Personal Take On State Of American Politics

[CommunistInDixie]

In my opinion we are in a pivotal moment in America today. We are seeing a Fascist maniac executing a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Many members of the Republican establishment are actively floating the idea of funding a third party run.

On the left however something interesting is happening. A recent survey amongst millennials shows that they believe by a margin of roughly 55% to 30% that Socialism is a better alternative to Capitalism. At the bottom of this survey however 9% believe Communism to be a better alternative. Now think about that for a moment. 10 years ago would that have even been on the survey? It certainly wouldn't have gotten 9%. Together Socialism/Communism takes up 64% of the next greatest generation. This is HUGE for the movement. Our time is at hand.

Now say what you want to about the Reactionary Tea Party Right. They do have something that we don't have. They have organization. Right now the Revolutionary Left is fractured into multiple parties and most fight amongst themselves. There is no unity which is what Marx said is essential. The CPUSA is an absolute JOKE and in the pocket of the Democrats. The RCP, while having good politics, turns people off with the Avakian Personality Cult(if you haven't read the 2016 RCP resolutions you should check it out. It actually made me laugh at how everyone of them was talking about how wonderful and amazing Avakian is and none of it was about expanding the party or advancing revolution in any practical way.) As of now Socialist Alternative is the most viable party in my opinion. They actually run candidates and are trying to unite the Revolutionary Left. The PSL also has merits. I've already decided to vote for La Riva in November should $hillary win the nomination. Yes I am voting for Bernie if he wins. Yes I know he is not even really a socialist but its about progress and taking things a step at a time. I believe Bernie will actually push the country to the Left which overall is good for the movement.

I believe in Socialism through the Ballot Box. Call me a Trotskyist if you wish but I think these labels are overall harmful as it divides us up and distracts us. Political Revolution is not only viable, in my opinion it is the ONLY way to advance the movement. I'm sorry to say it, but there is NO WAY there will be an armed Communist Revolution in America today. It's not practical nor is it realistic. It's a pipe dream(not to say I haven't daydreamed about leading a communist revolution in the streets, any good communist would :laugh:) That is not to say that it couldn't change. If we happened to get into another extended conflict on a mass scale(WW3) then I could see how we could seize power much like the Bolsheviks did in Russia. But now, we have to recognize where we are and be practical about how to advance the Revolution.

If we are going to take advantage if this favorable view of socialism and communism among the youth we have to GET ORGANIZED! We have got to stop dividing ourselves by Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Leninist, Marxist, etc. because all of these ideologies make good points and have good ideas. None of them are 100% right. We will never get anywhere as long as we refuse to work together and we will miss out on this window of opportunity we now have.

In closing, I implore you comrades, go VOTE. Vote for Bernie, Vote for La Riva, Write in Karl Marx it doesn't matter just make your voice heard. The reason the Reactionary Right has been able to hijack this country is because they are organized, vocal, and active in politics. We need a real party, Socialist Alternative might be it but the jury is still out. The powers that be want us fractured. We can't let them have what they want. We must advance the revolution in unity not division.

Workers of the World UNITE!

[Exterminatus]

I'm interested in that poll where 9% of millenials have expressed favourable view of communism. Can you link the source?

[Tim Cornelis]

The poll was about what they believed were the most compassionate system. You may find something compassionate, without finding it desirable as a whole. I may find Alevism the most compassionate belief system without subscribing to it. Maybe they say "compassionate? yes" "workable alternative? no".

[Verneinung]

I'd disagree with your analysis to some extent.

It has always been a "pivotal moment". And the left, always fragmented, has been systematically destroyed, even to the point of an ability to organize.

And that latter part is key. It is not just that there is lack of organization and, more importantly, leadership, there is a lack of infrastructure upon which to build movements and parties.

The right now has a filtration system to overcome -- prison/criminal justice, universities, debt, unemployment, work hours/schedules, media, etc. So there has to be 100x more work with 100x less hope and enthusiasm. At the same time real life connections have be put down, and online seems powerful, but it is also all right in front of the faces of people trying to stop movements.

The reactionary right is the purpose of the Republican party also. The Tea Party is part of the establishment manipulation of politics and aim of keeping the party far right and keeping those working people from discovering and associating with left politics. Trump is just exploiting this. The only reason they are against Trump is that he is against immigration, trade deals and war; plus, he is speaking out on their corruption, and he is showing that he might move more to the left and not follow Republican orders.

[ckaihatsu]

I believe in Socialism through the Ballot Box. Call me a Trotskyist if you wish but I think these labels are overall harmful as it divides us up and distracts us. Political Revolution is not only viable, in my opinion it is the ONLY way to advance the movement.


I appreciate the sentiment, but -- just f.y.i. -- you have some conflicting / contradictory ideas here: If 'political revolution' is 'the only way to advance the movement', then that *excludes* socialism-through-the-ballot-box. We already know that the system is that of the bourgeoisie's, and we also know that Sanders only supports 'socialism' *domestically*, or, 'bread-and-circuses' for the people of the U.S. while the country's imperialist and militaristic policies against the people of the *rest of the world* will remain unchanged.





"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.




This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans.[5] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses


---





I believe in Socialism through the Ballot Box. Call me a Trotskyist if you wish but I think these labels are overall harmful as it divides us up and distracts us. Political Revolution is not only viable, in my opinion it is the ONLY way to advance the movement.


Also, no *Trotskyist* would call for socialism through the ballot box. By definition Trotskyists look to the *working class* for the impetus and base of political revolution.

'Labels' are not merely labels -- they are objectively / empirically *descriptive*, and very accurate, once factional-subjective uses and meanings are filtered-out, as I have here with the following diagram:


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)


*Fortunately*, though, the real-world context of political events can serve to constructively overlap and *reinforce* the agendas and activities of various revolutionary left tendencies, organizations, and participants -- so it's not all pissing-in-the-wind, for any given day.

[CommunistInDixie]

static.politico.com/bc/7c/c808106e44eaa8855a3a12553bb7/snapchat-generation-release.pdf
I can't post a direct link because of my post count but if you copy and paste this it will take you to the report. Page 12 is where you will find the numbers I spoke of.


It is not just that there is lack of organization and, more importantly, leadership, there is a lack of infrastructure upon which to build movements and parties.

The right now has a filtration system to overcome -- prison/criminal justice, universities, debt, unemployment, work hours/schedules, media, etc. So there has to be 100x more work with 100x less hope and enthusiasm. At the same time real life connections have be put down, and online seems powerful, but it is also all right in front of the faces of people trying to stop movements.
Don't you think that's a little defeatist? Yes the internet helps bring us together and share ideas. But it also provides the base for the infrastructure you're talking about. Just imagine if every active member of this board decided to meet and organize in some city in the US. Then wouldn't we have infrastructure and leadership? Leadership we ourselves could put forward? Internet and Social Media has made it easier now to build movements. We should be using it more than we are. You're right, the left has always been fragmented and was destroyed during the Cold War. But why can't we build it back? If we just accept that that's the way it is because it's always been that way then we give our adversaries what they want.

ckaihatsu
I found your post very informative thank you. Apologies if I contradicted myself as I said in my original post I don't find these labels helpful so I don't really analyze in-depth what they all mean. I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here by saying that but it's how I approach things. I don't think labeling yourself as one of those is necessarily a bad thing. It's just when someone refuses to work with their comrades based on ideologies does it become harmful.
One question though. Do you think that "bread and circuses" is better than not having any at all? I don't know if the imperialism would stop under a Sanders Administration. I have a optimistic view that maybe it would at least be turned down a notch. The doctrine of Regime Change would be thrown out the window, I truly believe that.

[Synergy]

I believe in Socialism through the Ballot Box.
...

The powers that be want us fractured. We can't let them have what they want. We must advance the revolution in unity not division.

Most people get their political news from the mainstream media and those corporations will not cover a third party. At most you can expect a passing mention or a hit piece. If a revolution does happen it will probably be in the streets after some kind of major event breaks through the right-wing propaganda.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In my opinion we are in a pivotal moment in America today. We are seeing a Fascist maniac executing a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Many members of the Republican establishment are actively floating the idea of funding a third party run.
The only real difference between Trump and the Republican establishment is he eschews their dog whistles and just says it outright.


On the left however something interesting is happening. A recent survey amongst millennials shows that they believe by a margin of roughly 55% to 30% that Socialism is a better alternative to Capitalism.What they mean by socialism is a mix of liberalism and social democracy, though.

[Burzhuin]

The only pivotal point we can create ourselves. The only way to work with workers and promoting idea of, in my case, communism. I spoke last weekend with member of Socialist party. When he started to explain his (I hope it was his, not the Party) vision of socialism in USA I got very messy picture. But he went ballistic when I asked about Proletariat Dictatorship.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu
I found your post very informative thank you. Apologies if I contradicted myself as I said in my original post I don't find these labels helpful so I don't really analyze in-depth what they all mean.


No prob -- just be 'advised' that I happen to take a particular interest in *explaining* such things, and in making (revolutionary) politics more understandable.

Feel free to consider the following -- again, f.y.i.:


Political Spectrum, Simplified



http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)


G.U.T.S.U.C., Individualism - Tribalism



http://s6.postimg.org/izeyfeh9t/150403_2_Individualism_Tribalism_aoi_36_tiff_x.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/680s8w7hp/full/)


---





I'm probably shooting myself in the foot here by saying that but it's how I approach things. I don't think labeling yourself as one of those is necessarily a bad thing. It's just when someone refuses to work with their comrades based on ideologies does it become harmful.


Well, with this statement you're treading very close to a 'leftist unity' line, which is problematic because it's *idealism*, detached from the real-world political environment -- actual conditions *do* have a bearing on different 'stripes' of ideologies, and revolutionary leftists, for example, will *not* necessarily respond the same way to events as *liberals* will, and for good reason. (Consider the Sanders campaign.)

To the previous 'fundamentals' diagram I'll add the following complementary one, which illustrates some political developments from circa 2004, to depict the delineation / distinction of 'politics - strategies - tactics'.


[21] Ideologies & Operations



http://s6.postimg.org/7bv0qzsvl/21_Ideologies_Operations.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/x7era6up9/full/)


I happened to recently address this subject matter in a particular 'case study' at another current thread:





'[L]egitimate' would not come from any of us, because revolutionaries do *not* consider any of these geopolitical machinations to *be* legitimate. (Hence no flag-waving.)

Taking your presentation at face-value and without any fact-checking, I'll note that this stated action of *alliance* could not be termed an 'occupation', nor should any purportedly revolutionary ('Stalinist') parties be *welcoming* another bourgeois-national force, since that's simply inappropriate.

From the revolutionary standpoint a tentative, united-front 'alliance' with other-national forces (or intra-national forces, for that matter) would just be a *tactic*, and nothing more.




[T]here are objectively *levels of involvement* at play, which can be structured as 'politics - strategies - tactics'. Just because we may be against the NATO bombing of Syria (and Libya, for that matter), that doesn't mean that we're automatically all waving flags for one nation-state or another. (To spell-it-out, it would be a *strategy* to oppose imperialist warfare against a particular country, but that doesn't make that targeted country an *imperialist* one itself, nor does it mean that revolutionaries are siding with nationalist politics *in general*.)


Russia, Syria and the camp of resistance in the Middle East

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2869529&postcount=32


---





One question though. Do you think that "bread and circuses" is better than not having any at all? I don't know if the imperialism would stop under a Sanders Administration. I have a optimistic view that maybe it would at least be turned down a notch. The doctrine of Regime Change would be thrown out the window, I truly believe that.


This is a fair question, and Obama was brought into office in large part to mitigate the neoconservative wartime regime under his predecessor, Bush.

We have to keep in mind, though, that 'war is the health of the state', so if any given sufficiently-developed country *isn't* actively colonizing and exploiting lesser countries (for their resources and cheap labor), that country is definitely going to be *stagnating* economically.

Sure, there's no reason to *turn down* reforms, like social services of whatever kind, but, again, we have to look at *foreign policy* as well as domestic policy.

[ckaihatsu]

Michelle Alexander's message on presidential race


Below are excerpts from Michelle Alexander's article in The Nation titled "Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote."

"[Hillary Clinton is] facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand. ...

"On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton made the economy his top priority. ... In practice, however, he capitulated entirely to the right-wing backlash against the civil-rights movement and embraced former president Ronald Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, welfare, and taxes—ultimately doing more harm to black communities than Reagan ever did. ...

"Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. ... He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

"Clinton championed the idea of a federal 'three strikes' law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. ...

"When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. ... All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, 'President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.' ...

"In her support for the 1994 crime bill, [Hillary Clinton] used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. 'They are not just gangs of kids anymore,' she said. 'They are often the kinds of kids that are called "super-predators." No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.' ...

"As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. ... Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. ...

"To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to 'end welfare as we know it.' ... Experts and pundits disagree about the true impact of welfare reform, but one thing seems clear: Extreme poverty doubled to 1.5 million in the decade and a half after the law was passed. ...

"Perhaps most alarming, Clinton also made it easier for public-housing agencies to deny shelter to anyone with any sort of criminal history (even an arrest without conviction) and championed the 'one strike and you’re out' initiative, which meant that families could be evicted from public housing because one member (or a guest) had committed even a minor offense. ...

"Hillary Clinton is still singing the same old tune in a slightly different key. She is arguing that we ought not be seduced by Bernie’s rhetoric because we must be 'pragmatic,' 'face political realities,' and not get tempted to believe that we can fight for economic justice and win."


Here's a quick way to help build the movement: Forward this email to all Illinoisans and ask them to
1) Read Michelle Alexander's full article.
2) Vote for Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.
3) Sign our petition asking Superdelegates to vote the way the voters of their state vote.

-- The RootsAction.org team

P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others.


www.RootsAction.org

Donate button Facebook button Twitter button

Click here to unsubscribe and stop ALL email from RootsAction.

empowered by Salsa

[Verneinung]

Don't you think that's a little defeatist? Yes the internet helps bring us together and share ideas. But it also provides the base for the infrastructure you're talking about. Just imagine if every active member of this board decided to meet and organize in some city in the US. Then wouldn't we have infrastructure and leadership? Leadership we ourselves could put forward? Internet and Social Media has made it easier now to build movements. We should be using it more than we are. You're right, the left has always been fragmented and was destroyed during the Cold War. But why can't we build it back? If we just accept that that's the way it is because it's always been that way then we give our adversaries what they want.


No, it is not defeatist, at all. But, one has to know the situation before they act.

The internet does help solve some problems, but it hurts in the opposite direction too. I'd disagree about the internet helping before you answer this: why do, now, we have no movements, and in the 20s, 30s, 60s, 70s, they had powerful movements where people had to be murdered, thrown in jail and have national operations against them?

But yeah, you can counteract some things. Like you can have funding campaigns and grassroots organization, which have helped Bernie Sanders, a lot; but, can that translate to socialist movements? It is a lot easier when you are a part of a national organization, have national coverage, national interest and have a national leader. And when all you have to do is show up, maybe vote. It is harder when you start from basically nothing with little infrastructure.

Regardless what you want to say about the Democratic Party, they have more supporters than socialist movements.

This is from an article from Jacobin: "There’s of course no use in being defeatist about it, but we have maybe 2,000 people active in socialist organizations, in a country of 330 million people and counting. That’s a staggering number. It has no comparison in the history of any capitalist country since the dawn of the workers’ movement."

So, it is not defeatist, I'm just looking for a real movement and not small organizations with no leadership or plans/execution, and mild eruptions like Occupy and Black Lives.

[Burzhuin]

The problem is we have plenty of small organizations with leaders having gigantic ego. And because of that I do not see any perspective to left unity anytime soon.