Is the United States Democratic Party left-winged?

[deck3slick]

Just curious to see what most of you think. I know in most european democracies "democrat" is a term used to describe far-right winged natioanlist fringe groups and euroskeptic organizations. Do you believe that the democratic party is a viable left0winged influence in the complex world of american politics, or simply a power hungry organization willing to take up whatever captialist views it needs to in order to promote their corporation instead of the Republicans?

[flyby]

I think the Democratic party is an imperialist party -- its class nature is capitalist, and it is fundamentally concerned with administering and defending the U.S. imperialist interests and its global empire.

The Democratic Party was the party that dropped the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. It was the party that (for a hundred years) defended, refined and administered the lynch law murder of Jim Crow in the South. It is the party that launched the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of the Balkans.

and it is today a party that holds the masses of people back from serous ly struggling with the rapid and intense moves toward fascism in this country.

Here is an article that I think captures a great deal about how to look at the Democratic party:

The Republi-Fascists... and the Republi-crats -- And Where Is the Real Alternative? (http://rwor.org/a/002/avakian-republi-fascists-republi-crats.htm)

[OleMarxco]

You and your goddamn Avakian links - Do you EVER learn? Stop worshippin' man, and argue more for yourself (Even though you dropped an argument, like, "letting Bob take care of the rest" is kind of your strategy, I see, when you come to short analyzing the demoncrats). But the shit 'bout Jim Crow is a long time ago, but time never justifies shit. Neither the atom bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - which in difference to Pearl Harbor not only had military but also civilians...bah.

Anyways, only 20% actually vote in American electionships for various reasons, can/or/won't because they are apolitical, or black, because then they are nevertheless knocked off voter's list....right.... That's why it's not a practical democracy :D

[flyby]

Brutha: chill.

We are writing posts on message boards. And there is only so much I can put in a post. So I wrote my views on the Democratic Party, and then put in a link for a deeper analsysis. Is that really so bad or so wrong?

Are you really going to argue that I don't make my own arguments and analyses? Have you been paying attention to my posts on this message board? or on Another World is Possible (http://awip.proboards23.com)?

Anyone who has been on this message board knows that your charge is mistaken -- and you are really portraying me rather unfairly.

I work very hard to understand our world, and to grasp revolutoinary politics deeply. It is not easy, and it is good we work at this together. And i share BOTH my views and summations -- and also share with folks that a whole body of work is being developed by Bob Avakian that is taking our stuff to a whole new level.

That isn't wrong, it is necessary.

And let me take a second and say why.

If we were in a burning building, and i didn't tell you that there was someone with a map of the way out -- i would be a shit woudn't i? And if you turned to me and said "don't tell me about that guy with the map, let everyone find their own way out!" Well, that would be pretty foolish too!

And no one can complain about Avakian's supporters mentioning him on this message board.

Look! This is a message board with a whole subsection dedicated to Ernesto Guevara. Why don't you have a cow over that? Is it a double standard?

Some people think Che is very important, they promote him all over the place. They debate his writings, his memoirs, his actions and movies about him. And they think that political action would be greatly helped if more people were turned on to Che.

Ok, that is their point of view. And I don't happen to agree on that view of Che. And frankly I think Avakian is on a whole other level as a communist thinker.

And look at your own nickname "olemarxo" -- you are promoting a thinker you think is worthwhile. Should we all get in a lather over that? Is it wrong to promote Marx? should you be asked to take marx out of your nick, or never post a link to a marx writing?

You accuse me of thinking "let Bob take care of everything" (which is ridiculous). Does that mean that having Marx in your nick means you think Marx's bones should be dug up and be put in charge of everything? At least make a rational argument.

But you can't both have all this, all over the message board and then AT THE SAME TIME get all freaked out is some of us link to other thinkers and leaders.

I mean, get serious. Let's have soe elementary fairness!

Should everyone who isn't a Guevarist refuse to refer to our leaders and thinkers?

If it is ok to refer to marx or che, why can't we also refer to Avakian? Especially when his line and approach is quite a development over Marx, and far more revolutonary than Che! (In my humble opinion!)

And if you have some issue with the content of what Avakian writes, then cool, lets struggle over that.

but you can't get all wiggy, when I point out important stuff (that all new revolutionaries need to know about). If i knew about all this stuff, and DIDn't point it out -- it would be a fucking crime.

So here is the basic point: I want to be able to post a link to our main man, a leading revolutionary communist of our times. And i don't thinksomeone should get a hair up their butt each time.

In a discussion of Democratic party, I both made substantive remarks of my own, and provided a helpful link to more theoretical work. That is not wrong. And I don't wanna get shit over it. OK?

[More Fire for the People]

In short, no they are not.

They are a party of the right-wing because they support capitalism, albeit a more humane (if you can even call it that) form of capitalism.

They same goes for European social democrats and South American populist.

Oh and Avaikan is an interesting and compelling theorist of our time, though I disagree with him on somethings (Maoism being the basis for a revolution and his position on religion).

[maoist_revolution]

The democrats and the republicans are imperialist monsters.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

On the other hand, what about the Spanish Socialist Party, which is now the government of Spain? I don't see them taking any revolutionary action...

[workersunity]

to your question, NO

[codyvo]

Are they left-wing, NO. But are they a step better than republicans, definately YES. I will admit that they have become the spineless party that doesn't act on anything, but I do think that people like Dennis Kucinich are a huge advancement from most politicians. If they were all like Kucinich and they had a pair of balls they might be able to do something good.

[More Fire for the People]

Voting for capitalist parties will always produce capitalism.
There is no better choice than to vote for a socialist if you feel that you must vote, but certainly you should never consider voting for the so-called lesser of two evils in the two-party system.

[KickMcCann]

It is important to realise that in the US, all political debate between the republicans and democrats focuses soley on cultural issues, and never class. This in a way crosses the boundries between the ruling and working class on issues such as abortion, militancy, religion, the environment, etc....

Although it is important to discuss cultural issues in a civilized manner, all it serves to do in capitalist society is distract the working class from the real issue of their exploitation.

Look at the demographics of the last election, the poor and the rich voted in equal representation for Bush, as well as Kerry. If the democratic party were leftist and the republican party capitalist, few rich people would support the democrats and the working class of would never vote republican.

They are bourgiouse parties whose entire existance is focused on repressing class consciousness in the United States.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

It strikes me that the position of the two main parties in the US is similar to the Conservatives and the Liberals in Britain in the 19th Century. The Republicans look after the rich and those at the top. The Democrats, like the Liberals, (in theory at least) look after the interests of the poor.

The difference between the two systems (the American and the British systems) is that there has never been a class system or an aristocracy as such in the States. Until well into the 20th century, you had in Britain the Upper Class, the Middle Class and the Working Class. In the States there is only: wealthy, less wealthy and poor (still three categories I know but the British class system puts more emphasis on status.). Therefore. you could argue that the Republicans are not like the Tories of 150 years ago but the Conservatives of today. The Democrats, however, in their commitment to capitalism and imperialism are very similar to the 19th century Liberals as it was they who pressed for free trade when the Tories were against the idea, and did the most to expand the British Empire.

The "inclusion" of the poor and minorities in the Democratic Party mirrors the position of the Liberals until the working class had the motivation to create their own party.

As support for the Labour Party grew, support for the Liberals fell away. This is the problem in the USA. There is no nationally strong working class party to challenge the Democrats so lefties who oppose revolution can only hope that the Democrats move to the left but that's not going to happen in the forseeable future, so revolution is the best policy.