right now, is fight for reforms, and extract concessions to empower the working class. As I've said before; those battles start in the streets, but, presuming we're successful, they must, inevitably end in the courts, in Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the White House. Therefore; we have a clear vested interest in determining who holds those offices. If we want to maximize our effectiveness; we would want to tip the scales in our favor, whenever possible. How does it help the fight for gay rights, or reproductive rights, for example, to elect politicians who campaign on a homophobic, pro-life platform? That's totally counterproductive. It makes absolutely no sense.

Depends on why kind of incrementalism it is. Lenin, and whatever you make of the bastard, he did found himself in the leadership of a mass revolutionary movement, never suggested voting for parties like the Kadets, or approved of other leftist radicals doing so. On the contrary, he bashed the Kadets with his typical expressive style, never suggesting that they are a lesser evil in any positive sense.

And he was sure, for a while, that he'll never see any kind of revolution in his lifetime.

As an Anarchist; I pretty much despise Lenin. (Which is not to say he was wrong about everything; even a broken clock is right twice a day.) It's worth pointing out that Lenin strongly urged British Radicals to support the Labor party, he even suggested that they form a coalition with Labour, and actively campaign for them. Lenin was many things; but he wasn't an Ultra-leftist.

Engels

3rd February 2013, 20:23

What I learned from this thread was that Lenin was the foremost authority on the ultra-left, and that his positions from 1920 should viewed akin to eternal principles easily applicable to the present. Also, anyone who rejects participating in bourgeois elections is a dogmatic ultra-leftist or leans towards that vile tendency known as ultra-leftism whose adherents are obsessed mostly with maintaining their radical image. I stand in solidarity with NGNM85 on his crusade against these foolish heathens.

Rurkel

4th February 2013, 03:05

Look at it this way; if someone said that you were an asshole, but that you were slightly better than a worse asshole, so they prefer you, since they have no other choice, but that they intend to continually criticize you, until they can replace you with someone who is less of an asshole; would you say that person 'supports' you, without qualification? I think not.

But you can always abstain from any kind of support and work on building a "truly radical" movement.

How does it help the fight for gay rights, or reproductive rights, for example, to elect politicians who campaign on a homophobic, pro-life platform? That's totally counterproductive. It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, but how does it help to fight against imperialism/for world peace/something-similar-like-that by electing politicians who inevitably support military adventures and interventionism, like the Dems? (The LBJ-Goldwater elections come to mind here).

As an Anarchist; I pretty much despise Lenin. (Which is not to say he was wrong about everything; even a broken clock is right twice a day.) It's worth pointing out that Lenin strongly urged British Radicals to support the Labor party, he even suggested that they form a coalition with Labour, and actively campaign for them. Lenin was many things; but he wasn't an Ultra-leftist.
I evoked Lenin sorely as an example of someone rejecting compromise with, or limited support for, the bourgeois parties like the Kadets, and yet "winning" regardless.

And while Lenin , along with many leftists on that site, may have indeed consider some non-revolutionary parties to be worthy of support, their logic was different then simple lesser-evilism. Such leftists consider parties like the Old Labour to be working-class parties, non-revolutionary, but fundamentally, qualitatively different then other parties (recent history suggests that they should, at least, take the possibility of complete degeneration of such parties into account). Lenin would not advocate working with a party like the Democratic one.

NGNM85

4th February 2013, 03:09

What I learned from this thread was that Lenin was the foremost authority on the ultra-left,

That's not what I said. I explained Lenin's definition of; 'Ultra-leftism', as stated in Left-wing Communism, basically; Radicals who oppose any form of incrementalism as ideological treason, and adopt a hypermilitant posture that has no relationship to the political, or economic reality, at that moment, and I made it clear that this was the context in which I was using the term. There are other contexts. For example; Leninists often like to use it as code for; 'person I disagree with.' I clearly indicated the context in which I was speaking.

and that his positions from 1920 should viewed akin to eternal principles easily applicable to the present.

I would think someone with the handle; 'Engels' would understand that the revolution can only be carried out by the working class, themselves, and only when circumstances allow it; when they are sufficiently organized, and empowered, and when they have achieved a certain level of class consciousness. That actually is fundamental, and eternal. Clearly; that isn't the case, today. Therefore; to reject politics in favor of an immediate revolution, which even a cursory analysis will reveal is simply impossible, at present,, makes no sense, at all. Furthermore; by ignoring reality,
by clinging to this fantasy, these individuals neglect the most basic commitment of Socialism, namely; the defense of the working class.

Furthrmore; you seem to have missed the fact that Marx absolutely did not suffer from this irrational aversion to politics.

Also, anyone who rejects participating in bourgeois elections is a dogmatic ultra-leftist or leans towards that vile tendency known as ultra-leftism whose adherents are obsessed mostly with maintaining their radical image. I stand in solidarity with NGNM85 on his crusade against these foolish heathens.

Anyone who categorically rejects participating in bourgeois politics is an Ultra-leftist, among other things. I also think it's perfectly fair to say that these people, these; 'Ultra-leftists', are primarily concerned with their image, because their behavior attests to that.

NGNM85

4th February 2013, 03:36

But you can always abstain from any kind of support..

See above.

and work on building a "truly radical" movement.

How do you do that, practically? Do you think the masses will be inspired to revolt by your rhetoric? Welfare mothers aren't burning for Marxist boilerplate. They want healthcare, for themselves, and their children. They want to be able to educate their kids. They want to be able to feed them, clothe them. Etc. That's what they are concerned with. If you can't speak to that, in the present, not in some hypothetical post-revolutionary utopia; they aren't going to listen to you, and they shouldn't. Furthermore; the only way to build a real mass movement is by empowering the working class, and breaking down the institutional barriers that divide them. Finally; the idea of revolution will only achieve mass acceptance once the existing institutions have been entirely exhausted. After that; no-one will be able to stop it.

Yes, but how does it help to fight against imperialism/for world peace/something-similar-like-that by electing politicians who inevitably support military adventures and interventionism, like the Dems? (The LBJ-Goldwater elections come to mind here).

The same way it has always been done. By educating, agitating, marching, etc. There are no electable non-imperialist parties. Nothing short of changing the institutional framework of our electoral system, specifically; campaign finance, will change that. This is almost as irrational as the people who say; 'A vote for a bourgeois politician is a vote for capitalism', as if the fate of capitalism depended on a popular vote.

I evoked Lenin sorely as an example of someone rejecting compromise with, or limited support for, the bourgeois parties like the Kadets, and yet "winning" regardless.

And while Lenin , along with many leftists on that site, may have indeed consider some non-revolutionary parties to be worthy of support, their logic was different then simple lesser-evilism. Such leftists consider parties like the Old Labour to be working-class parties, non-revolutionary, but fundamentally, qualitatively different then other parties (recent history suggests that they should, at least, take the possibility of complete degeneration of such parties into account). Lenin would not advocate working with a party like the Democratic one.

That's not based on anything; you're just coming to the conclusion that is most pleasing to you. Admittedly; I have only read excerpts, of Left-wing Communism, etc., but none of them support this interpretation, quite the contrary.

Philosophy aside; the fact remains that there is absolutely no hope, whatsoever, for a new Radical party, or any of the existing Radical parties, to achieve any kind of significant electoral gains. It's not merely unlikely; it's impossible. Even the Green party; which is much more accessible to the American public, much more experienced, etc., is a pathetic, grotesque failure, in terms of electoral politics. They don't lose by big margins; they lose by enormous margins. So; you're either misunderstanding, or just completely ignoring the political realities of the
United States, today. I'd love it if things were different, I really would, but reality is not multiple choice.

Rurkel

4th February 2013, 04:47

How do you do that, practically? Do you think the masses will be inspired to revolt by your rhetoric? Welfare mothers aren't burning for Marxist boilerplate. They want healthcare, for themselves, and their children. They want to be able to educate their kids. They want to be able to feed them, clothe them. Etc. That's what they are concerned with. If you can't speak to that, in the present, not in some hypothetical post-revolutionary utopia; they aren't going to listen to you, and they shouldn't.
Grassroots local organization and self-help, as well as labour organizations, strikes, the usual leftie non-electoralist practical autonomy-of-the-working-class stuff that makes the political situation different. In fact, you suggest almost the same thing later:

The same way it has always been done. By educating, agitating, marching, etc. There are no electable non-imperialist parties.So, if we are building a Proper Radical Movement (tm) why compromise class independence by supporting Obama, however critically? And on a side note, can't you at least understand the plain old unscientific moral disgust people on the left feel while in any way supporting characters like Obama and the social forces behind them?

Voting for the Dems 'till the movement is "strong enough"? But if it's strong enough to actually help the Dems in any way, if it actually has some political clout, shouldn't it stay on its own? After all, lesser-evilism in a significant force is actually dangerous - it's prone to "vote for Hindenburg if you don't want Hitler to come to power" misjudgements. The fact that lesser-evilism opens the mind of radicals to such misjudgements is a severe negative that you underestimate.

That's not based on anything; you're just coming to the conclusion that is most pleasing to you. Admittedly; I have only read excerpts, of Left-wing Communism, etc., but none of them support this interpretation, quite the contrary.See also Popular Frontism vs United Frontism. Parties participating in a united front, according to orthotrotskyism, are labour ones, and a still worth working with, but all other ones are bourgeois, and working with them would compromise class independence. In fact, I'm puzzled on the "not based on anything" stuff - the leftist argumentation in such cases had always been based on the "workers' party vs bourgeios party" as opposed to "lesser-evil" as such. Too lazy to look up Lenin's pamphlet now, but every othrotrotskyist on the fora had been employing precisely that distinction, and been criticised for it.