I'm down with Barack Obama

[Lefty]

Did anyone else see his speech at the Democratic Convention yesterday? I enjoyed it greatly. Any thoughts? The text of it can be seen at:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/artic...727233109990003 (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040727233109990003)

[JohnTheMarxist]

I am weary of all capitalist politicians..we shall see what he does..

[SittingBull47]

I saw it. Frankly i'm impressed as well. My co-worker was talking to me about him for about 20 minutes today, saying how much better of a speech he had than Clinton's. I couldn't say much considering i didn't bother to hear clinton, but Obama was good.

[Pawn Power]

Yea, he's a good speaker and has a cool name but he is still a U$ politician and they can't be trusted!

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I saw it an was very impressed. I think it was like 4am here and I was just watching the Convention because nothing else was on. But his speech really woke me up.

I of course understand the weariness you treat American politicians with. And it is justified. But no change can come unless we trust somebody. Of course, America as a nation has the potential to become great. Great, I mean, in our way of thinking. And these are the sort of people who can kick start that surge towards a more fairer and democratic society because those in power now are just going the opposite way.

His speech was better than Clinton's. Of course it was. His had a meaning and a goal. Clinton was there for show and for pantomime. But Obama's speech had content, intelligence and meaning. And after his speech, I'm looking forward to watching later on when John Edwards speaks!

[socialistfuture]

That inspires you guys...?

'There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.'

John Kerry was in Vietnam - a foreign invasion, and yet he is against Iraq? nothing good can come from him or bush - the lesser of two evils is evil - As ani defranco put it 'twedle dumb and twedle dumber'

[Sabocat]

Yeah. Terrific. <_<

The rhetoric in this speech is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Obama&#39;s state of Illinois has been militantly blocking third party candidates (Socialists) from getting on the ballot in Illinois. Guess who the direct beneficiaries of this are? Didn&#39;t mention that though eh?


Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found.

Translation: I&#39;m on board with the War on Terror, and totally agree with imperialist conquest around the globe.


That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will he counted - or at least, most of the time.

Yeah....big joke. Electoral subversion and coups are always funny laugh getters.



Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

With protesters relegated to the "Thunder Dome" of pre-alloted "Free Speech Zones", guess who this is addressing? See....we&#39;re devisive. Got that?



In the end, that is God&#39;s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead.

Translation: In the absence of an real alternatives to a platform of global hegemony, we can look to a fairy tale to save us. Just keep praying&#33; :lol:




Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Another flag waving jerk off. whoopee&#33;

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

So a man is patriotic. He can&#39;t be trusted? That&#39;s ridiculous. So he used the age old phrase of "pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes". There is nothing wrong with loving your country.

Disgustapated, your "translation" of what Obama said is just ridiculous. You&#39;ve actually just taken what he&#39;s said, and suggested that he really meant something completely different. Why do so many people on here not seem to have the ability to take anything at face value no matter what?

You all say this to suit your little arguments and your desire to be controversial.

Fact is, Obama has coem from an underprivaleged background to to a position of power. Listening to him and seeing him, I believe he will use that in the correct manner. He wants to help American people in bad situations and all you lot can do it speculate that he is really an Imperialistic supporter of American aggression.

Get some compassion and some sense. Stop not trusting people solely because they are American and wear a suit.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Fact is, Obama has coem from an underprivaleged background to to a position of power.

:lol:


More bullshit from the "left".

"Socialism or Muetre" unless of course you "dig the black guy", then capitalism becomes cool.

What a joke.

Anyone who supports this CAPITALIST needs to remove himself form this board or have themselves caged to OI.

[Sabocat]

Disgustapated, your "translation" of what Obama said is just ridiculous.

Really?


Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found.

Holy shit....that could be George Bush speaking if you didn&#39;t know any better. How is this not direct support for the inane "Global War on Terror"?

How is this rhetoric laden speech any different than the rest of the nonsense put forth by the Democrats and Republicans? Is it just the messenger that you feel more comfortable with?

More apologetics from the liberal left. This is why there weren&#39;t many protesters at the DNC this week. All the "leftists" that of course are going to jump on board the Kerry train. Picking the "lesser of two evils"

[Invader Zim]

Politicians are all the same, just different bullshit.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

*yawn*

What the fuck do you expect this guy to do?
Have democrats in the past 50 years or so actually done anything to set themselves apart from Republicans? Wasn&#39;t Clinton also involved in a war? Didn&#39;t he also advocate a minimalist governemnt?
Conclusion: they&#39;re all the same shit.

Nobody in American politics will ever fail to cater fully to the capitalists.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yes, you&#39;re both right. I like him because he is black.

I think you need to get that sort of subconscious racist shite out of your heads before debating on issues such as this.

If you think the only reason people can respect Obama is because of his colour, then you have serious issues you must deal with.

Let me ask you, Disgustapated, do you think we have enemies? As leftists. I&#39;m sure you do. Do you think such enemies should be dealt with? I&#39;m sure you do.

Now, if you were to talk about dealing with your enemies, and I said, "Yeah, whatever, you&#39;re just like George Bush, it could be George Bush saying that", then what would you say? "Idiot". Of course you would, because it is true.

Whenever someone talks about eradicating an enemy, are they "the same as Bush"? No. They&#39;re not.

Is Obama wrong? Are there not enemies of humanity in the world who need to be dealt with? Do you think al-Qaeda don&#39;t need to be eradicated?

And another thing, eventhough Obama talked about eradicating enemies, he also denounced going to war without proper reason, as have all of the Democrat speakers who have touched upon the war.

And as for RedZeppelin. Are you going to use your little Internet symbol *yawns* everyitme someone comes along preaching change and hope?
Will you *yawn* if someone comes with a solution to the crisis in Sudan?
Will you *yawn* if a British politician comes up with a solution to the Northern Ireland situation?
Would you *yawn* if you were a peasant alive in Cuba in 1956 when you heard about a man called Fidel Castro Ruz who was developing a plan to save you and your people from the shackles of imperialism?

If you keep *yawn*ing all your life, nothing will ever change. Just because we are leftists, it doesn&#39;t mean we need to distrust every single politician.

I&#39;m not saying Obama is the new Castro. I&#39;m not saying he will save the world. I&#39;m saying you cannot just discredit the guy because he wears a suit and is part of one of the two mainstream American parties.


And as for you Enigma, I think all your posts are the same, just different bullshit.
I ca name you dozens of politicians off the top of my head who are not "the same" and don&#39;t have any "bullshit". Politicians who have stood up for the working man, ensured the rights of ethnic minorities, introduced free health care to every citizien and improved the education system of countries. I find it quite insulting that you say "Politicians are all the same, just different bullshit". Certain politicians fought so that people like me and my family could vote, have a job, an education and healthcare. And I expect they did the same for you. So get your head out of your wannabe-controversial backside and start speaking with a degree of intelligence.

[Sabocat]

When did I suggest you like him because he&#39;s black? Show me. I asked you if it was the messenger. What I was alluding to, is that because he&#39;s charismatic (like a Bill Clinton) you found the message more acceptable. Which obviously you did.


Is Obama wrong? Are there not enemies of humanity in the world who need to be dealt with? Do you think al-Qaeda don&#39;t need to be eradicated?

Who&#39;s killed more people? al-Qaeda or the U.S. Military? Who&#39;s the biggest enemy of humanity? Do you think al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. with no provocation? Do you seriously believe that hunting down perceived enemies globally is going to make us safer?

There&#39;s quite a difference between having enemies and pre-emptively striking sovereign nations without provocation.

[Lefty]

Damn, guys. First off, hating him because he&#39;s patriotic is bullshit. That doesn&#39;t mean he agrees with what the U.S. does. Also, hating him because he acknowledges that there are people in this world that hate the U.S. and are willing to harm innocent civilians and that it would certainly be better if those people were dead or jailed in bullshit. He didn&#39;t say "WE WILL HUNT THEM DOWN AND KILL THEM," he was alluding to how the current administration is handling those people in the wrong way. Also, the reactionary rhetoric of hating all capitalists is dumb. Just because he&#39;s a capitalist doesn&#39;t mean that he hates the poor and wants to exploit people instead of helping him. All I am saying is that his speech was good. Time will tell if he proves to be a good politician that has the people&#39;s interests in mind.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Firstly, I apologise for not making it clear but I was referring to Comrade RAF&#39;s comments about liking Obama because he was black. I understood what you meant and, incidently, would agree if you were talking about Clinton.

And second, I know the U.S. Military is killing people. But so does Obama and many other Democrats I&#39;ve heard. Which is why I&#39;ve hard them talk about giving better training to the Armed forces and cutting spending on arms and, especially, ridding the world of biological and chemical weapons, even from the US. Better training, of course, would be used to ensure that the Armed forces fighting against terrorists (terrorists, not real freedom fighters) kill and attack ONLY the enemies, not innocent people.

If the American army were to kill more terrorists than terrorists kill people, then I don&#39;t see the problem with that. This takes some explaining so I don&#39;t get misinterpreted:

Obama and other Democrats want to make America "good" and respected by people throughout the world. So if an army from an America which was like this were to kill more terrorists than terrorists kill people, then I would support it. I think I explained that clearly. What I mean is I don&#39;t support THIS american army under this american establishment killing at will and telling us "oh, that person was a terrorist".

I believe hunting these enemies will make the world safer so long as the right people are hunting them. Not George Bush. But possibly the John Kerry that has been talked about by the Democrats. It&#39;s a matter of waiting to see if they deliver. But I&#39;m willing to see George Bush leave office for that risk.

But I&#39;m not American, so I have no say

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And as for RedZeppelin. Are you going to use your little Internet symbol *yawns* everyitme someone comes along preaching change and hope?
Will you *yawn* if someone comes with a solution to the crisis in Sudan?
Will you *yawn* if a British politician comes up with a solution to the Northern Ireland situation?
Would you *yawn* if you were a peasant alive in Cuba in 1956 when you heard about a man called Fidel Castro Ruz who was developing a plan to save you and your people from the shackles of imperialism?

If you keep *yawn*ing all your life, nothing will ever change. Just because we are leftists, it doesn&#39;t mean we need to distrust every single politician.


That&#39;s not much of a reply, is it?


I&#39;m not saying Obama is the new Castro. I&#39;m not saying he will save the world. I&#39;m saying you cannot just discredit the guy because he wears a suit and is part of one of the two mainstream American parties.

Yes I can.
A politician is someone who fights for influence within the governemnt. The problem is that the government in capitalism will always necessarily cater to the bourgeoisie.

Think about who has the power. If this douche decides to actually stick it to the man by actually trying to expand the governemnt to socially help the American working class, he&#39;ll be phased out immediately.

[Lefty]

Not with the massive public support he currently has, and the support that he will gather by keeping the people&#39;s interests in mind throughout his term as a senator. Discrediting him because he&#39;s a politician is like saying that all major-label musicians suck because they&#39;re on a major label.

[Sabocat]

And second, I know the U.S. Military is killing people. But so does Obama and many other Democrats I&#39;ve heard. Which is why I&#39;ve hard them talk about giving better training to the Armed forces and cutting spending on arms

I don&#39;t see one line in that speech by Obama condemning the illegal/immoral war against Iraq. Do you? U.S. Congress just recently passed the military budget of 400+ billion. It was completely unopposed in the Senate, by both Democrats and Republicans. They will never cut spending. Kerry&#39;s idea of a better military is by adding 40,000 more troops. He&#39;s as hawkish as Bush. Period.


especially, ridding the world of biological and chemical weapons, even from the US.

And yet the U.S. won&#39;t sign any of the treaties banning them or nuclear weapons.


Better training, of course, would be used to ensure that the Armed forces fighting against terrorists (terrorists, not real freedom fighters) kill and attack ONLY the enemies, not innocent people.

Who decides which is which? Them?


Obama and other Democrats want to make America "good" and respected by people throughout the world. So if an army from an America which was like this were to kill more terrorists than terrorists kill people, then I would support it. I think I explained that clearly. What I mean is I don&#39;t support THIS american army under this american establishment killing at will and telling us "oh, that person was a terrorist".

Where does he state his intentions on making America good? All I see is empty rhetoric.

Don&#39;t you realize that the reason that the U.S. was attacked was because of failed foreign policy? It wasn&#39;t random like the media would have you believe. Are you also under the impression that with a presidential change, that generals and military personal change as well? THIS American army is the exact one that will be in place and killing when/if Kerry takes over. Nothing will change. He&#39;s made that crystal clear in his speeches.


I believe hunting these enemies will make the world safer so long as the right people are hunting them. Not George Bush. But possibly the John Kerry that has been talked about by the Democrats. It&#39;s a matter of waiting to see if they deliver. But I&#39;m willing to see George Bush leave office for that risk.

The world will never be safer. There will always be people that take up arms for their "martyred" brothers. Let me save you the trouble. Clinton was considered a liberal and yet he built up the military to higher levels than his predecessor, devastated Iraq with sanctions, went to war in Kosovo, bombed a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan etc, etc. John Kerry rubber stamped Bush&#39;s war, signed off on the Patriot Act. What further proof do you need that this guy offers no substantive difference to Bush.

[Sabocat]

Not with the massive public support he currently has, and the support that he will gather by keeping the people&#39;s interests in mind throughout his term as a senator. Discrediting him because he&#39;s a politician is like saying that all major-label musicians suck because they&#39;re on a major label.

Damn, guys. First off, hating him because he&#39;s patriotic is bullshit. That doesn&#39;t mean he agrees with what the U.S. does. Also, hating him because he acknowledges that there are people in this world that hate the U.S. and are willing to harm innocent civilians and that it would certainly be better if those people were dead or jailed in bullshit. He didn&#39;t say "WE WILL HUNT THEM DOWN AND KILL THEM," he was alluding to how the current administration is handling those people in the wrong way. Also, the reactionary rhetoric of hating all capitalists is dumb. Just because he&#39;s a capitalist doesn&#39;t mean that he hates the poor and wants to exploit people instead of helping him. All I am saying is that his speech was good. Time will tell if he proves to be a good politician that has the people&#39;s interests in mind.

Seriously Lefty. You can&#39;t be this naive can you? Best to change your username to Liberal.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I wouldn&#39;t use that comparison Lefty, RedZeppelin sounds like just the sort of person who thinks that.

And Red, my reply WAS much of a reply. I&#39;m suprised you couldn&#39;t read into all the rhetoric in my reply seeing as you seemed to hear rhetoric ridden all through Obama&#39;s speech.

I was wondering how many people&#39;s solutions and promises you could turn away and discredit. How do you propose change will happen if you cannot trust any person with creating that change? It&#39;s very unfortunate that people liek you have such negative attitudes. Change will never occur with minds like this.

And by the way, first and foremost, a politician is someone who works for the people. By natural definition. I know many politicians in the American government don&#39;t follow that definition at the moment but that doesn&#39;t mean every single politician who comes along is the same.

Was Clement Atlee someone who just fought "for influence within the governement"?
Was Aneurin Bevan someone who just fought "for influence within the governemnt"?
Was Jawaharlal Nehru someone who just fought "for influence within the governemnt"?

These are just three I thought of off the top of my head. Politicians, all of them. But great men who changed their countries and the world for the better. Yes, originally every politician must try to gain influence in the government. But that is a miniscule detail to their job in comparison to the main detail: fighting and working for the people they want to represent.

[Guerrilla22]

What exactly was so impressive about Obama&#39;s speech? Seriously, I can&#39;t believe someone would think that what he said was great or even good. If you did, then you haven&#39;t been around American politics too long. All this speech consisted of was the same old rhetoric about the American dream and America being a place where individual liberties are cherished.

What would impress me is if someone got up there and described an actual plan in detail about how to sucessfully withdraw from Iraq, how to get the economy back on track and how to reverse all of the human rights violations that the Bush administration has implemented. Anyone can spew rhetoric, it takes someone special to actually discuss the issues.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:01 PM
What exactly was so impressive about Obama&#39;s speech? Seriously, I can&#39;t believe someone would think that what he said was great or even good. If you did, then you haven&#39;t been around American politics too long. All this speech consisted of was the same old rhetoric about the American dream and America being a place where individual liberties are cherished.

What would impress me is if someone got up there and described an actual plan in detail about how to sucessfully withdraw from Iraq, how to get the economy back on track and how to reverse all of the human rights violations that the Bush administration has implemented. Anyone can spew rhetoric, it takes someone special to actually discuss the issues.
I wasent impressed at all with the contents of his speech (same old, same old), i just said he was a good speaker; he spoke very clear and used inflection at the right moments.

[Lefty]

I&#39;m not a revolutionary, I guess. *tear* I simply think that a determined individual can make changes for the better, even in an oppressive system that is resistant to change. Exactly what do you propose to do? Start an army and fight a guerilla war against the U.S army?

[redstar2000]

But no change can come unless we trust somebody.

Bob Avakian says the same thing. :lol:

Actually I do trust capitalist politicians...to always be faithful to those who sign their paychecks.

Every capitalist politician deserves the guillotine.

No exceptions.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not with the massive public support he currently has, and the support that he will gather by keeping the people&#39;s interests in mind throughout his term as a senator. Discrediting him because he&#39;s a politician is like saying that all major-label musicians suck because they&#39;re on a major label.

Why would he refuse to appease to the folks who put him where he is? If he wants to go anywhere in his career, he&#39;ll have to kiss some corporate ass, don&#39;t you think?

And your comparison makes little sense.

Bourgeois politicians all suck balls because they&#39;re all puppets of the bourgeoisie. Obama is no different.

He follows a standard platform as a democrat. And democrats have never done anything to even suggest that they want to cater to socialist interests in opposition to corporate interests. Bill Clinton has done twice as many reactionary decisions as Bush, seeing as he was president for twice as long. There&#39;s no difference. Because both parties act as a political arm of the capitalist class. Their actual constituency is the same&#33; But I&#39;m sure none of this will change your mind, so forget it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I wouldn&#39;t use that comparison Lefty, RedZeppelin sounds like just the sort of person who thinks that.

No, actually. Several of my favorite musicians are or have been screwed in the ass by corporate recording studios. Perhaps you overlooked my username. :lol:


I was wondering how many people&#39;s solutions and promises you could turn away and discredit. How do you propose change will happen if you cannot trust any person with creating that change? It&#39;s very unfortunate that people liek you have such negative attitudes. Change will never occur with minds like this.

I said no bourgeois politician can be trusted. Nobody who works within the American political system can ever change anything significantly these days.


And by the way, first and foremost, a politician is someone who works for the people. By natural definition. I know many politicians in the American government don&#39;t follow that definition at the moment but that doesn&#39;t mean every single politician who comes along is the same.

In a capitalist system, the people who these politicians help happen to be the capitalists. The governemnt is a political arm of the bourgeoisie, so anyone who works within that governemnt is a political tool of the capitalists.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:42 PM
I&#39;m not a revolutionary, I guess. *tear* I simply think that a determined individual can make changes for the better, even in an oppressive system that is resistant to change. Exactly what do you propose to do? Start an army and fight a guerilla war against the U.S army?
If you are an Iraqi that&#39;s one way to force change, by trying to get the occupying US military out of your nation. All I&#39;&#39;m saying is I&#39;ve heard this same rhetoric bullshit before, its nothing new. I&#39;d like to see a candidate/politician come out and actually tell you how he&#39;she proposes to change things for the better, even if it was someone from Democratic or even the Republican party, a candidate who did this would at least get my respect.

At any rate, change is going to come only when society accepts that it is their responsibility to make it happen and not rely on "great leaders" to do the job for them.

[Lefty]

Redzep-
I admit that you failed to change my mind, and I will probably fail to change yours. But I don&#39;t understand what you mean when you say that he&#39;ll have to kiss corporate ass to get anywhere, or that he&#39;s already kissed corporate ass. It is possible to get adequate funding through grassroots campaigns, as evidenced by Howard Dean&#39;s campaign. Perhaps I&#39;m naive, but I believe that politicians, through reform of a corrupt system, can bring about changes effectively and without corruption by, say, big-money corporate donors. Saying that anyone who works within the government is a tool of the bourgousie is a farce, too- I&#39;ve met plenty of politicians who are fighting for the people, without the help or influence of the bourgousie.

[Lardlad95]

I enjoyed his speech also it was better than everyone elses Edwards and kerry&#39;s included. I enjoyed sharpton&#39;s speech also.

Of course I disagree with the democracts on almost as many issues as i do the republicans. But Like the kinny kid with the funny name.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:32 PM
Redzep-
I admit that you failed to change my mind, and I will probably fail to change yours. But I don&#39;t understand what you mean when you say that he&#39;ll have to kiss corporate ass to get anywhere, or that he&#39;s already kissed corporate ass. It is possible to get adequate funding through grassroots campaigns, as evidenced by Howard Dean&#39;s campaign. Perhaps I&#39;m naive, but I believe that politicians, through reform of a corrupt system, can bring about changes effectively and without corruption by, say, big-money corporate donors. Saying that anyone who works within the government is a tool of the bourgousie is a farce, too- I&#39;ve met plenty of politicians who are fighting for the people, without the help or influence of the bourgousie.
These politicians you speak of... did they actually have a significant impact on the government?

I would think not.

Besides, the government is strictly capitalist. No politician will ever change the laws protecting the free market. Therefore no politician will ever end the oppression. Working to try to end the oppression where it&#39;s impossible is futile, as you can see. It only fools the people by making them believe that capitalism can "work" for them too, while it can only actually "work" for a small minority.

So telling folks that the government can help them only makes people have faith in their bourgeois government. And that&#39;s exactly what the capitalists want: for the people to accept and buy into their game&#33;

[SonofRage]

Geez. I don&#39;t care how great his rhetoric is. He&#39;s still a Democrat. He&#39;s still a capitalist politician.

[Guerrilla22]

The only democrat i like is Max cleland, the former Senator from Georgia (who was voted out of office last year after coming under Republican attack for being "un-American) He spoke out against the war in Iraq as unecessary and against internationall law and was one o f the only senators who took a stand against the patriot act.

[h&s]

Every capitalist politician deserves the guillotine.

No exceptions.
Nah, that&#39;s too painless. I was thinking more along the lines of slow asphyxiation.
Seriously though, I can&#39;t believe anyone can take this guy seriously. Even if what he says sounds good, he is a polititian, so by default he will be a lying scheming bastard.
For Example. Tony Blair always used to go on about how bad Thatcher was, but now he says things like "I believe Mrs. Thatcher&#39;s emphasis on enterprise was right."
And the fact that this guy is a &#39;Democrat&#39; means that he will be sucking the arses of the American mega-rich. so he&#39;s already a hypocrite.

[DaCuBaN]

Yup - In case you hadn&#39;t figured it out yet,

Tony Blair = Tory Plan B

I nearly cheesed myself when I first saw that. :D


Nah, [the guillotine is too painless for capitalist politicians]. I was thinking more along the lines of slow asphyxiation

We&#39;re &#39;british&#39; - we should do what we do to all other criminals. Send them to Australia. ;)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yeh, Australia is a great place for Blair. Especially if it&#39;s true and the terrorists are going to strike there next&#33;

But seriously. I fail to see why some of you cannot trust in a politician JUST because they are politicians.

RedZep: "These politicians you speak of... did they actually have a significant impact on the government?"

What about the one&#39;s I&#39;ve mentioned? Atlee, Bevan, Butler.... these three POLITICIANS in the late 40&#39;s changed Britain for the good of the people, not just for the bourgeoisie. The NHS, the education system, relief for the poor.... Our Welfare State was created by these people. The creation of the Welfare State cannot be called a policy favouring the bourgeoisie. It cannot be called a policy introduced just to gain influence in government. Not even by you. And if you do say it, then the credibility of your argument is shattered.

What about the Labour rebels before the vote on the War and on the Foundation Hospitals? Were they just fighting for influence in government? Or were they fighting for what is right and what the people wanted?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Whatever a politician&#39;s agenda is, he can only do it once he&#39;s gained influence in the government. Politics is the struggle for influence in the government, and politician try to influence the government according to whichever agenda they follow. I hardly think that this part can be argued. Nor did I mean to argue with you on that particular subject.

The guys you mentioned never relieved the burden that oppresses the working class because they never did anything against capitalism itself.

The changes that took place needed to take place, otherwise the people would have been too distraught with things. The government simply appeased the people and since that time the improvements made have been only cut back or have remained the same for decades, in the US at least. In the US there have been little or no increase in social assistance for Americans, yet the democrats have been in power approximately as much as Republicans.

The only changes that will occur within the restraints of the US government will be for the worse or to minimally appease the people in order to keep them thinking that the government can do something for them. I doubt even that will happen any time soon.

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

Wow. A lot of you guys are real hardcore. Death to the Capitalist Politician&#33;&#33;&#33; Woo&#33;

First of all, there are some major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. It&#39;s the truth. Neither one is a great friend of the people, but one of them isn&#39;t its an unrepentant enemy either.

Second, what exactly are you guys doing to bring about a revolution? Clearly, that&#39;s what you want. Civil war, blood, destruction... turn the world to ashes and build it anew right?

Socialist organizations in the US don&#39;t do much, as far as I can tell. They write a lot of webzines, periodicals, newsletters, etc. They do some protests in New York, Boston, Seattle, etc. The only exception I see is the modern IWW.

How many of you are union members? Come to think of it, how many of you work full time?

I don&#39;t want to be a dick about it, but I get the feeling that most of us haven&#39;t spent ANY considerable amount of time in the field, organizing the "people" we claim have all the power. Like it or not, Democratic policies are going to let more people see a doctor. They will save, literally, THOUSANDS of decent wage jobs.

Are they going to fix things? Hell no. Are they going to become a party of the people? Hell no. But learn your history boys and girls. Who murdered the American labor movement? Republicans. Who destroyed the only industries we had left with the power to organize? Republicans. Who tells us that shipping jobs overseas to nations with NO right to organize is "healthy" for us? Republicans.

The Dems aren&#39;t our savior. But they&#39;re the best we have. There are a lot of them who are our enemies. But they&#39;re a lot of them who would be our comrades.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Capitalist politics can help the people in some aspects, that is true. But it doesn&#39;t change the fact that they&#39;re capitalist politics and we mustn&#39;t buy into their game&#33; Whether or not they increase social spending some, they will still be functioning within the US government. And therefore sustaining the US government, which upholds capitalism.

The American government is extremely powerful and corrupt. We can&#39;t compromise our goals by encouraging it and giving it our support and advocacy.

Our goal is to remove capital from the bourgeoisie and give it to those who produce it, bla bla bla *insert commie rhetoric*, etc. We can&#39;t do that if we continue supporting capitalist governments.

[Kookoman]

Huey Long

It seems that most of you are arguing against our (US) democratic system. Everyone is "owned" by lobbiest and the likes. Just seems that we need to get around this. Huey Long is my one example of a person who went against bourgeois, though he used not the most honest of means (bribery). His share-the-wealth society program was very admirable in my opinion, and it would have made a difference had he not been assassinated. Clearly it is possible to mend our system through democratic means. Howard Dean&#39;s "grassroutes" campaign was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done.

A simplistic candidate who shares the virtues of Ho Chi Minh, and Ernesto will make it a long way with out public. Someone who refuses extra cash, and gives his free time to the community. Someone who does not appear in public with the suit and tie, but rather in khaki&#39;s and a t-shirt. Someone who refuses aid from lobbiests and instead gets donations directly from the people could succeed.

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

I know about the corruption in our government. But it&#39;s not so simple as a lot of these guys make it sound.

We have one of three options:

1) Get involved in the Democratic Party. Yep, the Democrats. They are owned by Big Capital just like the GOP, but not quite as bad. Also, their infrastructure is WIDE open. In a city with a high Leftist population (as opposed to liberal) it wouldn&#39;t be that hard to hijack the party and at least get a red in a local position. Not much, but a start.

2) Work outside of it. Tackle specific issues, show people what socialism looks like. They do this pretty well in Seattle, and if we could get some serious people to organize, we&#39;d do good work.

Or

3) Sit on the sidelines like we do now, talking, talking, talking....
It&#39;s good to have a forum for ideas, a place to share our common goal and heritage. But talking doesn&#39;t take the war to the bosses.

I&#39;ve tried all of these. I even work for these "capitalist politicians". They aren&#39;t bad people. But they are capitalists, so let the blood flow right? Yeah, that&#39;s hardcore.

[redstar2000]

First of all, there are some major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Yes...the main one being the speed with which their knees hit the floor and their lips pucker up when a corporate CEO drops his trousers.


Neither one is a great friend of the people, but one of them isn&#39;t its unrepentant enemy either.

Both are demonstrated enemies of the working class.


Second, what exactly are you guys doing to bring about a revolution? Clearly, that&#39;s what you want. Civil war, blood, destruction... turn the world to ashes and build it anew right?

It would not matter a bit if we were doing absolutely nothing except telling the truth.

The truth is that they are all bastards&#33;

No exceptions.


Like it or not, Democratic policies are going to let more people see a doctor. They will save, literally, THOUSANDS of decent wage jobs.

Yes, you can "see a doctor"...too bad you can&#39;t afford to buy the medicine s/he prescribes.

And, gee, "thousands" of decent wage jobs. Woo hoo&#33; That will be great consolation to the millions of workers at Wal-Mart, McDonald&#39;s, etc.


Are they going to fix things? Hell no. Are they going to become a party of the people? Hell no. But learn your history boys and girls. Who murdered the American labor movement?

It was murdered by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1948...passed by Republicans but also supported by many Democrats.

In the last 56 years, even during those periods when Democrats had majorities in both houses and a Democrat in the White House, there has never been even one serious attempt to repeal Taft-Hartley.

There never will be.


Who tells us that shipping jobs overseas to nations with NO right to organize is "healthy" for us?

Both parties are on record for exporting "high-wage" jobs abroad in the name of "global competitiveness".


The Dems aren&#39;t our savior. But they&#39;re the best we have. There are a lot of them who are our enemies. But there are a lot of them who would be our comrades.

If they thought it useful, they would execute every last one of us.

Supporting Democrats is like attempting sexual congress with a boa constrictor.

All possible outcomes are bad.


Huey Long is my one example of a person who went against bourgeois, though he used not the most honest of means (bribery). His share-the-wealth society program was very admirable in my opinion, and it would have made a difference had he not been assassinated.

Nope. The late senator from Louisiana was certainly a colorful populist (reminds me a lot of Chavez) and was unusually progressive for a southern politician of his time -- he ran the Klan out of Louisiana and was the first politician to ever publicly apologize for using the word "nigger".

But, at best, he was a "left New Dealer" -- as he explained in his rather short books, his program was intended to save capitalism, not overthrow it.

Even had he succeeded in capturing the Democratic nomination in 1936 and then gone on to win the White House, there was zero chance that his "share-the-wealth" program would have been adopted by congress or ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After he was murdered, his "movement" splintered and fragmented. One of his closest associates -- Gerald L.K. Smith -- went on to become a vicious anti-semite and racist organizer for a number of quasi-fascist groups.


Clearly it is possible to mend our system through democratic means.

No, it was not even possible in the 1930s...much less now.

Capitalist "democracy" is fake&#33;


But seriously. I fail to see why some of you cannot trust in a politician JUST because they are politicians.

Well, I don&#39;t trust pit bulls because they are pit bulls. I know they&#39;re going to chow down on a human sometime...but I don&#39;t see why it should be me.

People who acquire or aspire to acquire positions of authority in class society by that very fact have demonstrated their untrustworthiness. They&#39;ve proven that they are willing to ride on the backs of others.

The communist position? Fuck &#39;em all&#33;


I even work for these "capitalist politicians". They aren&#39;t bad people.

:lol: Contemporary accounts suggested that Hitler was a "charming fellow" when "you got to know him". He also, it&#39;s said, was quite fond of dogs and small children.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes, you&#39;re both right. I like him because he is black.


No, you like him because you are obviously a bith daft.



The Dems aren&#39;t our savior. But they&#39;re the best we have. There are a lot of them who are our enemies. But they&#39;re a lot of them who would be our comrades.

Who the fuck is this fucking guy? Good grief get rid of him already.

I need to start making a fucking list.

[Lefty]

Justify your statement, RAF, you bith daft.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Never Forget, Never [email protected] 30 2004, 11:44 PM
Wow. A lot of you guys are real hardcore. Death to the Capitalist Politician&#33;&#33;&#33; Woo&#33;

First of all, there are some major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. It&#39;s the truth. Neither one is a great friend of the people, but one of them isn&#39;t its an unrepentant enemy either.

Second, what exactly are you guys doing to bring about a revolution? Clearly, that&#39;s what you want. Civil war, blood, destruction... turn the world to ashes and build it anew right?

Socialist organizations in the US don&#39;t do much, as far as I can tell. They write a lot of webzines, periodicals, newsletters, etc. They do some protests in New York, Boston, Seattle, etc. The only exception I see is the modern IWW.

How many of you are union members? Come to think of it, how many of you work full time?

I don&#39;t want to be a dick about it, but I get the feeling that most of us haven&#39;t spent ANY considerable amount of time in the field, organizing the "people" we claim have all the power. Like it or not, Democratic policies are going to let more people see a doctor. They will save, literally, THOUSANDS of decent wage jobs.

Are they going to fix things? Hell no. Are they going to become a party of the people? Hell no. But learn your history boys and girls. Who murdered the American labor movement? Republicans. Who destroyed the only industries we had left with the power to organize? Republicans. Who tells us that shipping jobs overseas to nations with NO right to organize is "healthy" for us? Republicans.

The Dems aren&#39;t our savior. But they&#39;re the best we have. There are a lot of them who are our enemies. But they&#39;re a lot of them who would be our comrades.
Actually, the differences are rather minescule, especially if you&#39;re refering to the politics of leading Dems like Clinton, and Kerry. The differences between the two parties isn&#39;t necessarily over what to do (like the war in Iraq) but rather how to go about doing it.

Kerry, along with all but 2 Democrats in the Senate (Max Cleland, Ted Kennedy) voted to authorize the war. The USA Patriot act also passed with flying colors in both houses.

[Lefty]

True, but now they have all realized their errors. There is massive public outcry about both subjects that you mentioned, and my impression is that almost every democrat is pretty strongly against the patriot act and war.

[Guerrilla22]

That&#39;s il-logic. They NOW realize the error of their ways? That&#39;s like saying someone, who has committed murder, now realizes that he was wrong. That would be ridiculous, even if it were true. The Patriot Act has already passed and the War in Iraq, well its pretty safe to say that happened as well.

The truth is most Democrats, including John Kerry still defend the decision to go to war, Kerry is even for expanding the war by sending in more troops.

[Kookoman]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/longsen.html

"1. To limit poverty by providing that every deserving family shall share in the wealth of America for not less than one third of the average wealth, thereby to possess not less than &#036;5,000 free of debt.

2. To limit fortunes to such a few million dollars as will allow the balance of the American people to share in the wealth and profits of the land."

An excerp of Huey Long&#39;s plan outlined in a Senate speech. It seems fairly socialistic to me, with a maximum wage and a very high minimum. It might not be hardcore communist reformation, but it was a giant leap.


Even had he succeeded in capturing the Democratic nomination in 1936 and then gone on to win the White House, there was zero chance that his "share-the-wealth" program would have been adopted by congress or ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This might be true, but in the fervor of the Great Depression his plan might have passed. There were other progressives in Congress such as Lafollete that would have supported his plan. As was seen in Liousiana he also had other ways to "influence" people. His popularity was high... I am not saying that it was a sure thing, but ruling it out of possibility? Ohh the Supreme Court, too many "what ifs".

"Will you please tell me what sense there is running on a socialist ticket in America today? What&#39;s the use of being right only to be defeated?" --Huey Long

By the way, kudos Redstar2000, I liked your argument.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 07:11 PM
True, but now they have all realized their errors. There is massive public outcry about both subjects that you mentioned, and my impression is that almost every democrat is pretty strongly against the patriot act and war.
Sure, but they won&#39;t actually do anything to permanently improve things for the working class, like giving them actual political power. That would require overthrowing the government that they work for and that works for the powerful elite. If the working class in capitalism are neglected of political power by their lack of ownership of capital, then what can they accomplish by supporting capitalist politics. I mean, with the argument I just offered, you can easily assume that since the working class has no power, it all belongs to the ruling class. Correct? So it doesn&#39;t make sense to fight for political power through mere &#39;elections&#39;.

[redstar2000]

An excerpt of Huey Long&#39;s plan outlined in a Senate speech. It seems fairly socialistic to me, with a maximum wage and a very high minimum. It might not be hardcore communist reformation, but it was a giant leap.

It depends on what you mean by "socialistic".

Many people "measure" socialism by yardsticks calibrated in terms of social welfare.

A country with unemployment benefits is "more socialistic" than one without. Or a country that provides special benefits to women with children (welfare) is "more socialistic" than a country that doesn&#39;t do that.

This is the source of the occasional claims that the Scandinavian countries are all "socialist"...because they have the most elaborate "social safety nets" of all the capitalist countries.

But that&#39;s the key -- if a country remains capitalist, then "social welfare" is simply a temporary concession to the working class.

What can be given can also be taken away.

Which is another way of saying that any meaningful definition of socialism is always reduced to the question of which class has the real power.

All of the experience of the working class since the mid-19th century has pretty conclusively shown that the working class is never permitted to acquire any real political power in capitalist "democracies".

Thus, as difficult as it may seem to be, revolution still remains the only feasible option.

There&#39;s a difference between difficult and impossible.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

Redstar: Fair enough. I disagree that no lasting legislation has been enacted; some still exists, though it&#39;s constantly under attack.

But, as part of the left, don&#39;t you think we have an obligation to put pressure on these jokers? It wouldn&#39;t be as "impossible" as you think if we had a Dem senate. It wouldn&#39;t be easy. Difficult, not impossible.

All it would take is one bill. Make organizing as painless as it is in Canada.

That&#39;s the first step to a goal that all of us want to see: working class control of the economy. The only way we&#39;re going to be able to do this is by strengthening a left-wing labor movement that can bring it&#39;s power to the market. That&#39;s the situation right now. Believe me, I&#39;m open to suggestions but calling for their heads is going to alienate more working class people than it will win us, and how you&#39;re going to build a working class movement without the working class is beyond me.

All of our visions are way beyond the horizon without universal economic rights. We don&#39;t have them in the U.S. The best shot we have at getting them is to build a left wing movement or labor, students, etc. who can bring real political and civic pressure to houses of power.

Once we&#39;re in these houses, we can talk about bringing them down. For now, I want my foot in the door. I don&#39;t want to piss you people off; there&#39;s just more than one way to go about this. You&#39;ve denounced this path, but haven&#39;t offered another.

[Lefty]

Yeah...I know...most democrats still support the war...But, you know, better them than Republicans, right? True, socialist party/green party candidates are worth fighting for. However, revolution isn&#39;t even an option. If you disagree with me, go try and start one, lol.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:51 PM
Yeah...I know...most democrats still support the war...But, you know, better them than Republicans, right? True, socialist party/green party candidates are worth fighting for. However, revolution isn&#39;t even an option. If you disagree with me, go try and start one, lol.
No, actually democrats are not better than republicans.
They&#39;re both bad. Neither one is good, and therefore not worth supporting.

And neither are socialist and green party candidates.

Revolution really isn&#39;t going to be an option if you continue to vote for democrats. When you vote democrat, you&#39;re telling them that you agree with the democratic agenda and their goals are your goals.

The problem is that they&#39;re not.
...I hope.

The goal is to overthrow capitalism. You can&#39;t do that while at the same time condoning the actions of capitalist lackeys. Youdo see how capitalist politicians are lackeys of the capitalist class, don&#39;t you?

And while you may not want to condone the democratic agenda 100%, you are by voting for them.

And by looking at history you will see that democratic politicians have fucked up just as much as republican ones. Especially when it comes to imperialism in the past 40 years or so.

[socialistfuture]

revolution is no short term goal. change is not a want it is a need - things cannot continue at this pace and scale, somethings got to give


Second, what exactly are you guys doing to bring about a revolution? Clearly, that&#39;s what you want. Civil war, blood, destruction... turn the world to ashes and build it anew right?

blood, destruction, civil war.... hmmm sounds like somethings thats going on in the world already. the democrats can dress up capitalism as much as they want - it is guranteed that they will not disarm their foreign fortresses that span the globe, send the troops home and stop intervening in foreign countries. they will not fix a system (capitalist imperialism) that is unfixable.

i do not live in america, i do not feel the pressure and fears of the empire. it will take a lot of hard work to change things, it will be difficult, confusing - it must happen. there must be a break in the chains. the reality is one of those two fat cats will be in - and so it go&#39;s on and on and on untill someone, several someones provide an alternative.

Barack Obama may have done his family proud and shown that u are the master of ure life, and that the situation that u were born into can be changed. but he is not the ruler of the democrats and neither is he advocating a mass change. neo liberalism, imperialism, capitalism, privitization... etc are all things that need to be destroyed not reformed.

learn from new labour and all the mistakes the left has made in the past.

[redstar2000]

Barack&#39;s Bullshit -- Full Text (http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=158769)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

Somehow (and believe me, this wasn&#39;t my intention) I&#39;ve become the forum&#39;s Democratic Champion. I don&#39;t want to be.

I just think we need to attack on all fronts. The only thing I want from elected officials is the right to organize. One law could do this, even on a state level. Just say no one can be fired without "just cause". I&#39;m even willing to accept the Boss&#39; thinking of "just cause" at this point. That&#39;s it. Unions would EXPLODE and that IS a major, tangible, step in the right direction.

I probably lack vision, but I am not going to wait for a Marxist revolution in this country. In the immediate future, it&#39;s a mad scramble to get as many people as much coverage for healthcare as possible, and slow capital flight that takes food from the mouths of American families.

You scoff at the idea of keeping good jobs here. Fuck you. Those jobs aren&#39;t even HALF what they should be, and they&#39;re rarer every year, but it beats working at Wal-Mart or Home Depot.

I think all of us here could agree that we don&#39;t have any use for John Kerry or his crew. None of us should put any hope in the leadership of any nation, but we can twist their arms. We aren&#39;t powerless, we have to push back, not just sit around waiting for people to dust off the red flags and pour into the streets.

Anyway, we&#39;re advocating the same things, just not the same methods.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

he only thing I want from elected officials is the right to organize. One law could do this, even on a state level. Just say no one can be fired without "just cause". I&#39;m even willing to accept the Boss&#39; thinking of "just cause" at this point. That&#39;s it. Unions would EXPLODE and that IS a major, tangible, step in the right direction.

That wouldn&#39;t really liberate the proletariat, would it?
No.
It would accomplish many things, but not that.
It would (1) Let the people think that these capitalist ****s have their interests in mind and (2) make the people think that the government itself can be used for their good. These two would significantly delay the revolution.

Simply attempting to accomplish your goal through capitalist elections will (1) let the capitalists think (know) that you believe anything progressive can be achieved within the government and (2) also work against the possibility of a revolution in the future.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:35 PM
Barack&#39;s Bullshit -- Full Text (http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=158769)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Tell me that isn&#39;t the speech that all these fucking idiots are praising????

[h&s]

Barack&#39;s Bullshit -- Full Text
Self-praising, patriot ass-licking BULLSHIT.
&#39;Nuff said.

[redstar2000]

Tell me that isn&#39;t the speech that all these fucking idiots are praising????

That&#39;s it&#33; :blink:

Maybe his speaking voice is "really good". <_<

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:52 PM

That&#39;s it&#33; :blink:

Maybe his speaking voice is "really good". <_<

Some people have really lost the plot on this site. That speech doesn&#39;t even contain rhetoric which could be interpreted as left leaning, it&#39;s not even liberal capitalist, it&#39;s no different than anything Bush would say.

[Sabocat]

Yes, this thread has really "flushed out the chumps".

[h&s]

Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place; America which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before
They just lap it up don&#39;t they?
I bet American poiticians have a &#39;to do list&#39; when it comes to writing speaches.
e.g.
1. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is America
2. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is big business
3. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is America
4. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is the army
5. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is America
6. Get down on hands and knees and worship that other God
And Finally
7. Get down on hands and knees and worship the God that is America

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:41 PM
Yes, this thread has really "flushed out the chumps".
I would have said they&#39;d flushed themselves out a long time ago.

[Sabocat]

Barack Obama-Lives (http://s7.invisionfree.com/I_P_F/index.php?act=idx)


A sight for lively discussion about this hero of the working class.

:lol: :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place; America which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before

<_< A magical place, a beacon of freedom where you can be detained and held indefinitely for no reason at all, where the government spies on its civillian population and where health care is reserved for those with enough money. Great place.

[BOZG]

LMAO, you&#39;re a cruel bastard. =D

[Rex_20XD6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:49 AM
Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Another flag waving jerk off. whoopee&#33;
Well stated

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

That wouldn&#39;t really liberate the proletariat, would it?
No.

It would liberate them enough to allow them to form a union. This is a major step because it implants the ideal that there is an Us vs. Them. A lot of Americans feel this way, but lack anywhere to funnel their frustration, energy, etc.

Also, the only Americans who can be considered "proletariats" have no way to organize themselves. If we allow them to organize, these are the people who are going to fight your revolution. But not unless they&#39;re organized.


It would (1) Let the people think that these capitalist ****s have their interests in mind

See above. Who do you know that would say the gov&#39;t has their interests in mind? No one thinks like that unless they sit on an executive board. Given the right to organize, more people will use that right. This is not a good thing for the ruling class, and it will set the stage for more direct class conflict. A good thing for the "revolution".


2) make the people think that the government itself can be used for their good. These two would significantly delay the revolution.

Yes and no. This might make people think they have more access to their gov&#39;t. That&#39;s doubtful. More likely, like I said above, it will set the stage for major battles between workers and mega-corps like Wal-Mart et all. This is a good thing.


Simply attempting to accomplish your goal through capitalist elections will (1) let the capitalists think (know) that you believe anything progressive can be achieved within the government and (2) also work against the possibility of a revolution in the future.

This brings me back to my whole point: what revolution? We are further away from any kind of revolution than we&#39;ve ever been. The pure apathy and sense of powerlessness among Americans is incredible.

But, for the sake of the argument, I will again ask this question: If we don&#39;t try to coerce the state into conceding to our demands, what do we do? What are Leftists doing right now to further the "revolution"? I&#39;m just looking for even small examples, not some grand scheme. For once, I&#39;d like to just cut the dogma and rhetoric and talk about what&#39;s happening at this second.

[Lefty]

They&#39;re talking on an internet message board, for one. And they&#39;re saying REALLY REALLY MEAN THINGS, too&#33;

[Red Skyscraper]

-----

[Lardlad95]

I&#39;m not defending Barack&#39;s politics. But damn the nigga did build himself to where he is right now. Of course he&#39;s gonna be procapitalism. The fucking system worked for him.

[BOZG]

So fucking what????

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Never Forget, Never [email protected] 3 2004, 09:28 PM

It would liberate them enough to allow them to form a union. This is a major step because it implants the ideal that there is an Us vs. Them. A lot of Americans feel this way, but lack anywhere to funnel their frustration, energy, etc.

Also, the only Americans who can be considered "proletariats" have no way to organize themselves. If we allow them to organize, these are the people who are going to fight your revolution. But not unless they&#39;re organized.



See above. Who do you know that would say the gov&#39;t has their interests in mind? No one thinks like that unless they sit on an executive board. Given the right to organize, more people will use that right. This is not a good thing for the ruling class, and it will set the stage for more direct class conflict. A good thing for the "revolution".

.

Yes and no. This might make people think they have more access to their gov&#39;t. That&#39;s doubtful. More likely, like I said above, it will set the stage for major battles between workers and mega-corps like Wal-Mart et all. This is a good thing.



This brings me back to my whole point: what revolution? We are further away from any kind of revolution than we&#39;ve ever been. The pure apathy and sense of powerlessness among Americans is incredible.
We call members of the capitalists class capitalists because they&#39;re in a position of economic power. They have power, therefore they&#39;re members of the ruling class. Members of the government have political power, therefore they&#39;re also members of the ruling class. They wouldn&#39;t want to leave their cushy positions and give power to the people. To retain their own positions, they succumb to the real power: the capital, which is owned by the capitalists.

So now you see how the government is inevitably an apparatus of the capitalists. And even if Barack was absolutely compelled to help the workers, he would have to consequently shove it to his boss. And that would never be permitted. It never has been permitted, what makes you think this guy&#39;s any different? Did Clinton mobilize the proletariat during his presidency of condoning a minimalist laissez faire-ish government? I didn&#39;t think so.


But, for the sake of the argument, I will again ask this question: If we don&#39;t try to coerce the state into conceding to our demands, what do we do? What are Leftists doing right now to further the "revolution"? I&#39;m just looking for even small examples, not some grand scheme. For once, I&#39;d like to just cut the dogma and rhetoric and talk about what&#39;s happening at this second.

As was mentioned before, simply telling the truth and condemning the support of the enemy is progressive.

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

We call members of the capitalists class capitalists because they&#39;re in a position of economic power. They have power, therefore they&#39;re members of the ruling class. Members of the government have political power, therefore they&#39;re also members of the ruling class. They wouldn&#39;t want to leave their cushy positions and give power to the people. To retain their own positions, they succumb to the real power: the capital, which is owned by the capitalists.

WAIT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU MEAN OUR GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLED BY CAPITAL&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; No shit Sherlock. Capital, though, isn&#39;t the only thing that controls the puppets in D.C.

You&#39;re missing my entire point. First, stop fuckin&#39; lecturing me on Marxist theory. I know the drill.

I&#39;m not saying that we pander to this government. But do you see a revolutionary movement in the U.S. that has the resources to pull it off? No. We have to get to that point. We can do that by exercising the power that have right now and coercing the government to attain our immediate goals.

You think even Democrats are going to just hand over the rights I was talking about? You&#39;d be an idiot. But the working class, like it or not, is still the largest, most reliable base the Democrats have. They can be coerced. They&#39;re already talking about the kind of "just cause" laws I was talking about before. All it is talk, and even with a law it won&#39;t be a guarentee, but it&#39;s more than we have now. But why are they even talking about it? I mean, it goes against all the wishes of capital. BECAUSE THEY&#39;RE BEING FORCED TO&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

By delivering even a limited right for unions to organize, the Dems would be releasing Pandora all over again. SEIU has organized over a half a million of America&#39;s poorest workers under our current laws. Imagine what they&#39;ll do when the they&#39;re told they have a right to organize.

I think you folks are giving most of these Democrats way too much credit. Most of them don&#39;t think in the terms of class vs. class. Some of the national Dem leaders do, but not most.

I don&#39;t really care if Democrats are elected. All I want to see is a single law, one that says you have a "just cause" to fire someone. Is it going to stop no-cause layoffs? No. But it will allow unions to organize. Once they do, the Democrats can get the hell out of the way.

The Dems are nothing but a tool. Once they give us what we want (and I reiterate that we CAN get what we want) it won&#39;t matter.

Now, when can I expect some more Marx 101?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

By delivering even a limited right for unions to organize, the Dems would be releasing Pandora all over again. SEIU has organized over a half a million of America&#39;s poorest workers under our current laws. Imagine what they&#39;ll do when the they&#39;re told they have a right to organize.

What exactly are the democrats going to do to deliver rights for unions to organize? Are they going to force Wal-Mart to permit u8nionized workers? I don&#39;t think so.

And besides, your plan involves tricking these guys into granting us the tool, which according to you, we&#39;ll use to mobilize against them. It all seems very unlikely.

And even if more unions were created and more workers were unionized, consider who has the support of most American workers&#39; unions? Could it be the democratic party? Something about that suggests that the democratic party won&#39;t "get the hell out of the way" if unions are strengthened.

[Kookoman]

Man that bouncing smilie guy makes me angry :D . Anyways I am agreeing with Never Forget, Never Surrender. What is the matter with endorsing a minor victory. From what I see the only other option is the Republicans. I am not saying that to work for more options should be avoided, I am just talking immediate. If the only two damned options are partial freedom and no freedom what are you going to take? The Democrats are sick Capitalist scum, but what is the alternative? Yes build up support of the proletariat, but while that is happening there is no harm in supporting the Democrats. It is a lot better than the Republicans. Why always for complete victory or nothing at all... stepping stones.

Yes Obama&#39;s speech was a load of shit, but that is basically what American politics is. You have to claim that there are enemies, you have to claim that you are a proud American, or your chances of being elected are slim. I would dearly love for a communist state, but that isn&#39;t going to happen over-night. Small victories can be celebrated as well. Have a nice day&#33;

[Sabocat]

By delivering even a limited right for unions to organize, the Dems would be releasing Pandora all over again. SEIU has organized over a half a million of America&#39;s poorest workers under our current laws. Imagine what they&#39;ll do when the they&#39;re told they have a right to organize.

Did I miss the Democrats repealing, or even imply repealing the Taft-Hartley Act?

Union organization means nothing as long as this act is in place. Union organization is really just a toothless tiger now.




TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT

Also cited LMRA; 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 141-197

[Title 29, Chapter 7, United States Code]

short title and declaration of policy

Section 1. [Sec. 141.] (a) This Act [chapter] may be cited as the
``Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.&#39;&#39; [Also known as the ``Taft-
Hartley Act.&#39;&#39;]
(b) Industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of
commerce and with the full production of articles and commodities for
commerce, can be avoided or substantially minimized if employers,
employees, and labor organizations each recognize under law one
another&#39;s legitimate rights in their relations with each other, and
above all recognize under law that neither party has any right in its
relations with any other to engage in acts or practices which jeopardize
the public health, safety, or interest.
It is the purpose and policy of this Act [chapter], in order to
promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of
both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to
provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference
by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights
of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations
whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on
the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical
to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in
connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.

The Rest (http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/tafthartley.html)

[redstar2000]

Now, when can I expect some more Marx 101?

It would be wasted on you. You still believe that the bourgeois electoral system is "really democratic" and that bourgeois parties can be "forced" to act in our interests in order to gain "our votes".

Historically, the only times when bourgeois politicians act in our interests are when there are millions of people in the streets "raising hell". The original Wagner Act (1938) was not passed because congress and the president "wanted our votes"...it was because workers were already organizing themselves in massive numbers and in complete defiance of existing laws.

Richard Nixon and congress did not withdraw American troops from Vietnam and abolish military conscription because they "wanted our votes"...they took those actions because American troops were refusing to fight and enormous numbers of kids were refusing to show up for induction.

The way to repeal Taft-Hartley is to defy it. The way to defeat the next conscription law is to refuse to obey it.

But, you reply, people aren&#39;t willing to do those things now.

Then they&#39;re fucked, that&#39;s all&#33; There are too many "leftists" who "want to help people"...and far too few who really want and expect people to liberate themselves&#33;

Those who tell people that their interests can be served by voting for this or that individual or party are either naive or they are liars.

Communists should tell people the truth: if you want your freedom, rise and take it&#33;

That&#39;s the only way it will ever happen.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Never Forget, Never Surrender]

What exactly are the democrats going to do to deliver rights for unions to organize? Are they going to force Wal-Mart to permit u8nionized workers? I don&#39;t think so.

I&#39;ve already said this, repeatedly: a statute that requires an employer prove just cause before firing. Again, this isn&#39;t going to solve anything in and of itself.


And besides, your plan involves tricking these guys into granting us the tool, which according to you, we&#39;ll use to mobilize against them. It all seems very unlikely.

And a "proletariat revolution" seems likely? I didn&#39;t say anything about tricking them. I was talking about political force.


And even if more unions were created and more workers were unionized, consider who has the support of most American workers&#39; unions? Could it be the democratic party? Something about that suggests that the democratic party won&#39;t "get the hell out of the way" if unions are strengthened.

The AFL-CIO supports the Democratic Party. The most important groups in Labor (SEIU, UNITE-HERE, etc.) are not reliable components of the AFL-CIO. This is important.

I&#39;ll try to make this simple. If a just cause statute is passed, it opens the door for more organization, mainly amongst the lowest class of working people. The SEIU has already had good success in the past decade as far as organizing (9/11 and Bush slowed that trend severly) especially amongst this poorest group. Again, there is a distinction between unions like Unite and SEIU compared to say the Teamsters or UAW, mainly that they aren&#39;t lock step behind Dem candidates, but are more interested in progressing certain issues, most often through pressure placed on Democrats.

If we can encourage fairly democratic unions to expand, we get a mobilized, politically conscious, working class movement independant of the Democratic Party. It&#39;s already taking shape, but it&#39;s struggling.


Did I miss the Democrats repealing, or even imply repealing the Taft-Hartley Act?

Union organization means nothing as long as this act is in place. Union organization is really just a toothless tiger now.


No, there isn&#39;t even a whisper (well, maybe a whisper, but everyone pretends not to hear it) about repealing Taft- Harley. That&#39;s why I&#39;m talking about something so B]small[/B], just a simple unenforceable law. We&#39;re in such sorry shape that even this is progress.

You&#39;re right, we&#39;re fighting from our knees and with one hand behind our back with this law in place. The question is, do we try to change it now, before we&#39;re stamped out all together through whatever means at our disposal? Or, do we sit around waiting for the masses to rise up (if they only would&#33;) and get our 8% of the private sector turned to nothing?

I&#39;m just throwing out ideas about what we can do right now. I&#39;m a little more optimistic about some kind of progress than most of you, but I&#39;ll admit it&#39;s not likely to happen.


It would be wasted on you. You still believe that the bourgeois electoral system is "really democratic" and that bourgeois parties can be "forced" to act in our interests in order to gain "our votes".

1) Yes, it&#39;d be wasted. I don&#39;t see it as gospel.
2) No, they&#39;re not really democratic.
3) How do you think even these working class guys like Obama get bought off? Through POLITICAL FORCE. IE corporate kickbacks and sweetheart deals in exchange for hefty contribution to the campaign warchest. The working class still wields some power, not much on the Federal level, but more in the State governments.


Historically, the only times when bourgeois politicians act in our interests are when there are millions of people in the streets "raising hell". The original Wagner Act (1938) was not passed because congress and the president "wanted our votes"...it was because workers were already organizing themselves in massive numbers and in complete defiance of existing laws.

1) You&#39;re right. That&#39;s why I&#39;m a member of the IWW.
2) You think I look at the Wagner Act as some kind of salvation? It&#39;s a hand cuff to control the kind of spontaneous organizing you&#39;re talking about. It basically told labor leaders that they could keep their jobs, as long as they kept the masses in line.
3) Defiance on the worksite is still the most effective means of empowerment. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s going to happen in significant numbers in the U.S. AGAIN I&#39;m talking about things we can be pursuing this second.


The way to repeal Taft-Hartley is to defy it. The way to defeat the next conscription law is to refuse to obey it.

But, you reply, people aren&#39;t willing to do those things now.

Then they&#39;re fucked, that&#39;s all&#33; There are too many "leftists" who "want to help people"...and far too few who really want and expect people to liberate themselves&#33;

Even the movements that you talked about (Vietnam, the war waged in the 30&#39;s against Capital) had leadership. It&#39;s not as simple as the people "liberating" themselves. They did it, but had to be coaxed and organized. Not to the level that they would have to be today, but still, leadership, direction, and organization was there. I&#39;ll supply you with specifics if want.


Those who tell people that their interests can be served by voting for this or that individual or party are either naive or they are liars.

What do we have to lose? We vote for the fuckers anyway&#33; We might as well cash in on some level. And we can do it. Not in anyway that will rock the country to it&#39;s core, but on a small level, we can.


Communists should tell people the truth: if you want your freedom, rise and take it&#33;

That&#39;s the only way it will ever happen.

The only way people will get power is they take it. No one will hand it to them. We agree on that much. I&#39;m not saying people should just vote Democrat and consider the problem solved. We already do that, it doesn&#39;t work. What I&#39;ve been talking about (and what you don&#39;t seem to be able to get) is something we can do in the immediate future to move A STEP FORWARD. I&#39;m not willing to wait for the Wonderful World of Marxist Dogma to bloom all around me. If you are, fine.

If you have something to say rather than "educate the masses" I&#39;m all ears. The Left in the U.S. doesn&#39;t even do that&#33; Sure, we talk online, make websites, etc. But do we get out in the neighborhoods, do we talk to the average American "proletariat"? NO&#33;

So what do we do tomorrow? Let another day slip by?

[redstar2000]

Even the movements that you talked about (Vietnam, the war waged in the 30&#39;s against Capital) had leadership. It&#39;s not as simple as the people "liberating" themselves. They did it, but had to be coaxed and organized. Not to the level that they would have to be today, but still, leadership, direction, and organization was there. I&#39;ll supply you with specifics if want.

In the case of the CIO, there were certainly "leaders"...including many members of the old Communist Party USA. There were also many ordinary workers who emerged in the course of struggle to play "leadership" roles.

But if you&#39;re implying that "it wouldn&#39;t have happened" unless "certain people" were present, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s justified.

In the case of the anti-war movement, your argument is much weaker. No one "led" American GIs to refuse to engage in combat...this was something they did on their own as a consequence of their own experiences. Likewise, no one "led" working class and minority youth to simply stop showing up for induction (at the giant Oakland, Calif. induction center, the "no-shows" hit 50% shortly before the end of the draft). People spontaneously concluded that there was nothing to gain and everything to lose by submitting to the draft.

Even the "official" anti-war movement was a very disorganized and even chaotic affair. Attempts to organize "top-down" coalitions that would be "respectable" repeatedly foundered over people&#39;s blunt unwillingness to accept self-appointed (and media-appointed) "leaders".

If all the "famous names" from the 1960s that you may have heard of had never been born, the anti-war movement would have nevertheless been just as raucous and ungovernable...and successful as it was.


So what do we do tomorrow? Let another day slip by?

Why are you asking me? If you are, as you claim, a member of the IWW, then you know what you&#39;re supposed to be doing&#33; You are supposed to be organizing your workplace into an IWW local.

Is that too hard? Is it "easier" to tell people to vote for Democrats?

I guess it&#39;s always easier to lie than to tell the truth.

It doesn&#39;t help much, though.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 07:14 AM
Justify your statement, RAF, you bith daft.
That was "a bit daft".

Notice that funny little thing called an "H" on the keyboard? You know the one right by the "T"?


In any case, do you really think that anyone who claims to be a "leftist", much like yourself, really needs justification against supporting bourgeois politicians?

Perhaps "lefty" is not an appropriate moniker for you.

If you support any bourgeois politician you are no leftist, period.

If you don&#39;t like the reality of it too fucking bad.



The Dems are nothing but a tool. Once they give us what we want (and I reiterate that we CAN get what we want) it won&#39;t matter.


I think you are confused as to whom is the "tool". Pseudo-leftists like yourself do nothing to anvance any other agenda besides the capitalist agenda. What&#39;s even more amusing is that you&#39;re doing all their work for them while they sit back and laugh.

Fools.

[Lefty]

"You&#39;re either with us, or you&#39;re against us."

Sound familiar, RAF?

Fuckin&#39; bith daft. :-D

Whatever, man. We are all working towards a common goal, which is the betterment of the condition of the people. Obviously, we have differing ways of going about that goal. I respect that.

Remember, one of the main reasons that the Left is so far behind the Right politically is that the Right works together. Unity, mah brotha.

[BOZG]

Unity of course, with people who are actually left-wing not with people who think a very openly right wing speech by a right wing capitalist politician is good.

[redstar2000]

Unity, mah brotha.

Watch out for that&#33;

In politics, whenever people make appeals to "unity" as a principle, it nearly always means they want you to "go along" with something reprehensible.

Always insist on getting real, specific answers.

Unity with whom?

Over what?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Lefty]

Real specific answer=work within the system (protests, volunteering) to effect change, instead of *****ing about how screwed up it is.
Unity with whom?=The left
Over what=improve condition of the general populace. No war, food, education, and healthcare for all seems like a pretty good place to start.

I was stressing unity not because I want you all to go along with what I was saying, I was stressing unity because I&#39;m SICK and FUCKING TIRED of seeing the Left fight itself instead of, say, the Right.

[Guerrilla22]

Unity with whom?=The left
Over what=improve condition of the general populace. No war, food, education, and healthcare for all seems like a pretty good place to start.


Yeah, you&#39;re right, we do need unity, unity with those who stick up for things like you forementioned, however the Democratic Party doesn&#39;t stick up for any of these things, so we shouldn&#39;t bother with them.

[Vinny Rafarino]

"You&#39;re either with us, or you&#39;re against us."

Sound familiar, RAF?

It most certainly sounds familiar; for leftists it is also true.


Fuckin&#39; bith daft. :-D


That&#39;s already old, try something new.


I was stressing unity not because I want you all to go along with what I was saying, I was stressing unity because I&#39;m SICK and FUCKING TIRED of seeing the Left fight itself instead of, say, the Right.

I suppose that would not be a problem if the left was not completely filled with those from the right.


Over what=improve condition of the general populace. No war, food, education, and healthcare for all seems like a pretty good place to start.


The only way we are ever going to get the things you speak of is through constant fighting against the right. Period.

If you think that the right will ever provide the things you mention (I will add housing) just for the fuck of it you are dead wrong.

Why? It&#39;s simple ecomomics, these "things" are incredibly valuable assets to the free market and contribute heavily to a capitalist nation&#39;s GDP.

All the hot air faux-left bourgeois politicians talk about is simply crap to get votes out of people like you.

Once they "tally your vote" you are no more important to them then a cockroach.

If you think otherwise, then perhaps the "left" is not where you need to be.

[Lefty]

Guerrilla22- I don&#39;t know about that. I sincerely doubt that Kerry will be a crusading leftist that will save the people and such, but I am fairly sure that he at least has morals, and will stand for them. Perhaps it&#39;s naivete, but I think that Kerry in office is better than Bush.

RAF- Are you implying that I am of the right? Please explain.

I don&#39;t think the right will provide any of the things that I mentioned, which is why we need to get the right out of power.

And I&#39;m 15 years old, lol. The bourgousie faux-left capitalist pigdogs can&#39;t even tally my vote yet. However, getting them in office is a step towards getting people in power that do care about insignificant nothings like myself.

[Citizen X]

A View from the Left on Obama&#39;s Speech (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=5951)

I don&#39;t think anyone posted this before, though I may have missed it, but I thought that this was something some of you might be interested in reading. I think that it does a pretty good job of answering Obama.

[redstar2000]

I sincerely doubt that Kerry will be a crusading leftist that will save the people and such, but I am fairly sure that he at least has morals, and will stand for them.

Last year we had someone here actually argue that Tony Blair "had morals".

Of course, Kerry -- like all capitalist politicians -- has a very rigid moral code.

Positive: "Always do whatever you can to strengthen and enhance the control of the capitalist ruling class over society."

Negative: "Never do anything that will weaken the control of the capitalist ruling class over society."

General: "You may say whatever you think useful...but you must always act in accordance with the positive/negative framework above."

It ain&#39;t "rocket science". :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[h&s]

I sincerely doubt that Kerry will be a crusading leftist that will save the people and such, but I am fairly sure that he at least has morals, and will stand for them.
Morals?&#33;? Excuse me, have we turned into Jesus-Lives or something? &#39;Morals&#39; are promoted by priests to control the people. They are the kind of people who call homosexuality, bisexuality, gay marriage and un-married sex &#39;immoral.&#39;
I think the words you are looking for is &#39;a sense of justice,&#39; not morals.

[Lefty]

John Kerry said that he is going to make it possible for homosexuals to achieve a civil union. Good point, he also has a sense of justice, too.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:28 PM
John Kerry said that he is going to make it possible for homosexuals to achieve a civil union. Good point, he also has a sense of justice, too.
And yet in his own state of Massachusetts, he was against gay marriage. Obviously taking his cue from the church. Civil union is not the same as marriage. The couples are denied basic rights that married people enjoy. So your hero Kerry is all about segregating people, and giving some rights and others not.

Yes, he has a great sense of justice. He demonstrated that by joining the Navy to go kill "some of those little yellow commie bastards" in Vietnam.

If he has such a great sense of justice, where was his denunciation of the "protest pen", "freedom of speech zone" at the DNC protests? Where was his denunciation of the abroggation of the 4th amendment, against illegal search and siezure on commuter train lines in and around Boston during the DNC?

Where was Kerry when the bill came before the Senate to extend unemployment benefits for the people who had exhausted them? The extension failed. By one vote. Kerry didn&#39;t think it was important enough to leave the campaign trail to vote on something as trivial as the welfare of unemployed workers.

Sense of justice. LOL. Please.

:blink:

[Sabocat]

Another great look at the rising star Obama.

The Democrat’s new liberal star

By Eric Ruder

AMONG LIBERALS, Barack Obama’s sudden emergence as a star of the Democratic Party is cause for jubilation. Obama--an African American Illinois state senator from Chicago’s South Side, with a progressive voting record--was selected as the keynote speaker of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, catapulting him from relative obscurity to the center of a national media frenzy.

Even before he gave his speech, the convention was abuzz with Obama’s name, and a variety of pundits and Democratic Party insiders had anointed him "the future of the party"--even throwing his name around as a probable vice presidential or presidential nominee in years to come. Part of his appeal is that Obama is a sure bet to replace Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) in November, moving the Democrats one seat closer to taking away the Repulicans’ razor-thin majority.

Obama’s leap to the Senate, where he’ll become only the third Black senator since Reconstruction, was facilitated by the disastrous campaigns of his leading opponents in both the Democratic primary and the general election. Ironically, both collapsed after stories about their messy divorces grew into full-fledged scandals. With three months to go before the general election, the Republicans still haven’t found a replacement to run against Obama.

For those hoping for an alternative to Bush’s war on the world, Obama’s rise has raised many hopes. In 2002, Obama spoke at an antiwar rally in Chicago, and as the convention neared, he reiterated his view that the U.S. war on Iraq was a defining campaign issue.

Nevertheless, his performance before and at the convention confirmed that even the party’s new liberal star would fail to oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq in any meaningful way. Like Kerry, he only quibbled over the hows.

The day before his speech, Obama told reporters, "On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago." He added, "There&#39;s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute."

The speech itself took Bush to task for lying about the reasons for war and for invading and occupying "without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world." In other words, Obama, the great liberal hope, thinks that Bush should have sent more troops--and that the Democrats are more capable of seeing the war on Iraq through to victory.

Obama is a gifted politician. Like Bill Clinton, he knows how to encourage people of opposite political beliefs to see what they want to see in his speeches and policy prescriptions. Thus, even Rich Lowry, a right-wing booster of the Bush gang, praised Obama’s speech for its "hawkish attitude," its "rallying cry of unity" and its "authentic, unashamed" embrace of "an awesome God."

This method carries through on other issues. Obama finds a way to talk left--but makes it clear that he will never pose a threat to corporate interests or make a policy proposal that would carry a hefty price tag. In Illinois, where it’s obvious that the death penalty system is too flawed to fix, Obama is celebrated by liberals as a crusader for death penalty reform--but he continues to support capital punishment for "punishing the most heinous crimes."

Obama calls for tax breaks for American workers and government measures to create jobs. But he’s a supporter of Corporate America’s "free trade" agenda, and his convention speech praised Kerry because "instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he’ll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home."

Obama claims to be a defender of the public school system who will campaign to put more teachers in classrooms. But he also trumpets charter schools--with their record of union-busting and siphoning funds from public schools.

In his convention speech, Obama didn’t make the case for Democrats fighting for new government programs for poor and working people--or even defending existing ones. Instead, he echoed conservative themes attacking big government--but with a seductive liberal wrapper.

"[People] don’t expect government to solve all their problems," Obama said. "They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the [suburban] collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn."

No wonder Democratic Party officials are thrilled about Obama. With his liberal credentials and ability to appeal to a range of audiences, he can sell the kind of victim-blaming rhetoric and conservative policy proposals that establishment Democrats can’t.


Link (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/508/508_05_Obama.shtml)

[h&s]

This guy just seems to be a bit clever with his words, thats all. Judging by that article, he deliberatly says stuff hinting to the left that he might do something decent, yet he has no intention of it at all.
e.g.

In Illinois, where it’s obvious that the death penalty system is too flawed to fix, Obama is celebrated by liberals as a crusader for death penalty reform--but he continues to support capital punishment for "punishing the most heinous crimes."

Typical politican hypocrasy.


The speech itself took Bush to task for lying about the reasons for war and for invading and occupying "without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world." In other words, Obama, the great liberal hope, thinks that Bush should have sent more troops--and that the Democrats are more capable of seeing the war on Iraq through to victory.
Yeah, he thinks that blowing more Iraqis to pieces is the way to see &#39;victory.&#39; Victory for the U&#036; troops, not the Iraqi, or even the American people, as at the end of the day terrorism against Iraq will just lead to terrorism against the U&#036;.

[Lefty]

Heh...guess I should&#39;ve read the speech closer, then.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Just thought I&#39;d mention this.
I was looking up "Taft-Hartley Act of 1948" on Google, and this thread is the third link provided. :)

I think that&#39;s pretty fucking cool, eh?

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:59 PM
Did anyone else see his speech at the Democratic Convention yesterday? I enjoyed it greatly. Any thoughts? The text of it can be seen at:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/artic...727233109990003 (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040727233109990003)
Yes I read it. Blah blah blah. More bourgeois, capitalist politician rhetoric. I don&#39;t see how you can be down with someone like this. He may say certain things to make it seem like he&#39;s going to support something (just like every politician), but when it comes down to it, he won&#39;t keep his word.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Don&#39;t you think that electing Kerry is a better step in the right direction than keeping Bush as the president?

[refuse_resist]

It really doesn&#39;t matter if we have a demoplican or republicrat in office. Kerry will only serve the interests of the rich and wealthy elitist, just like Bush and all past presidents have done.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

But to put it simply; Bush is pure evil. If he is re elected, who knows how he will try to continue his &#39;war on terror.&#39; At least Kerry won&#39;t try to out right opress gays.

[h&s]

At least Kerry won&#39;t try to out right opress gays. Why not? He has already condemed gay marriage, which to me is oppression. While he is saying now that he is for civil unions to be allowed for gay people, who says he actually is? He&#39;s a politician for god&#39;s sake, that means he lies. As he is a Christian, I seriously doubt that he will do anything to repeal any legislation against gays. Just like Bu&#036;h, he will run the country by his own, twisted, Christian &#39;morals.&#39;


Don&#39;t you think that electing Kerry is a better step in the right direction than keeping Bush as the president?
I hate to say it, but no I don&#39;t. Kerry will have exactly the same policies as Bu&#036;h, but he&#39;ll keep the worst ones as secret as he can. At the moment people are united against Bu&#036;h, but if Kerry gets in, they will not be united anymore, as they won&#39;t realise that Kerry is just the same as Bu&#036;h.

[PRC-UTE]

Kerry could actually be worse.

Promises to send more troops to Iraq, is more hostile to Venezuala than Bush and will only succeed in maintaining the capitalist order.