Political Parties

[RaisedFistRebel]

If you could choose one political party to run the US who would it be. I'm split between the greens and the Communist Party USA.

[NovelGentry]

Can I choose a class instead? If so: The working class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm split between the Anarchist Party Of Canada (Groucho-Marxist) the Youth International Party.


That said . . . Unabomber for President!

[Theodore Bone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:03 PM
Can I choose a class instead? If so: The working class.
agreed

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

CCP or if the NDP rewrote their agenda they’d be good by me as well

[comrade_mufasa]

i am fully against any political parties. political parties are just a ruling class concept to keep the working class busy while we are being raped. all pilitical parties do is keep people from working together. all you have to do is look at the latest U$ election and the months before it. working class Rebuplican and Democrates where at each others necks with knives while the ruling class was duing what it wanted and said that we need to vote so that we can make a diffrence :angry: In a truly democratic sociaty there will be no need for political parties becouse all people will voice there oppions in thier community and will not need a group of people to show that they have an oppinion becouse all people will have an equal say.
This goes for leftest political parties also. while we need them now becouse that is part of the only way we leftest can be part of the politcal system as it is now, after the revolution all political parties will be disolved so that only the party of the people will stand. and boy will that be one crazy party :D I'll bring penuts. we need someone to bring napkins to clean all of the messes that the ruling class has brought to the world.

[RaisedFistRebel]

mufasa, you're only talking of the republican and democratic parties. many other parties represent union among the working class.

[American_Trotskyist]

The Anarchists have a party? How pathetic! You can't cry for smashig the state and authority and then participate in it! I mean what the fuck?! I miss the old days when people had conviction.

I doubt there will ever be a socialist government created through capitalists Democracy. But, we need to agitate to obliterate. The "socialist" and "communist" parties are now just reformists. Besides their reactionary policies they divide the working class, we need a Labor Party based on the Unions. With a voice of the workers we could work with the workers and create socialism, like Lenin with the Social Democractic Labor Party of Russia.

[RaisedFistRebel]

exactly. the parties dont want to create democratic capitalism, they are just there to fight what is now. we should support them anyway, even if their name is paradoxical.

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:38 AM
The Anarchists have a party? How pathetic! You can't cry for smashig the state and authority and then participate in it! I mean what the fuck?! I miss the old days when people had conviction.


Oh come now, clearly a political party is the most effective way for the Groucho-Marxist faction of Anarchism to spread it's message...

Bring back the Rhinoceros Party, that's all I have to say.

[Tupac-Amaru]

I dont see the point in you guys supporting all these insignificant parties if the only parties with real power and influence are the Democrats and the Republicans...i mean, you guys can't honestly beleive that any other party can be successfull? I mean, sure you can get an "independent" governor here and there, but in essence america is simply a two-party state.

You cant honestly tell me that the "Rhinoceros Party" or the "Groucho-Marxist party" have any kind of influence and even a remote chance of getting elected? :lol:

[Danielle]

Well, I'm not American. But this depends on the situation. For instance I would usually vote Green but in the last election I would've voted Democrat to get rid of Bush. I did that in the last election in Australia I wanted to vote Green but I deesperately wanted Howard gone. I voted Labor but Howard won. The world crumbled.

[Danielle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:03 PM
Can I choose a class instead? If so: The working class.
I also agree with you.

[bolshevik butcher]

Scottish Socialist party, there are some people who are alost liberals in it, but it's policies are socialist enough. My only problem with is it's focus on elections rather than spreading the socialist message, which is ultimatley more important.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Im going to agree with gent on this working class all the way baby

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:07 PM
mufasa, you're only talking of the republican and democratic parties. many other parties represent union among the working class.
if you read my second paragraph then i state that even leftest parties should note exist. Yet leftest parties are a nessecery evil in this system. the working class must be togather that is the only way, but the ruling class tries to keep us apart by saying that we need to be in different political parties.

[Rockfan]

I think ill vote greens and get all my mates to do it cos we have mmp so aslong as there in they can voice there opinon. Thats when im aloud to vote of course.

[minusthebear]

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, I am NOT a member although for a long time I've agreed with them.

Check it out


www.spgb.org.uk

[trotsky7]

freewebs.com/revtek


Interesting Review of American Parties in there....

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To the thicker and/or ill-researched folk, the Anarchist Party Of Canada (Groucho-Marxist) was a joke-party - a group of activists who, primarily, acted through a twisted propaganda of the deed . . . they pied various political figures, including, strangely, Jimmy Carter's brother.

The Youth International Party, or Yippies, were a group of drug-fueled-anarchist-hippies, associated with folk like Abbey Hoffman.

The Rhino Party, started by a group of Quebec artists, was not meant to get elected (On one occasion, they ran several candidates in a single riding), but to "Put the mock back in democracy."

Jeeze kids, learn to have some fun!
We all know that the mechanisms of bourgeois politics are useless for creating change (even if the perfect party were in power, it's like giving a doctor a grenade and telling him to cure the plague!), so kick back and have a laugh. Holy Chao!

[Monty Cantsin]

i thought the Groucho-Marxist line was hilarious even if VMC is just a cultural prostitute….

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Meme-slut, thankyou.


Speaking of effective meme-sluttery, I'm going to quote my post on this page, to ensure maximum readership. :P


To the thicker and/or ill-researched folk, the Anarchist Party Of Canada (Groucho-Marxist) was a joke-party - a group of activists who, primarily, acted through a twisted propaganda of the deed . . . they pied various political figures, including, strangely, Jimmy Carter's brother.

The Youth International Party, or Yippies, were a group of drug-fueled-anarchist-hippies, associated with folk like Abbey Hoffman.

The Rhino Party, started by a group of Quebec artists, was not meant to get elected (On one occasion, they ran several candidates in a single riding), but to "Put the mock back in democracy."

Jeeze kids, learn to have some fun!
We all know that the mechanisms of bourgeois politics are useless for creating change (even if the perfect party were in power, it's like giving a doctor a grenade and telling him to cure the plague!), so kick back and have a laugh. Holy Chao!

[RedArmyInvasion]

well i dont believe in political parties but the parties other than democrat and republican mostly arent intended for gaining power, theyre for influencing popular beliefs. political parties take away peoples individualism. democrats and republicans just follow whatever the party belief is, and their leaders will change their beliefs in order to gain power. the whole thing is stupid, but its the only way to gain power..

[flyby]

I look forward to the society that can be created in the former USA -- after a revolution led by the RCP and its chairman Bob Avakian.

More than any otherr trend, the RCP (and particularly Avakian) have developed a detailed and exciting vision of what that new society will be like.

I encourage everyone to look at the Draft Programme of the RCP which lays a lot of this out: http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm

In particular there are sections that (in a tight, and visionary way) describe the society that will emerge after a revolution, and then transform through further leaps and struggles.

particularly:
The Party Under Socialism and the Transition to Communism (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-party2.htm)

Consolidating the New Power, Developing Radically New Institutions (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-consol-e.htm)

Proletarian Dictatorship , Democracy and the Rights of the people (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-proldic.htm)

Internationalism and international relations (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-internat.htm)

Uprooting Racism and White Supremacy (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-nat.htm)

Ending Discrimination against immigrants (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-immigr.htm)

the emancipation of women (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-woman.htm)

Art, Science, Education and Sports (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-artscien.htm)

Afterwards there are two segments on economics.
and one on new revolutoinary morality.

So this is quite a vision, rooted in reality and the class struggle.

And this is rooted in some new and challenging theoretical work by Bob Avakian:

Democracy, Dictatorship and the Transition to Communism (http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#democracyspeech)

And Democracy: More than Ever we can and must do better than that (AKA, the K Venu Polemic) (http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm#democracy)

There is a lot to dig in here. But I think if we do... It will put this whole discussion of what party, what line, what kind of a new society -- on a whole new level!

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:33 PM
I look forward to the society that can be created in the former USA -- after a revolution led by the RCP and its chairman Bob Avakian.

More than any otherr trend, the RCP (and particularly Avakian) have developed a detailed and exciting vision of what that new society will be like.

I encourage everyone to look at the Draft Programme of the RCP which lays a lot of this out: http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm

In particular there are sections that (in a tight, and visionary way) describe the society that will emerge after a revolution, and then transform through further leaps and struggles.

particularly:
The Party Under Socialism and the Transition to Communism (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-party2.htm)

hmm...



When the proletarian revolution is victorious, the position of the party in society undergoes a profound change and new contradictions, new—even more profound and more historic—struggles come to the fore.

The proletariat will now be in power. It will be facing the immense challenge of defending the socialist state, building a new and radically different economic, social, and political system, continuing the struggle to transform society, supporting and assisting revolutionary struggles throughout the world—and correctly handling the very real and often acute contradictions involved in all this.

Under these circumstances, the leadership of the party will certainly be no less important than it was in the process of preparing for and then successfully waging a people’s war to seize power. But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole—at the head of the proletariat in power. And further, within the party itself, there is the contradiction between leadership and the led: between the party leadership and the party members as a whole.

Over my dead body. :ph34r:

[encephalon]

Over my dead body.

people discarding one messiah-figure for another. fun fun.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:10 AM

Over my dead body.

people discarding one messiah-figure for another. fun fun.
huh? What the hell are you talking about?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

DON'T VOTE PARTY!

VOTE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL!

That is how the upper class stays in power. The parties are all ruled by upper-class twits. They run upper-class twits in the elections. All the major parties do this, so you vote for an upper-class twit.

Some smaller parties have better canidates. These non-twits never get elected. Why? BECAUSE EVERYONE VOTES FOR A PARTY, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL!

Even "independants" vote for "either/or". They vote Republican or Democratic because they are "afraid that their vote will be wasted"

In the U.S., hardly anyone votes for a non-Republican, non-Democrat. Each have a base following of almost half the country. These voters have no purpose other then to ensure that either the Republican or the Democratic party wins.
There is a smaller minority that are "Independants". They swing the election one way or another.
The rest vote 3rd party, and they make up less then 1%.

Now, if people voted for individuals, a person they believed in, rather then marking all one party down the page (or a select few), these major parties wouldn't have the base support ensuring that either one or the other wins.

Guess what that would mean? A third party (several, actualy) will gain seats in congress. Perhaps a third party might even win the presidency.

Why is it that the American people can't realize that Democracy means voting for the people you feel are best qualified. Not who you think is going to win, not who belongs to a party you chose.

I am a proud member of a political party.
Not Democrat, Republican, Anarchist, Communist, Green. Not even Independant.
I belong to a party of one, the party of ME. The party of ME has only one stance on the issues: Vote for who is best qualified; who's opinions and views most match my own, not that of a "higher party"

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jan 29 2005, 05:12 AM--> (SonofRage @ Jan 29 2005, 05:12 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 01:10 AM

Over my dead body.

people discarding one messiah-figure for another. fun fun.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? [/b]
he agreed with you.

[Black Dagger]

But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole—at the head of the proletariat in power.

...

I'm not sure who is worse, vanguardist/personality cultists like the RCP, or the 'mainstream' parties of capitalist 'democracy'.

On topic, the name of the forum 'revolutionary left' should give a good indication of how most people posting here should be replying in this topic, revolutionaries dont stand behind bourgeois political organisations. There's nothing 'revolutionary' about casting a ballot, bullets yes, ballots no.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 02:22 PM
bullets yes, ballots no.
Cliches No! Sex Yes!

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Jan 29 2005, 11:53 AM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Jan 29 2005, 11:53 AM)
Black [email protected] 29 2005, 02:22 PM
bullets yes, ballots no.
Cliches No! Sex Yes! [/b]
read this once: "Fuck ballots! Cast bullets!"

[encephalon]

huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah, I agreed with you.

[flyby]

sonofrage quoted the RCP draft programme saying: "Under these circumstances, the leadership of the party will certainly be no less important than it was in the process of preparing for and then successfully waging a people’s war to seize power. But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole—at the head of the proletariat in power. And further, within the party itself, there is the contradiction between leadership and the led: between the party leadership and the party members as a whole.

The point here is that revolution is a complex process -- that doesn't "just happen."

going up against powerful forces, with major resource and the force of habit, requires plans, leaders, mobilizations, secrecy, summing up of practice and experience, division of labor, and a process of bringing together the most advanced forces for unified efforts.

We don't just want revolution -- we want a revolution that liberates humanity and moves (as fast as possible) to a radically new form of communist classless society.

And so you need to have, organized and fighting together, all those who have emerged in society who want to go there. Otherwise your level of unity is no higher than the immediate struggle -- and the revolution stalls.

Let's put it another way: I think mass democracy are necessary for revolution. People need to debate where to go, they need to develop new forms of rule, sort out different trends, wrangle with what the way forward is -- otherwise as sonofrage once pointed out, it is much easier to lead people back into capitalism. Blind obedience (even to trusted and proven communist leaders) is a recipe for defeat.

On the other hand, you can't just have mass democracy. You can't assume that people automatically know "what is to be done" -- or that the problem solving of mass democracy leads automatically to a set of choices that bring society closer to classlessness. It would be naive and unrealistic -- and would be an internalization of rather intense illusions about voting and "democracy" promoted in this society.

A revolution needs a dynamic where there is a hardcore of people who are straining (and working together) to identify a road forward. And where theere is tremendous elasticity in the society -- debate, experimentation, open forums, fearless interrogation of leaders and experiences.

That is a dynamic that is concentrated in post I gave from the draft programme Proletrian dictatorship, democracy and the rights of the people (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-proldic.htm). Sonofrage exerpted a part of it -- the part that discussed the need for vanguard organization -- after the revolution, just like before.

And i think that is ncessary because of the objective dynamics of the revolutoianry process -- both now and during the transition between capitalism and communism.