Cpusa

[RedGuevara]

So today I applied to join the CPUSA. I was excited because it's the freaking Communist Party of the USA.. And then I did some research. They're not a communist party but rather a liberal, Obama sympathizing party of "left" liberals. Now I have to deal with telling them I'm not interested. I want a strong Marxist group which seems difficult to find.

When did the CPUSA become so soft and conforming to the liberals and trying to achieve "Communism" with the US Constitution and the "Bill of Rights"?

[RedGuevara]

Doesn't seem so and they're so placid. I backed out as soon as I saw that. Now I have to tell the nice people who call to interview me I'm no longer interested. I've learned to do alot more research before I jump into something like that again.

[JPSartre12]

The CPUSA itself isn't particularly revolutionary or communist, but there are the occasional party members who are. Forget about the party; I'd recommend networking with some of the people in the CPUSA who you do like. Most are reformists and liberals who like to refer to themselves as "communist" and "socialist" because it sounds more politically interesting than "progressive", but there is the occasional genuine Marxist in the group. If you look hard enough, you'll find a couple.

If nothing else, using it as a means to connect, talk, and network with other comrades on the Left should be a good enough reason. I'm part of the CPUSA not because I think that the party is going to help the working class in any way but because it's simply a place to meet other people who are Left-of-centre.


I want a strong Marxist group which seems difficult to find.

Yes, these do seem to be lacking in the U.S. Too bad there isn't a large, legitimately revolutionary organization of some kind for us Americans to work with.

[RedGuevara]

I'll give it some thought. My biggest issue is spending "money" I earn with my time in an organization that promotes siding with Liberals. I wouldn't mind interacting with the CPUSA but I wouldn't feel right promoting them.

[Five Year Plan]

So today I applied to join the CPUSA. I was excited because it's the freaking Communist Party of the USA.. And then I did some research. They're not a communist party but rather a liberal, Obama sympathizing party of "left" liberals. Now I have to deal with telling them I'm not interested. I want a strong Marxist group which seems difficult to find.

When did the CPUSA become so soft and conforming to the liberals and trying to achieve "Communism" with the US Constitution and the "Bill of Rights"?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before that, from the late 1920s onward, their role was to act as a shill for the Stalinist bureaucracy.

[Lily Briscoe]

Yeah, it's definitely a good idea to have a real understanding of a "party's" politics, and talk with some people who are members, before you try to join (any organization that allows you to 'join' in the absence of doing these things can be assumed to be pretty awful anyway).

[RedBen]

the left is a joke because people like you lot party bait, dick measure and try to "i'm more revolutionary than you are!" eachother. you all should try to cooperate and expand our base as communists. fuck off. ain't a true "revolutionary" communist party in the states, if there were all the members would be in prison or dead.

[RedGuevara]

RedBen I don't believe in a party that sides with the American politician. But I never said I would deny interacting with them. They're the closest thing America has to a network that's left friendly.

[RedBen]

RedBen I don't believe in a party that sides with the American politician. But I never said I would deny interacting with them. They're the closest thing America has to a network that's left friendly.
you will not find any RELEVANT(and truly none are) party that doesn't. it's sad but true. i'm not a fan of democrats or liberals, but sectarianism is tearing us(in our very small form) apart. i hope everyone is willing to accept that we're all we got. i'd side with a trot in a second over a liberal or democrat. nothing against trots, i just mean that even with ideological differences, i will stand with other leftists. we need more unity on the left. cpua ain't what it used to be by what i read. then again i wasn't alive before 1988, so, what do i know?.

[Radio Spartacus]

the left is a joke because people like you lot party bait, dick measure and try to "i'm more revolutionary than you are!" eachother. you all should try to cooperate and expand our base as communists. fuck off. ain't a true "revolutionary" communist party in the states, if there were all the members would be in prison or dead.

I'd argue there are a decent number of marxists in the US who wish there was an alternative to the ridiculous parties available to them today. The options for leftists today just suck, it really doesn't have to be this way and I don't believe we need to prostrate ourselves before the democratic party to gain support.

EDIT: I would also side with a trot over a liberal anyday, I think that's the right idea.

[Red_Banner]

I plan on joining the IWW.

Not sure what party to join though.

[argeiphontes]

^ Are there any estimates for how many members they have? (I like the IWW.)

[Five Year Plan]

the left is a joke because people like you lot party bait, dick measure and try to "i'm more revolutionary than you are!" eachother. you all should try to cooperate and expand our base as communists. fuck off. ain't a true "revolutionary" communist party in the states, if there were all the members would be in prison or dead.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that the "left" (whatever that is) is a joke because too many of us aren't willing to join hand in hand with the CPUSA's endorsement of Obama and work for the Democratic Party?

[o well this is ok I guess]

I plan on joining the IWW.

Not sure what party to join though.Joining the IWW is supposed to be a mixed bag, real city-by-city experience. If you an accurate picture of the IWW, just contact them and say you'd like to sit in for a meeting or talk to actual members. After all, most organization is done locally, so you're not mostly not gonna hear from anyone out of town.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The CPUSA are open Obama shills.

Fin.


I mean seriously. If you're that far sold into the reformist milieu, why not barrack for a party that is actually left wing?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

you will not find any RELEVANT(and truly none are) party that doesn't. it's sad but true. i'm not a fan of democrats or liberals, but sectarianism is tearing us(in our very small form) apart. i hope everyone is willing to accept that we're all we got. i'd side with a trot in a second over a liberal or democrat. nothing against trots, i just mean that even with ideological differences, i will stand with other leftists. we need more unity on the left. cpua ain't what it used to be by what i read. then again i wasn't alive before 1988, so, what do i know?.You're right to say that we're tearing ourselves apart with sectarianism, that there needs to be a unity of the left. But this unity has to be based upon some principles, one of them being the formation of organizations that do not play class collaborationist roles but set out a strategy for working class independence. The CPUSA does not follow this important principle so at most an independent working class party would work with them on single issues and such much the same way we might work with liberals.

[Comrade Jacob]

I've heard good things about the Marxist-Leninist "Party for Socialism and Liberty". You should try that.

[Comrade Jacob]

^ Are there any estimates for how many members they have? (I like the IWW.)

According to their Wikipedia page they have "2,000 approx"

[cobrawolf_meiji]

The CPUSA is old and is near collapse in my view

[sixdollarchampagne]

The CPUSA is old and is near collapse in my view

Really? At long last, some good news! I can't tell you just how happy the disappearance of Gus Hall's party would make me! But, whatever will the Democrats do without their tireless CPUSA shills, preaching Gus's gospel that there are possibilities for "independent" (sic) political action within the imperialist, pro-war Democratic Party?

[Sea]

I've heard good things about the Marxist-Leninist "Party for Socialism and Liberty". You should try that.
Do you mean the Party for Socialism and Liberation?

[Skyhilist]

^ Are there any estimates for how many members they have? (I like the IWW.)

From what I've heard they've got about 2000 members in the US.

[ComradeLeninist]

Its sad, especially after Gus Hall passed,
However I am hearing good things about The Party for Socialism and Liberation... just need to do some research on it so can't give my full opinion.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

PSL thinks China is a worker's state. Make of that what you will.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've heard good things about the Marxist-Leninist "Party for Socialism and Liberty". You should try that.

Or even better, Workers World Party. Get that original if your sticking with the same politics anyways.

[Prometeo liberado]

The CPUSA are open Obama shills.

Fin.


I mean seriously. If you're that far sold into the reformist milieu, why not barrack for a party that is actually left wing?

There are CPSU dissidents who run the Marxist-Leninist archives who are calling for, you guessed it, a new Party. There big thing is that revisionism started after Gus Hall passed. Delusional at best.

[RedGuevara]

I have actually started interacting with the PSL. Their active in the police brutality marches in California. I'm looking forward to getting involved.

[SonofRage]

I plan on joining the IWW.

Not sure what party to join though.

The IWW is a mixed bag, but there are a lot of good and dedicated people in it. At the very least, you'll learn what it's like to be part of a democratic member-run organization. The organizer training is also worth the time and can be applied outside of just union organizing.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[ComradeLeninist]

Or even better, Workers World Party. Get that original if your sticking with the same politics anyways.
Call my home a rock, but does anyone know why the PSL and WWP split?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

According to their Wikipedia page they have "2,000 approx"

The PSL is not a Party. The PSL have one member in my town. It is a Sect, like the dozens of other 1 or 2 member "Parties" in my region. While I considered joining it for a while, it is absolutely contrary to my objective interests as a worker to join any political organization whose foremost goal is not organization along class lines but along "the line" of its autocratic leadership.

[Comrade Jacob]

The PSL is not a Party. The PSL have one member in my town. It is a Sect, like the dozens of other 1 or 2 member "Parties" in my region. While I considered joining it for a while, it is absolutely contrary to my objective interests as a worker to join any political organization whose foremost goal is not organization along class lines but along "the line" of its autocratic leadership.

That was referring to the CP-USA.

[RedGuevara]

ComradeLeninist I'll get to your question as soon as I can unless other PSL members or those educated in the history know why? I asked one of the party members who have been there longer. Hopefully they'll respond.

[Sharia Lawn]

I think there is something to be said about doing a small degree of research into the theory and program of the organization you're considering joining.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The CPUSA are open Obama shills.

Fin.


I mean seriously. If you're that far sold into the reformist milieu, why not barrack for a party that is actually left wing?

I hate Obama being labeled a Communist. Not that I mind them criticizing Obama, it's that they are equating Communism with Obama's policies.

Communism = No Government, No Class, No Currency.

Obama is pro-totalitarian (NSA and extending patriot act), Pro-Authoritarian (FEMA camps, drone strikes in the USA), and Pro-Bourgeois (Pro-Monsato, Buys out Auto-industry).

He's no commie in my book.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I hate Obama being labeled a Communist. Not that I mind them criticizing Obama, it's that they are equating Communism with Obama's policies.


The problem is that it's the rightwing "critique" of Obama.



Obama is pro-totalitarian (NSA and extending patriot act)Totalitarianism isn't exactly something unique to Capitalist leaders.


Pro-Authoritarian (FEMA camps, drone strikes in the USA),
FEMA camps? That's just some loopy rightwing conspiracy theory. Stop reading Infowars, it's rightwing garbage.


Pro-Bourgeois (Pro-Monsato, Buys out Auto-industry).He's definitely pro-bourgeois, but saving the auto companies is not evidence of that. Buying out the auto-industry wasn't the problem, it was selling it back to the bourgeoisie. Had the auto industry just gone bankrupt, it would have left countless previously-unionized American workers unemployed.


He's no commie in my book. No he's not, but you read like you listen to too much Alex Jones

[Bolshevik Sickle]

...

Sorry, please keep in mind I'm still new to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sorry, please keep in mind I'm still new to this.


Fair enough! Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on you.

Really, the most telling point you make about Obama is the fact that he is pro-Capitalist, which is true. Perhaps the strongest evidence of that is America's policy to Haiti, where the Obama admin pressured Haiti to keep their minimum wage low on behalf of American textile manufacturers.

[LiamChe]

From what I've seen the CPUSA seems quite revisionist, in that they are openly reformist and not really revolutionary, but they have been quite important historically, for the Communist movement in the U.S. I think the WWP or PSL, would be the better American Marxist-Leninist parties.

[Moofy Chewbacca]

Hey y'all. I'm a CPUSA member, just gotta defend my party on a couple points. The party endorsed Obama after an immense amount of internal debate. But, as democratic centralists, when a decision has been made we all stick to it. The fact is, Romney could have effectively destroyed the last of the major labor unions in this country and taken us even farther backwards in environmental policy (which we're already apocalyptically conservative on.) Thus, the endorsement of Obama and many other candidates was a strategic move of defense for the labor movement built- the heart and soul of the red tide.

We are not revisionists, but we do believe in continuing to interpret and learn from revolutionary and political experience. We maintain the closest fraternal ties with the most significant workers' parties internationally, including the ruling parties of Cuba, Venezuela and China. Maintaining solidarity with these governments and parties does not imply that they are models we seek to emulate, but that they are the forefront of any sort of social-economic bloq to speak of against the Imperialist-Capitalist power.

I'd also like to note that we are the biggest, most coherent Marxist party in the U.S., and I'm not ashamed of our Stalin-allied past. Using the vanguard of the USSR, regardless of internal humanitarian crisis in the police state, was the most logical thing to do for a radical working class movement.

If there's one thing I've learned from Marx and good ol' Lenin, it's that politics is material. All this high-horse Trotskyite and Anarcho-whoknows rubbish has made a religion out of leftism, pulling it away from the real cause-and-effect of reality into the stratosphere of idealism. But of course, that's just like my opinion, man.

[Red Commissar]

I don't understand, what has Obama exactly done for the labor movement beyond not being a republican (which is as best I can understand your explanation)? I mean they couldn't even pass that union-backed labor law when the Democrats had control over both houses, and Obama obviously didn't see it as something he had to get his party together on like they did with the healthcare reform.

[adipocere]

I don't understand, what has Obama exactly done for the labor movement beyond not being a republican (which is as best I can understand your explanation)? I mean they couldn't even pass that union-backed labor law when the Democrats had control over both houses, and Obama obviously didn't see it as something he had to get his party together on like they did with the healthcare reform.
I think the difference is that Republicans are prone to making it an ideological point to actively destroy labor in the United States. In general, Democrats do not. Obama was only a win for labor in the sense that someone like Gov. Scott Walker is anti-labor.

[Remus Bleys]

Obama was only a win for labor in the sense that someone like Gov. Scott Walker is anti-labor.
What?

[Remus Bleys]

I think the WWP or PSL, would be the better American Marxist-Leninist parties.
So, from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, you think the Milosevic-Juche WWP and Dengist-Bolivarian PSL is antirevisionist?
:laugh::laugh:

I love when you post.

[Alexios]

I think the difference is that Republicans are prone to making it an ideological point to actively destroy labor in the United States. In general, Democrats do not. Obama was only a win for labor in the sense that someone like Gov. Scott Walker is anti-labor.

That's beside the point. If you think that rhetoric by the bourgeois parties actually makes a difference within capitalism then you really need to look more into Marxism.

[Sea]

The party endorsed Obama after an immense amount of internal debate. But, as democratic centralists, when a decision has been made we all stick to it. The fact is, Romney could have effectively destroyed the last of the major labor unions in this country and taken us even farther backwards in environmental policy (which we're already apocalyptically conservative on.) Thus, the endorsement of Obama and many other candidates was a strategic move of defense for the labor movement built- the heart and soul of the red tide.If this was really done from a pseudo-Leninist strategic standpoint, kapoosa would be advocating for just that, not shilling for Obama outright. (http://www.cpusa.org/why-vote/) Your post might be semi-believable if kapoosa said like "He's a dirty capitalist pawn just like Romney, but poses less of an immediate threat to our movement, and therefore should be voted in in the meantime.". But no. Instead, you came out with a bunch of "He's on our side!" rhetoric. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter. The former is making a tactical move in order to exploit a conflict of internist within the bourgeois parties. If this is what y'all were really doing by endorsing Obama, you should have been honest on the fact that this involves voting for a bourgeois politician, instead of claiming that Obama is "on our side". Recall what "Good ol' Lenin" had to say regarding the necessity of this honesty:

If the objection is raised that these tactics are too "subtle" or too complex for the masses to understand, that these tactics will split and scatter our forces, will prevent us from concentrating them on Soviet revolution, etc., I will reply to the "Left objectors: don’t ascribe your doctrinairism to the masses! The masses in Russia are no doubt no better educated than the masses in Britain; if anything, they are less so. Yet the masses understood the Bolsheviks, and the fact that, in September 1917, on the eve of the Soviet revolution, the Bolsheviks put up their candidates for a bourgeois parliament (the Constituent Assembly) and on the day after the Soviet revolution, in November 1917, took part in the elections to this Constituent Assembly, which they got rid of on January 5, 1918—this did not hamper the Bolsheviks, but, on the contrary, helped them.
We are not revisionists, but we do believe in continuing to interpret and learn from revolutionary and political experience.This is just vague phrase-mongering.
We maintain the closest fraternal ties with the most significant workers' parties internationally, including the ruling parties of Cuba, Venezuela and China. Maintaining solidarity with these governments and parties does not imply that they are models we seek to emulate, but that they are the forefront of any sort of social-economic bloq to speak of against the Imperialist-Capitalist power.The ruling parties of Cuba, Venezuela and China (especially China) are outright revisionist and opportunist parties. Expressing solidarity with the proletariat of Cuba, of Venezuela and of China, that is one thing, but shilling for their disgusting parties is quite another.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear brother, the left of the USA has lots of problems, sectarianism, lack of communication propaganda skills with the masses, an excess of silence along with many problems. Just like the left of many other countries. The left of USA and the left of many many other countries should experience a radical change, because if not Europe, USA and many other countries of this unjust world will be ruled by capitalist parties. We need to fix and save the left of the whole world as soon as possible. That's why many people lose motivation with the left, so what they do is that they support the lesser-evil parties in all elections.

And there is a problem i see in the left of the USA, the problem is that the progressive bourgeoise liberal anti-communism left like commondreams.org, alternet.org, counterpunch.org, The Green Party, and the bourgeoise liberal intellectuals like Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Amy Goodman, Jesse Jackson, Bernie Sanders,. etc. that social-democrat, centrist, middle class left, college left, reformist bourgeoise liberal left has literally destroyed the communist left. I think because the anti-communism bourgeoise left like Amy Goodman and Katrina Vanden Heuvel have a lot more economic, political and media power than the communist marxism authentic left which are very poor in funding and economic resources, in order to compete with Democracy Now, Russia Today News and other revisionist, bourgeoise centrist leftist sources


.


Doesn't seem so and they're so placid. I backed out as soon as I saw that. Now I have to tell the nice people who call to interview me I'm no longer interested. I've learned to do alot more research before I jump into something like that again.

[adipocere]

That's beside the point. If you think that rhetoric by the bourgeois parties actually makes a difference within capitalism then you really need to look more into Marxism.

It's not beside the point. It's a very important reason why what remains of the working class still faithfully votes for democrats every election cycle. It can literally be the difference between keeping your pension and losing your job.
I'm not sure how much longer that will last. I don't think young people vote democrat for the same reasons as my parents generation did. From my perspective there is very little difference between the parties. I literally have nothing to lose.

[Five Year Plan]

It's not beside the point. It's a very important reason why what remains of the working class still faithfully votes for democrats every election cycle. It can literally be the difference between keeping your pension and losing your job.
I'm not sure how much longer that will last. I don't think young people vote democrat for the same reasons as my parents generation did. From my perspective there is very little difference between the parties. I literally have nothing to lose.

It's beside the point if your purpose is to overthrow the bourgeoisie rather than backing one faction of the bourgeoisie against another in an attempt to repair and manage capitalism.

At what point will you and your CPUSA comrades begin actually opposing all factions of the bourgeoisie? When there isn't one faction that doesn't advance positions which, on paper, seem more "progressive"? There will always be a faction of the bourgeoisie that is less reactionary than other parts. If you and CPUSA fellows had been around in the fall of 1917, you would have supported the provisional government against the monarchy ... and against the Bolsheviks. Same reformist anti-revolutionary politics, slightly different packaging.

Supporting any faction misses the point that strengthening any part of the bourgeoisie strengthens the systems as a whole, and indirectly empowers all members of the bourgeoisie, including the most reactionary. This is what revolutionaries call the class line.

[Moofy Chewbacca]

If this was really done from a pseudo-Leninist strategic standpoint, kapoosa would be advocating for just that, not shilling for Obama outright. Your post might be semi-believable if kapoosa said like "He's a dirty capitalist pawn just like Romney, but poses less of an immediate threat to our movement, and therefore should be voted in in the meantime.". But no. Instead, you came out with a bunch of "He's on our side!" rhetoric. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter. The former is making a tactical move in order to exploit a conflict of internist within the bourgeois parties. If this is what y'all were really doing by endorsing Obama, you should have been honest on the fact that this involves voting for a bourgeois politician, instead of claiming that Obama is "on our side". Recall what "Good ol' Lenin" had to say regarding the necessity of this honesty:
I agree with you. I think this Obamaphillic shit is terrible, and I've spoken against it actively within the Party. However, we, the North American far left, are a tiny impotent minority of a tiny impotent labor movement. Thus, I understand why certain decisions have been made in this regard. But, thus is the sorrow of democratic centralism. The Party can and does do more good for the movement than any other far-left party simply because of our numbers and history. And because we don't say this sort of thing:
The ruling parties of Cuba, Venezuela and China (especially China) are outright revisionist and opportunist parties. Expressing solidarity with the proletariat of Cuba, of Venezuela and of China, that is one thing, but shilling for their disgusting parties is quite another. Congratulations, you've just shat all over the Communist movement built. I am VERY unhappy with China myself, but there's a bigger picture here: A growing Anti-Imperialist bloc, of which far-Leftist praxis has played a central role in. Look at the needs of the people-- Cuba and Venezuela have both made massive gains in economic redistribution, and more importantly, are setting new precedents in the region. I don't really care if they have opportunist or revisionist elements, the material conditions they're creating necessarily further the cause of Socialism. And do you not think that the alliance forming between Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and other increasingly left-leaning countries isn't just a wee bit important to the Anti-Imperialist struggle? In any case, I feel like y'all gotta get off your better-Marxist-than-thou high horses and take a look at where we actually stand.

[Moofy Chewbacca]

It's beside the point if your purpose is to overthrow the bourgeoisie rather than backing one faction of the bourgeoisie against another in an attempt to repair and manage capitalism. Apparently people's actual material welfare in the short term is beside the point. . .

[Five Year Plan]

Apparently people's actual material welfare in the short term is beside the point. . .

A valid point if you think that people's "actual material welfare" lies in electorally supporting a faction of the bourgeoisie. My point was that supporting one faction of the bourgeoisie against another doesn't boost people's actual material welfare. Their actual material welfare is improved through actively opposing the bourgeoisie and the system they promote, both in grassroots activism and electorally. It says a lot about the sorry state of the "revolutionary" left that I need to explain this elementary principle not just once but twice.

[RedMaterialist]

Why haven't the European labor unions done more to support the U.S. labor movement? For instance, Volkswagen makes cars in a U.S. right to work state (somewhere in the US south, I believe.) Why do German labor unions allow this?

[Remus Bleys]

Why haven't the European labor unions done more to support the U.S. labor movement? For instance, Volkswagen makes cars in a U.S. right to work state (somewhere in the US south, I believe.) Why do German labor unions allow this?
Because the leaders don't care...
And unions aren't that powerful.

[Red_Banner]

Why haven't the European labor unions done more to support the U.S. labor movement? For instance, Volkswagen makes cars in a U.S. right to work state (somewhere in the US south, I believe.) Why do German labor unions allow this?


The public sector unions, such as the ones for the public schools in my area only care about themselves.

They want good pay and benefits, but only for themselves.
They don't want to bring up the rest of society with them.

[RedGuevara]

Cuba has done what it has to to remain in this shitty Capitalist world. They've done great things with redistributing the little bit they have. Their people are fed and the children educated. They have a greater sense of equality between men and women. Cuba is one of our biggest allies for International Socialism. Also China isn't worthy of being called Communist when they allow the wealthy imperialist to enslave their people for profit at bear to none wages.


Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk

[Moofy Chewbacca]

A valid point if you think that people's "actual material welfare" lies in electorally supporting a faction of the bourgeoisie. My point was that supporting one faction of the bourgeoisie against another doesn't boost people's actual material welfare. Their actual material welfare is improved through actively opposing the bourgeoisie and the system they promote, both in grassroots activism and electorally. It says a lot about the sorry state of the "revolutionary" left that I need to explain this elementary principle not just once but twice.

You're being idealistic and promoting an immaterial ideal, not explaining an elementary principle. How, exactly, is complete non-participation in the federal US electoral system "actively opposing the bourgeoisie"? This is like those Anarchists who think starting up co-op businesses is fighting the system- it's not, it's choosing to stand aside and do nothing on a certain axis of action.

[Remus Bleys]

You're being idealistic and promoting an immaterial ideal, not explaining an elementary principle. How, exactly, is complete non-participation in the federal US electoral system "actively opposing the bourgeoisie"? This is like those Anarchists who think starting up co-op businesses is fighting the system- it's not, it's choosing to stand aside and do nothing on a certain axis of action.
how exactly is kissing the democrats ass "actively opposing the bourgeoisie"?

[Five Year Plan]

You're being idealistic and promoting an immaterial ideal, not explaining an elementary principle. How, exactly, is complete non-participation in the federal US electoral system "actively opposing the bourgeoisie"? This is like those Anarchists who think starting up co-op businesses is fighting the system- it's not, it's choosing to stand aside and do nothing on a certain axis of action.

You are confusing fighting for reforms, which every revolutionary should favor and participate in, with electorally supporting a bourgeois party, which revolutionaries should never favor or do.

[KurtFF8]

I think the difference is that Republicans are prone to making it an ideological point to actively destroy labor in the United States. In general, Democrats do not. Obama was only a win for labor in the sense that someone like Gov. Scott Walker is anti-labor.

Have you seen the recent Democratic complacency in assaulting teacher's unions?

Even the "big progressive" soon-to-be-mayor of NYC said he may be harsh when it comes to negotiating with public sector city unions.


The public sector unions, such as the ones for the public schools in my area only care about themselves.

They want good pay and benefits, but only for themselves.
They don't want to bring up the rest of society with them.

That's not really true, considering unions (including public sector ones) are usually the only major institutions that fight for things like minimum wage increases, paid sick days for all workers, etc.

[Red_Banner]

Have you seen the recent Democratic complacency in assaulting teacher's unions?

Even the "big progressive" soon-to-be-mayor of NYC said he may be harsh when it comes to negotiating with public sector city unions.



That's not really true, considering unions (including public sector ones) are usually the only major institutions that fight for things like minimum wage increases, paid sick days for all workers, etc.

When they start trying to organize workers at industrial parks and retail stores I might believe that.

As I have said the public school teachers unions are only in it for themselves.

[KurtFF8]

When they start trying to organize workers at industrial parks and retail stores I might believe that.

Huh? There are major unions whose sole purpose is to organize retail workers (UFCW/RWDSU) and that's exactly what they do. Where do you think OUR WalMart comes from?


As I have said the public school teachers unions are only in it for themselves.

This is quite similar to right wing anti-union talking points.

[Prometeo liberado]

This entire thread hurts my head.

[Geiseric]

I think the difference is that Republicans are prone to making it an ideological point to actively destroy labor in the United States. In general, Democrats do not. Obama was only a win for labor in the sense that someone like Gov. Scott Walker is anti-labor.

Lol eat shit. Do you even know who Rahm Emmanuel is?

[adipocere]

Lol eat shit. Do you even know who Rahm Emmanuel is?
in general... though traditionally might be more accurate.

[Geiseric]

in general... though traditionally might be more accurate.

Not really. You should read a book about US history. Peoples History by Howard Zinn is pretty good. Bourgeois will NEVER support the unionization of workers.

[adipocere]

Not really. You should read a book about US history. Peoples History by Howard Zinn is pretty good. Bourgeois will NEVER support the unionization of workers.

Don't lecture me. Had you bothered with context you would see that I was referring to one of the reasons why working class people keep voting for democrats in the US, not my own opinions about how futile it all is.

[Remus Bleys]

Bourgeois will NEVER support the unionization of workers.
Actually...

Indeed, the more intelligent sections of the bourgeoisie would readily accept a reform of the state and representative apparatus in order to give a larger place to the “apolitical” unions and even to their claims to exercise control over the system of production. The bourgeoisie feels that, as long as the proletariat’s action can be limited to the immediate economic demands that are raised trade by trade, it helps to safeguard the status-quo and to avoid the formation of the perilous “political” consciousness – that is, the only consciousness which is revolutionary for it aims at the enemy’s vulnerable point, the possession of power.