The Democratic Party

[CommieTommy]

In America, revolution is highly unlikely of taking place. I am a strong Marxist and I don't believe in the Social Democrat takeover of the goverment. But we all want to win, and we all want a leftist in that would respect our views and do what our goals are, right? The Democratic party has no socialist agenda but they are turning into the biggest libertarian party. Should we support these bourgeois since a revolution will never happen, or should we stay by ourselfs and ignore the state?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

NO! No compromise with capitalist parties.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Hell no!!!

They are servants of the elite, as much as the Republicans. Don't give up on revoulution so soon. The US government is going to fall apart eventually. The more corrupt a government is, the less functional it becomes. Hurricane Katrina showed how well this government functions.

[bolshevik butcher]

You could critically support them form timet o time if it was a choice between them and a republican ;) . But that doesnt mean beocming a dmeocrat or supporting reacitonary policies.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 29 2005, 04:15 PM
You could critically support them form timet o time if it was a choice between them and a republican ;) . But that doesnt mean beocming a dmeocrat or supporting reacitonary policies.
As far as I know, in America there is no strong party system like over here. I've always said that if I were American I would support a liberal Republican over a conservative Democrat in a presidential election. But at the end of the day, they both support the same thing so there's no point pinning socialist hopes on the Democrats.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+Oct 29 2005, 03:23 PM--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ Oct 29 2005, 03:23 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 29 2005, 04:15 PM
You could critically support them form timet o time if it was a choice between them and a republican ;) . But that doesnt mean beocming a dmeocrat or supporting reacitonary policies.
As far as I know, in America there is no strong party system like over here. I've always said that if I were American I would support a liberal Republican over a conservative Democrat in a presidential election. But at the end of the day, they both support the same thing so there's no point pinning socialist hopes on the Democrats. [/b]
Yeh., but why support either. I mean considering your vote isnt likely to swing your state you might as well vote for a more leftist candidate.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Well I may or may not vote but I would support the more liberal candidate. The best thing you can do under First Past The Post in a fairly strong conservative state is vote tactically to try and stop the guy you don't want getting in.

[redstar2000]

Overcoming Reformist Folly (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098113614&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[which doctor]

I will b able to vote for he first time in the next presidential election. I will be voting for some third party canidate to show that they have support. I would vote for a democrat, but since I live in a blue state (Illinois) I don't think that they really need my vote. If you lived in a borderline state that could go either way then I encourage you to vote democrat. Because having a democrat in office in better than having a republican in office. Am I wrong?

[DisIllusion]

NO! No compromise with capitalist parties.

Yeah, deep down, the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the same rotting, corrupt system.

[weazbert]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:10 PM

NO! No compromise with capitalist parties.

Yeah, deep down, the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the same rotting, corrupt system.
exactly. How are the dems really any better than the republicans? Voting in itself is the valve of working class discontent, and by following the compleltley bought and paid for empty promises of the democratic party it dosent matter if you claim to be a "leftist" or not, cause your actions don't follow your words.

[Reds]

Critical support of dennis kucinch and the progressive caucas other wise no.

[Red Powers]

The Democratic Party is the biggest obstacle to working class consciousness in this country. For decades they've pretended to be "friends of the working man" when in reality they were as imperialist as the Republicans. Don't forget Vietnam was a Democratic war and it was a mess. They are also hyper-anti-communist because they are sensitive to the charge of being "soft on communism" which these days is expressed as soft on terrorism. How many Democrats still support the Iraq war? How many voted for the shitbag bankruptcy bill? I'm not going to tell you not to vote for the lesser of two evils but I have difficulty evaluating evils.

[Guerrilla22]

The democratic party and the republican party both push the same policies, they just differ on how to carry out those policies. Next stupid thread...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Because having a democrat in office in better than having a republican in office. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. See: Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Clintons welfare cuts, Kosovo, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Two parties of the same [ruling] class, neither deserve the support of working class, ever.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 29 2005, 12:48 PM
Because having a democrat in office in better than having a republican in office. Am I wrong?
the DLC formed in 1985 wanted to make a "new democratic" party, guess what, they wanted the policies to be just like republicans, because big government wasnt popular anymore. remember clinton? he was head of this comittee. so no, democrats are the same as republicans, except now the republicans have gone further right

[danielfolsom]

If you are going to support a party you must do it for multiple reasons. The overall opinion is that since democrats and republicans are capitalist, they should not be trusted. But, what about issues other than the economy, should our one goal be the economy, should we not care about other issues. Comrades, do you dare say communism is soley an economic way of life, and if you do are you not acting as a greedy capitalist that only cares about money? Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, death penalty, what about those issues? I personally on most issues do support the democratic party, I usually disagree with the Republican party, there are always things that i have my own oppinion on but in the US there are two major parties and by saying we should not side with the Democrats is like saying we should side with the republicans. and if you are too obsessed with money to listen to me, think of it as the lesser of two evils.

[Guerrilla22]

Democrats don't support gay marriage. They also always seem to vote in the Bush administration's agenda.

[weazbert]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:43 AM
If you are going to support a party you must do it for multiple reasons. The overall opinion is that since democrats and republicans are capitalist, they should not be trusted. But, what about issues other than the economy, should our one goal be the economy, should we not care about other issues. Comrades, do you dare say communism is soley an economic way of life, and if you do are you not acting as a greedy capitalist that only cares about money? Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, death penalty, what about those issues? I personally on most issues do support the democratic party, I usually disagree with the Republican party, there are always things that i have my own oppinion on but in the US there are two major parties and by saying we should not side with the Democrats is like saying we should side with the republicans. and if you are too obsessed with money to listen to me, think of it as the lesser of two evils.
first of all, social issues follow economic progress. Marxist conflict theory does a great job of explaining this. and economy is the most important objective. do you think the impoverished care about gay marriage? such thisngs while *important* distract from the greater over all fight

[Jimmie Higgins]

The US is basically a one-party state with two wings of the same party: The Democrats are the other wing of the republican party or vica versa.

The Democratic party is the ether of the US left. Somehow the left keeps pinning their hopes that the democrats are secretly more left than they claim to be. I seriously had arguments with liberals who told me Kerry would pull the troops out. I was like, he never said he would do this, in fact, he said he would win the war and fight terrorism better than Bush. THe liberal replied that Kerry was just saying that as to not scare off more conservative voters, but he really secretly wanted to end the war. Is the US left that desperate? Don't reply to that last part, it was rehtorical.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I personally on most issues do support the democratic party, I usually disagree with the Republican party, there are always things that i have my own oppinion on

Seems you don't have even a basic grasp of Marxism, so you may want to lay off the criticisms until you do.


but in the US there are two major parties and by saying we should not side with the Democrats is like saying we should side with the republicans. and if you are too obsessed with money to listen to me, think of it as the lesser of two evils.

No, saying we should not support the Demlicans or Republocrats is saying we should side with ourselves as a class.

[Tekun]

Democrats and Republicans are one and the same
Republicans are wolves and Democrats are foxes, both of them are predators

I wouldn't vote for either of them
I rather vote for minor parties that don't have an inkling to win, than support a party that has disregarded and ignored the plight of the poor and the working men
Therez been democratic presidents, for years now, that have done next to nothing for the lower class

As my other comrades have stated, democrats have been involved in many of the conflicts in the last 50yrs
Korea = Truman
Cuba = Kennedy
Vietnam = Johnson
Kosovo = Clinton

The democrats are elitists that claim to be progressive or liberal, but throughout history, they've shown to be anything but
The Kennedy's have been the American version of Russian Czars
The problems of 30yrs ago still exist, bkuz its not in their interest to rectify them
They profit from our problems, and as a result they claim to care
But history has shown us otherwise

To have the Democratic party affiliated or known as progressive is a farce

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:42 PM
Overcoming Reformist Folly (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098113614&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
What about positive reforms?

social security

the minimum wage

the nhs

pensions?

All achieved through reformimst labour ogvernments. I'm not saying i wouldnt prefer a reovlution or that we should beocme reofrmists, but positive reforms are exactly that, positive.

[enigma2517]

Nope sorry

I think you missed the point.

These reforms would NEVER (hear that?) ever happen if the working class during those times was not angry and militant in expressing its grievances.

Reforms are a retreat, a compromise. The 8 hour working day was a HUGE advancement, I will agree. But we didn't get these things by simply "voting". As somebody mentioned on this board earlier, votes DON'T COUNT. Bullets count...bodies count.

The fastest way to get reforms is to encourage class consciousness and insurrection. Trust me, if you do that, it won't matter if a democrat or a republican or a green or a libertarian are in office. They will give us what they want if they know whats good for their political career.

1,000 people in the streets counts ten times more than 10,000 votes.

[bolshevik butcher]

Of course these reforms are fought for outside of elections. But if the working class doesnt vote then who gets in?

Not standing in election helped kill of the communist party in the 1920s in germany.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Oct 30 2005, 11:49 AM--> (Clenched Fist @ Oct 30 2005, 11:49 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 04:42 PM
Overcoming Reformist Folly (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098113614&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
What about positive reforms?

social security

the minimum wage

the nhs

pensions?

All achieved through reformimst labour ogvernments. I'm not saying i wouldnt prefer a reovlution or that we should beocme reofrmists, but positive reforms are exactly that, positive. [/b]
As comrade Redstar2k says on his site, it's not so much the content of reforms but the method ... they retard class struggle and make workers spectators.

I'm not against reforms, but reformist parties like the Democrats should be avoided. Even worse are the Greens.

[bolshevik butcher]

Right, i understadn that, but shouldnt positive reforms be supported? Not to say we have to support blair but if he brings in a positive reform shopuldnt we support that paticular reform?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I think it should be noted that the structure of the Democratic Party in America, is completely different to how and why the Democratic Socialist Parties in Europe were formed.

For instance when the Labour Party was formed, one of the most influential groups was the Fabian Society. A group that believed it was possible to attain Marxism through Parliament. This theory has never been tested to my knowledge in Europe, as there has never been a Marxist Prime Minister. Clement Attlee was a Socialist and his Government made substantial gains and even Harold Wilson, who used to boast about not understanding Marx, made some gains. Therefore I think it unfair to say Communism could not come through Parliament as it has never been tried.

However the Democratic Party and to some extent the modern Labour Party, are not the same as the original Social Democratic Parties founded at the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore there is really no point in advocating them. In Britain there is a possibility that the Labour Party could return to its roots but been as the Democratic Party was never a Workers' Party, it is pointless to try and make it one. America undoubtedly needs a large Workers' Party which has strong links with the unions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For instance when the Labour Party was formed, one of the most influential groups was the Fabian Society. A group that believed it was possible to attain Marxism through Parliament. This theory has never been tested to my knowledge in Europe, as there has never been a Marxist Prime Minister. Clement Attlee was a Socialist and his Government made substantial gains and even Harold Wilson, who used to boast about not understanding Marx, made some gains. Therefore I think it unfair to say Communism could not come through Parliament as it has never been tried.

It has been tried, see: Salvador Allende, Indonesia (pre-Suharto), India, etc. Guess what the result was? As Marx and Engels pointed out, the working class can't simply grab hold of the existing state, we have to destroy it and contruct a workers' state.


However the Democratic Party and to some extent the modern Labour Party, are not the same as the original Social Democratic Parties founded at the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore there is really no point in advocating them. In Britain there is a possibility that the Labour Party could return to its roots but been as the Democratic Party was never a Workers' Party, it is pointless to try and make it one. America undoubtedly needs a large Workers' Party which has strong links with the unions.

What would that workers party acoomplish? What have they accomplished anywhere? Nothing.

Any reform or change that's ever occured has happend because of the pressure put on the government by the masses. It doesn't really matter who's in office, if the masses are fighting and struggling and exerting pressure on them some reforms will give way. That's fine and dandy, but remember that that struggle has to be a part of a much larger struggle towards socialist revolution.

[bolshevik butcher]

The labour party still has it's union links. If the working class' consciousness was raissed and the unions reclaimed, it would be possible to recalim labour form the new labour sect.

[Amusing Scrotum]

It has been tried, see: Salvador Allende, Indonesia (pre-Suharto), India, etc. Guess what the result was? As Marx and Engels pointed out, the working class can't simply grab hold of the existing state, we have to destroy it and contruct a workers' state.


Violent Revolution has also been tried, see Russia, China etc. Guess what the result was? I don't think we can rule out any possibilities. Look at South America and the amount of revolutions that have been destroyed by American military intervention, indirect or direct. The only successful revolution has been Cuba and that is mainly because it was never thought of as a Communist revolution. Then we have Venezuela, where Socialism is happening through Parliament. Whether this will be successful we don't yet know. But it does show huge strides can be taken through Parliamentary means.


What would that workers party acoomplish? What have they accomplished anywhere? Nothing.


Health and Safety laws, nationalised health care, council housing, Gas and Water Socialism, municipal libraries and museums, Union rights, workers' rights, the list could go on. But most of these advances happened when Workers' Parties were in power and Party members and Union members demanded them. These reforms were all substantial advances for the workers'.


Any reform or change that's ever occured has happend because of the pressure put on the government by the masses. It doesn't really matter who's in office, if the masses are fighting and struggling and exerting pressure on them some reforms will give way. That's fine and dandy, but remember that that struggle has to be a part of a much larger struggle towards socialist revolution.

I'm not denying that when the masses have demanded change, change has come. Though without Workers' Parties helping to organise the masses and giving the masses a voice. Getting these reforms would have been much harder. Look at America, for decades the majority of the population has been in favour of a nationalised health service, but there is no Workers' Party and there is no nationalised health care. Where as Europe has nationalised health care and Workers' Parties. Admittedly there is now a struggle to reclaim these parties but that doesn't mean they haven't been used to win class struggles in the past.

You see I don't feel there needs to be one single event to create Socialism, there are lots of little battles that take place over centuries. History has shown that it has not required one large revolution to change the type of class society, Britain is an example of this, rather change in class society has in the past happened through reforms and little battles. What makes you so sure this won't happen in the future?

[danielfolsom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:00 AM

first of all, social issues follow economic progress. Marxist conflict theory does a great job of explaining this. and economy is the most important objective. do you think the impoverished care about gay marriage? such thisngs while *important* distract from the greater over all fight
so your suggesting that money is more important than human rights? Hmm, reminds me of capitalist that do whatever they want in order to get money, and have no regrets whatsoever. So if you would rather have your human rights violated so you could be somewhat rich, you really are a capitalist and you should quit this site.

[danielfolsom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:27 AM
No, saying we should not support the Demlicans or Republocrats is saying we should side with ourselves as a class.
Ya, sorry I forgot about the booming communist party in america. Pick between the Democrats and Republicans, one of the reasons gore lost the election was because Nader got so many votes, and believe me, most Green party activist would vote for gore and there was even a website of people that said they regretted voting for someone with virtually no chance of winning because those votes put a far Right (notice Dems = left Reps= right this site = revolutionLEFT.com) man in office. Which would you rather do, elect someone who is closer to you as far as most issues are or farther away, because no other party stands a chance. And besides, most Americans as much as I hate to admit it WANT to be capitalist, so we shouldn't bash them for what they want, how would you like it if someone bashed you for being capitalist?

[danielfolsom]

woops, last sentence should be COMMUNIST, my bad

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Violent Revolution has also been tried, see Russia, China etc. Guess what the result was? I don't think we can rule out any possibilities. Look at South America and the amount of revolutions that have been destroyed by American military intervention, indirect or direct. The only successful revolution has been Cuba and that is mainly because it was never thought of as a Communist revolution. Then we have Venezuela, where Socialism is happening through Parliament. Whether this will be successful we don't yet know. But it does show huge strides can be taken through Parliamentary means.

And it worked many times; workers' states were established. Eventually many of those states failed, but it was a completely new thing - workers' had never before controlled a state. Remember that it took capitalism 500 years to take hold.

A workers' state has (and will) never be established through bourgeois "democracy". The rulling class will never give up its position without a life or death struggle; and that can't be waged from parliament.


Health and Safety laws, nationalised health care, council housing, Gas and Water Socialism, municipal libraries and museums, Union rights, workers' rights, the list could go on. But most of these advances happened when Workers' Parties were in power and Party members and Union members demanded them. These reforms were all substantial advances for the workers'.

You're sorely mistaken, those all came out of struggle. No party of the rulling class ever "gives" the masses anything. It doesn't happen.


I'm not denying that when the masses have demanded change, change has come. Though without Workers' Parties helping to organise the masses and giving the masses a voice. Getting these reforms would have been much harder. Look at America, for decades the majority of the population has been in favour of a nationalised health service, but there is no Workers' Party and there is no nationalised health care. Where as Europe has nationalised health care and Workers' Parties. Admittedly there is now a struggle to reclaim these parties but that doesn't mean they haven't been used to win class struggles in the past.

Firstly, were do you get the stat that the majority of Americans favor national health case, because I've never heard of that. Secondly, they haven't struggled for it. Being in favor of something isn't struggling for it.

Most Blacks in America had been in favor of being treated like human beings since they were kidnapped from Africa - they didn't get it until they put it all on the line and struggled for it.


You see I don't feel there needs to be one single event to create Socialism, there are lots of little battles that take place over centuries. History has shown that it has not required one large revolution to change the type of class society, Britain is an example of this, rather change in class society has in the past happened through reforms and little battles. What makes you so sure this won't happen in the future?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not familiar with British history (admittedly because I'm just not interested in Britain), so I can't really comment. But I can say, as I have above, that a workers' state has never been established through parliament, because it can't. If Marx was right (which I of course believe, a decission I came too after much studying), if we learn from history, then we can see these truths. Rulling classes don't relinquish power peacefully.

I never said we shouldn't struggle for a betterment of our conditions, indeed that was covered in the Communist Manifesto so many years ago. What I have said is that, as Comrade Redstar2000 has correctly pointed out, participating in reformism is self-defeating. We struggle for our demands as a part of our overall demand: an end to capitalism.


so your suggesting that money is more important than human rights? Hmm, reminds me of capitalist that do whatever they want in order to get money, and have no regrets whatsoever. So if you would rather have your human rights violated so you could be somewhat rich, you really are a capitalist and you should quit this site.

Don't be idiotic. Read some Marx. It helps to know what you're talking about if you want to criticize it. Being determines conciousness, not the other way around.


Ya, sorry I forgot about the booming communist party in america. Pick between the Democrats and Republicans, one of the reasons gore lost the election was because Nader got so many votes, and believe me, most Green party activist would vote for gore and there was even a website of people that said they regretted voting for someone with virtually no chance of winning because those votes put a far Right (notice Dems = left Reps= right this site = revolutionLEFT.com) man in office.

It's hard to decypher what you're talking about here, but you seem to be missing a key issue. It doesn't matter if Bush or Gore got in office. They both represent the same class (hint: it's not the proletariat). It never matters.


Which would you rather do, elect someone who is closer to you as far as most issues are or farther away, because no other party stands a chance.

I would rather elect neither and not participate in bourgeois elections. They are of no interest to the working class. You speak in odd terms, painting a picture of an eternal party duopoly, as if the Democrats and Republicans have always and will always rule society for ever and ever amen. Communists call for a split from all parties of the bosses (including whatever tickets Nader runs on) and the organization of the workers as a class.


And besides, most Americans as much as I hate to admit it WANT to be capitalist, so we shouldn't bash them for what they want, how would you like it if someone bashed you for being capitalist?

Americans are told what they want. The ideas of the rulling class (in any society) are the prominent ideas in society (until periods of crisis), that means nothing to us.

Alot of people believe in a "god", even though it's fundamentally against their own interests. Does that mean we should just give in and become (insert bullshit-religion name here)?

"How would you like it if someone bashed you for being communist?" :lol: You're either young, naive, or both. I suggest you look at the history of the last few hundred years and find out how communists have been treated.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And it worked many times; workers' states were established. Eventually many of those states failed, but it was a completely new thing - workers' had never before controlled a state. Remember that it took capitalism 500 years to take hold.

And that is why I think, quite obviously, that violent revolution shouldn't be ruled out just because it has failed a few times. All I am saying is that we can't predict the future and therefore it would be silly to rule out either Parliamentary revolution or violent revolution. Both are possible.


A workers' state has (and will) never be established through bourgeois "democracy". The rulling class will never give up its position without a life or death struggle; and that can't be waged from parliament.

The Labour Government in the 70s under Wilson was destroyed by the World Bank and other monetary institutions. If it had been bold and told the people what these institutions were doing, the Unions would have mobilised and a revolutionary situation may well have occurred. Instead they bowed down to these institutions because Wilson was no Marxist, if he had of been a Marxist and stood up to these institutions then I think there is a very real possibility that I would be typing this post from a Socialist country.

Socialism through reform may be unachievable, but the ability of a Workers' Party to create a revolutionary situation whilst in office is not. This means the rich will be left with two choices, Socialism through reform where there will be little risk of them dying or Socialism through revolution where they probably will be killed. If the fear of death is great enough, I think there is a very real possibility they will concede to spare themselves. After all, they only care about themselves.


You're sorely mistaken, those all came out of struggle. No party of the rulling class ever "gives" the masses anything. It doesn't happen.

Yes they did come out of struggle and mobilisation to a degree, what I am saying is that a Workers' Party was an incredibly useful tool to help the workers' achieve these things. The Labour Party was truly feared by the ruling class as something that could work as a vehicle for their destruction. As a Party it was very different from the Democratic Party in its structure and its ideals.


Firstly, were do you get the stat that the majority of Americans favor national health case, because I've never heard of that. Secondly, they haven't struggled for it. Being in favor of something isn't struggling for it.


Its in a Chomsky book I have, I'll try and find it for you if you want. Also most European countries haven't struggled for nationalised health care in the sense there was a movement for it. In Britain after the war the public elected a Labour Government who had it as a election policy. It should be noted this Government was the most radical and Socialist Governments in Britain's history and was therefore not just bowing down to the demands of the masses, it was trying to create Socialism.


Most Blacks in America had been in favor of being treated like human beings since they were kidnapped from Africa - they didn't get it until they put it all on the line and struggled for it.


Very true and if there had been a solid Workers' Party in America in the 60s, I think we could have seen some quite amazing things. Without an established Party they could use as a vehicle for their struggle, I feel the struggle was less effective.


I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not familiar with British history (admittedly because I'm just not interested in Britain), so I can't really comment. But I can say, as I have above, that a workers' state has never been established through parliament, because it can't. If Marx was right (which I of course believe, a decision I came too after much studying), if we learn from history, then we can see these truths. Rulling classes don't relinquish power peacefully.


The British example was a reference to how bourgeois society was not really created through violent revolution in Britain as it was in France. The monarchy was not executed or dethroned, aristocracy was not removed in one one violent battle. Rather over a few centuries little struggles took place and the bourgeois emerged as the dominant force.

This is why Britain still has some remnants of Feudalism, the monarchy, the House of Lords etc. Yet it is still a bourgeois society. Despite the fact that a lot of Republicans' argue its not and that its still in transition. But its not really in transition, the old Feudal aristocracy has just adapted and evolved to bourgeois society. I think the same type of thing could happen with regards Socialism.


I never said we shouldn't struggle for a betterment of our conditions, indeed that was covered in the Communist Manifesto so many years ago. What I have said is that, as Comrade Redstar2000 has correctly pointed out, participating in reformism is self-defeating. We struggle for our demands as a part of our overall demand: an end to capitalism.

This I suppose is where we differ. I don't think the creation of nationalised health care, a certain amount of workers' control etc. is reformism. I think it is all part of the revolutionary process that will lead to Socialism.

You see its not that I favour Parliamentary Socialism over Revolutionary Socialism, its just I don't feel that one should be the preferred option. I believe in most first world countries where the Ruling class is to strong to be overthrown by a few thousand committed revolutionaries. There needs to be a mixture of Parliamentary and Revolutionary Socialism.

[weazbert]

Originally posted by danielfolsom+Oct 30 2005, 08:43 PM--> (danielfolsom @ Oct 30 2005, 08:43 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 03:00 AM

first of all, social issues follow economic progress. Marxist conflict theory does a great job of explaining this. and economy is the most important objective. do you think the impoverished care about gay marriage? such thisngs while *important* distract from the greater over all fight
so your suggesting that money is more important than human rights? Hmm, reminds me of capitalist that do whatever they want in order to get money, and have no regrets whatsoever. So if you would rather have your human rights violated so you could be somewhat rich, you really are a capitalist and you should quit this site. [/b]
when the hell was gay marriage a human right? and hmmm, do you realize what exactly your saying? it seems to me that you are suggesting that the revolution should be forgotten in place of gay rights and abortion.........and to fully compromise with the established system. Hello Democratic party, i thought you were full of shit then and obviosuly nothing has changed. I should quit this site? No, i think you should take some time and read real revolutionary literature, not this watered down democratic apologist crap

thank you, and fun washing your hands when you leave the ballot box.

[weazbert]

"Socialism through reform may be unachievable, but the ability of a Workers' Party to create a revolutionary situation whilst in office is not. This means the rich will be left with two choices, Socialism through reform where there will be little risk of them dying or Socialism through revolution where they probably will be killed. If the fear of death is great enough, I think there is a very real possibility they will concede to spare themselves. After all, they only care about themselves."



this situaion arose for the SPD in the weimer republic, and through amny factors, the middle class voted in the Nazi party. if it wasnt for sheer reactionism from the middle class, the Nazi's would have never gained a foothold.


*please note that many factors gave rise to Hitler, mainly the depression, but middle class fear of the "revolution" and modern ideas born in the enlightenment played no small part.

[weazbert]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:32 PM
Nope sorry

I think you missed the point.

These reforms would NEVER (hear that?) ever happen if the working class during those times was not angry and militant in expressing its grievances.

Reforms are a retreat, a compromise. The 8 hour working day was a HUGE advancement, I will agree. But we didn't get these things by simply "voting". As somebody mentioned on this board earlier, votes DON'T COUNT. Bullets count...bodies count.

The fastest way to get reforms is to encourage class consciousness and insurrection. Trust me, if you do that, it won't matter if a democrat or a republican or a green or a libertarian are in office. They will give us what they want if they know whats good for their political career.

1,000 people in the streets counts ten times more than 10,000 votes.
Wow, couldn't have said it better my self. US labor history embodies this to the utmost extent.

[danielfolsom]

What I'm saying is that while communism deals with the economy, your life should not center around the economy. Yes, communist have been treated poorly, but communist haven't been the greatest neighbors either. You must understand that communism does not run a country, there are human rights that i consider more valuable. All of you are saying oh ya, look what Marx says, your right because marx talks about the economy the economy is the only thing that should be focused on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:05 PM
As comrade Redstar2k says on his site, it's not so much the content of reforms but the method ... they retard class struggle and make workers spectators.

I'm not against reforms, but reformist parties like the Democrats should be avoided. Even worse are the Greens.
I agree that reformism is no substitute for revolution, but there is a difference between reformist parties and the Democrats which do not even claim such pretenence of "reforming" anything!

The Greens (USA) are a reformist party, the Democrats are a corporate ruling class party; it's an important distinction. The Greens feel that solcialist-like results can come from withing the capitalist system by reforming the government and laws. Of course as revolutionaryies we have a knowledge of history that shows us the dead-ends of social-democratic strategies or electoral socialism. The Democrats on the other hand are dedicated to upholding the capitalist system and only reforming it when the alternative is rebellion by workers. The last time the Democrats did anything that could really be called "reformism" was in the 1930s when hardly anyone could claim that capitalism was working fine by itself.

I think supporting reformist parties is actually a good strategy in the short term in the US as long as radicals clearly stand independant from thoes parties and make it clear that they think that revolution is the only solution in the long term.

So how is the Green party in the US currently worse than the Democrats? The Greens in the 2000 election were able to mobalize people and bring issues of the anti-globalization movement into the mainstream political arena. If Nader had been let into the debates in 2004, what kind of impact would that have had on the anti-war movement if you had two candidated defending the war (Bush and Kerry) and one opposed to it? It would have changed the debates in such a way that the very nature of the war had to be discussed rather than, as it was, just tactics of how best to win the war.

On an annecdotal note, I would never have become a radical if I had not been involved with the Green party because it opened me up to the possibility of doing more than just throwing my vote to whichever democrat came along and was a hair less awful than the republican candidate.

Sure a revolutionary party is better, even a social-democrat party would be better, but unless you can magically conjure one of thoes up out of thin air, I think it is important to support independant left-wing 3rd parties in order to break consiousness away from the trap of the 2 party washington concensus.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by danielfolsom+Oct 30 2005, 08:54 PM--> (danielfolsom @ Oct 30 2005, 08:54 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 05:27 AM
No, saying we should not support the Demlicans or Republocrats is saying we should side with ourselves as a class.
Ya, sorry I forgot about the booming communist party in america. Pick between the Democrats and Republicans, one of the reasons gore lost the election was because Nader got so many votes, and believe me, most Green party activist would vote for gore and there was even a website of people that said they regretted voting for someone with virtually no chance of winning because those votes put a far Right (notice Dems = left Reps= right this site = revolutionLEFT.com) man in office. Which would you rather do, elect someone who is closer to you as far as most issues are or farther away, because no other party stands a chance. And besides, most Americans as much as I hate to admit it WANT to be capitalist, so we shouldn't bash them for what they want, how would you like it if someone bashed you for being communist? [/b]
I get bashed for being a communist all the time - mostly by liberals too!

Yes many people in the US want to be capitalist... more truthfully I think most people in the US would like to be petty-bourgoise (self-employed or a shop-owner as opposed to a capitalist who owns a factory or offices). But most people in the US can't be capitalists or petty-bourgoise so people hold onto this "dream" becuase there is no alternative.

The reason, I think, for this desire is because no one wants to be suject to wages and rent and a boss. If people felt that a revolution had the ability to put workers in power, then people would realize that they are far maore likley to achive this sort of freedom from bosses and rent and all that through revolution than through pipe-dreams of owning their own business or "get-rich-quick" schemes.

This is actually why I support 3rd parties which are left of the democrats because if we could build a labor party here, people could see that there are possibilities beyond the a or b options that the Democrats and Republicans give us.

For example here is a fictional debate:

Republican: the budget is outta wack so we have to privitize the atmosphere in order to get more revenues and cut spending on schools and hospitals.

Democrat: yes the budget is in the red, but we should cut funding to schools and hospitalis to make up for it, not provitze air. (clearly the Democrat is the lesser of evils here)

Now, if this is all you hear and can vote for one of these two, you'd think oh, the budget is bad so we need to sacrifice somehow to make up for it. But if there is a candidate left of the Dems:

Green: Profits are way up for businesses and we live in the richest country in the world. We should tax the rich more and pay off the budget and still have some left over to build more schools and hospitals.

SO just by having a 3rd option left of the Dems, consiousness can more easily shift in a way that brings people closer to more radical ideas.

[danielfolsom]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Oct 31 2005, 02:14 AM--> (Gravedigger @ Oct 31 2005, 02:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:54 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 05:27 AM
No, saying we should not support the Demlicans or Republocrats is saying we should side with ourselves as a class.
Ya, sorry I forgot about the booming communist party in america. Pick between the Democrats and Republicans, one of the reasons gore lost the election was because Nader got so many votes, and believe me, most Green party activist would vote for gore and there was even a website of people that said they regretted voting for someone with virtually no chance of winning because those votes put a far Right (notice Dems = left Reps= right this site = revolutionLEFT.com) man in office. Which would you rather do, elect someone who is closer to you as far as most issues are or farther away, because no other party stands a chance. And besides, most Americans as much as I hate to admit it WANT to be capitalist, so we shouldn't bash them for what they want, how would you like it if someone bashed you for being communist?
I get bashed for being a communist all the time - mostly by liberals too!

Yes many people in the US want to be capitalist... more truthfully I think most people in the US would like to be petty-bourgoise (self-employed or a shop-owner as opposed to a capitalist who owns a factory or offices). But most people in the US can't be capitalists or petty-bourgoise so people hold onto this "dream" becuase there is no alternative.

The reason, I think, for this desire is because no one wants to be suject to wages and rent and a boss. If people felt that a revolution had the ability to put workers in power, then people would realize that they are far maore likley to achive this sort of freedom from bosses and rent and all that through revolution than through pipe-dreams of owning their own business or "get-rich-quick" schemes.

This is actually why I support 3rd parties which are left of the democrats because if we could build a labor party here, people could see that there are possibilities beyond the a or b options that the Democrats and Republicans give us.

For example here is a fictional debate:

Republican: the budget is outta wack so we have to privitize the atmosphere in order to get more revenues and cut spending on schools and hospitals.

Democrat: yes the budget is in the red, but we should cut funding to schools and hospitalis to make up for it, not provitze air. (clearly the Democrat is the lesser of evils here)

Now, if this is all you hear and can vote for one of these two, you'd think oh, the budget is bad so we need to sacrifice somehow to make up for it. But if there is a candidate left of the Dems:

Green: Profits are way up for businesses and we live in the richest country in the world. We should tax the rich more and pay off the budget and still have some left over to build more schools and hospitals.

SO just by having a 3rd option left of the Dems, consiousness can more easily shift in a way that brings people closer to more radical ideas. [/b]
Uh no: Dems are like, we should tax the rich and give less to the poor, the green party is like, we should exchange cars for bicycles

[The Unholy]

I would never support a Democrat or Republican. Ever.

Last presidential election I voted Nader. Mainly because I felt it’s important to support a 3rd party candidate since we desperately need to break from the undemocratic 2 party system.

Of course I hold no illusions about Nader and am perfectly aware he is not a socialist. I just think the next step in progress is to slowly break from the 2 party system.

[danielfolsom]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2005, 10:11 PM
I would never support a Democrat or Republican. Ever.

Last presidential election I voted Nader. Mainly because I felt it’s important to support a 3rd party candidate since we desperately need to break from the undemocratic 2 party system.

Of course I hold no illusions about Nader and am perfectly aware he is not a socialist. I just think the next step in progress is to slowly break from the 2 party system.
See the thing is we don't neccesarily have a 2 party system, its just the majority vote in 2 parties but hey, thats what they want to do so what? They vote for the candidate they like the best, if those candidates always comes from two parties its still a democracy.

[The Unholy]

Originally posted by danielfolsom+Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM--> (danielfolsom @ Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM)
The [email protected] 2 2005, 10:11 PM
I would never support a Democrat or Republican. Ever.

Last presidential election I voted Nader. Mainly because I felt it’s important to support a 3rd party candidate since we desperately need to break from the undemocratic 2 party system.

Of course I hold no illusions about Nader and am perfectly aware he is not a socialist. I just think the next step in progress is to slowly break from the 2 party system.
See the thing is we don't neccesarily have a 2 party system, its just the majority vote in 2 parties but hey, thats what they want to do so what? They vote for the candidate they like the best, if those candidates always comes from two parties its still a democracy. [/b]
No, that’s not the case at all. If it were a democracy candidates would be on ballots in all 50 states, which certainly is not the case in the US. The amount of restrictions placed on 3rd party candidates and the mountains they have to clime JUST to be on a state ballot is appalling. Nader was only on about 25 state ballots and other candidates were on a lot less than that. Both Democrats and Republicans worked together to remove candidates off state ballots, one state in particular, Florida, it was the Democrats who fought Nader harder than they fought the republicans, finally getting him removed him from the ballot, all the while missing a golden opportunity to remove the Repubs from the ballot due to a technicality.

Secondly, Amerikans don’t vote for who they like- they vote for who they think can win. Ask any Kerry supporter- they didn’t actually like Kerry, they just disliked Bush even more (the lesser of evil mentality). This attitude is summed up perfectly by Michael Moore’s pathetic slogan in 2004: “Kerry sucks. Bush sucks. Vote Kerry!” One poll actually stated that around 35% of Amerikans would have voted Nader if they thought he had a chance of winning. The irony of course is if all those people actually voted for him, he would have won.

[danielfolsom]

Originally posted by The Unholy+Nov 2 2005, 10:52 PM--> (The Unholy @ Nov 2 2005, 10:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:24 PM

The [email protected] 2 2005, 10:11 PM
I would never support a Democrat or Republican. Ever.

Last presidential election I voted Nader. Mainly because I felt it’s important to support a 3rd party candidate since we desperately need to break from the undemocratic 2 party system.

Of course I hold no illusions about Nader and am perfectly aware he is not a socialist. I just think the next step in progress is to slowly break from the 2 party system.
See the thing is we don't neccesarily have a 2 party system, its just the majority vote in 2 parties but hey, thats what they want to do so what? They vote for the candidate they like the best, if those candidates always comes from two parties its still a democracy.
No, that’s not the case at all. If it were a democracy candidates would be on ballots in all 50 states, which certainly is not the case in the US. The amount of restrictions placed on 3rd party candidates and the mountains they have to clime JUST to be on a state ballot is appalling. Nader was only on about 25 state ballots and other candidates were on a lot less than that. Both Democrats and Republicans worked together to remove candidates off state ballots, one state in particular, Florida, it was the Democrats who fought Nader harder than they fought the republicans, finally getting him removed him from the ballot, all the while missing a golden opportunity to remove the Repubs from the ballot due to a technicality.

Secondly, Amerikans don’t vote for who they like- they vote for who they think can win. Ask any Kerry supporter- they didn’t actually like Kerry, they just disliked Bush even more (the lesser of evil mentality). This attitude is summed up perfectly by Michael Moore’s pathetic slogan in 2004: “Kerry sucks. Bush sucks. Vote Kerry!” One poll actually stated that around 35% of Amerikans would have voted Nader if they thought he had a chance of winning. The irony of course is if all those people actually voted for him, he would have won. [/b]
Ya, and this is compared to what exactly? And that poll is bogus, well according to my polls. but yes it often is the lesser of two evils, but comrad, how do u know it will be different in communism (unless we have a dictator like most communist countries)

[Correa]

I like to think voting in US elections is an attempt to elect your next enemy at best.

[dragonoverlord]

No there just cry babies and just as bad as the republicans they have only politics on there mind and are just as dirty as republicans(maybe alittle cleaner).

They are like vultures or cats when they since the oppositions(republicans) they just make low down accusations and not think straight.
Dont get me wrong i hate both republicans and democrats.

[NE_Liberal]

I am putting on a flame suit here and I may even be banned, but i have two things...

1. How was the invasion of Kosovo such a bad thing? I am a pacifist but Slobodan was a real asshole. There were no apparent alterior motives for Clinton to invade (oil). There was a massive genocide taking place, and the U.S. with the help of others ended that. If I were to take a poll on this site most people would proabably support some sort of intervention in Darfur, which would no doubt need military action. Would you condemn that action as you have Kosovo?

2. There are two things in America that are undemocratic (little d) one is the Senate and the other is the Electoral College. If the U.S. wanted to be completely democratic they would eliminate these two things.

Until these two things are eliminated, and proportional elections can occur, I will not be politically marginalized by voting for third, forth or fifth party. I will not support a politically weak and unorganized party simply because they suport "the revolution" that will most likely not happen.

Do not get me wrong I am all for radical change in America, but I do not see the point in voting for the communist party for president when there are bigger fish to fry, like REAL ISSUES! That being said I support third party canidates if the Democrats do not run someone that I have the same views as. Also voting for third party canidates for local election is a good thing if they are competitive.

Flame away, but I am sorry you have to go about changing the system peacefully and from the inside and not by violent revolution.

[Correa]

For starters the genocide went out of control AFTER bombs were dropped by the US. Prior to that it was a bad situation, but US involvement made it worse. Chomsky has an entire chapter devoted to this in "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by "Liberal"
1. How was the invasion of Kosovo such a bad thing? I am a pacifist but Slobodan was a real asshole. There were no apparent alterior motives for Clinton to invade (oil). There was a massive genocide taking place, and the U.S. with the help of others ended that. If I were to take a poll on this site most people would proabably support some sort of intervention in Darfur, which would no doubt need military action. Would you condemn that action as you have Kosovo?
THis subject would be too far off subject to discuss in detail here... I suggest starting a topic in OI on this one. My (attempt at a) short answer is that at the end of the cold war the US faced a crisis of how to justify their worldwide military structure without the justification of balencing out the USSR. You might think, the cold war is over, so the Us should go back to a pre-cold war situation and Nato should be disbanded... but the US used Kosovo as an excuse to continure these things.

If people controlled the US government and military, then I would have no doubt that if they went into a country to stop a genocide, then they would be doing it for these reasons. They US and UK (or any power for that matter including the USSR) never do this without trying to gain more controll for themselves. If the USSR said we are invading country X to help them, would you believe it? So why do you believe the US when a democratic president says it?


Until these two things are eliminated, and proportional elections can occur, I will not be politically marginalized by voting for third, forth or fifth party. I will not support a politically weak and unorganized party simply because they suport "the revolution" that will most likely not happen. I don't think that revolution can happen within the electoral system (it must be done by people themselves rather than some party) so "voting for the revolution" is not the question. I voted for Nader because he was agains the war. I didn't vote for Kerry because he wanted to "win" the war, he wanted to let stated ban gay marriage and he was basically to the right of even Bush on many issues.


Do not get me wrong I am all for radical change in America, but I do not see the point in voting for the communist party for president when there are bigger fish to fry, like REAL ISSUES!I agree, voting in general once every 4 years is the lowest form of political expression. So real issues such as the war? Do you support the US occupation of Iraq as you support the invasion of Kosovo (as well as, I assume, the other clinton interventions such as in Hati and so on)? Kerry does.


That being said I support third party canidates if the Democrats do not run someone that I have the same views as. Also voting for third party canidates for local election is a good thing if they are competitive. All but one or two Democrats voted to give Bush war powers and have done nothing resembling a real opposition against him. Most Americans are against this war now and what are the Democrats strategy? End the war? No. Their strategy is to try and go after White house staff for lieing about war information. Great in 30 year, the occupation will still be going on, but at least the last member of the Bush administration will be behing bars. The democrats don't want to oppose the war outright because they want to win elections and run the war themselves. They have consistanly argued that Bush is not fighting the war correctly (i.e. we can wage war better). This is no opposition at all!


Flame away, but I am sorry you have to go about changing the system peacefully and from the inside and not by violent revolution.Joining the Democrats... yeah, the Communist Party in the US tried that in the 40s and 50s and look at how sucsessful that was... McCarthyism.

I was a Democrat when Clinton was elected because I thought Reagan and Bush I were so horrible. I was excited that he promised gay rights and universal health care. What we got instead was neoliberalism and decline in unions and worker wages and bills like the "Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism bill" and the end of welfare and the beginning of workfare. By Clinton's second term I vowed never to throw my votes to the Democrats again.

The anti-war movement in the 60s supported LBJ and thir slogan was half the way with LBJ (i.e. lesser-evilism) and what did it get them? New chants like "Hey hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today"

[NE_Liberal]

I am not going to defend Kerry, I was, and still am a Dean person. I will not vote for a Democrat who supports the War. Maybe I did not make that clear. I voted Kerry simply because he was not Bush, and some change is better than no change. I identify myself with most Socialists more than I do with centrist Democrats. I do however think that many Democrats are waking up to the fact that they can not "out-Republican" the Republicans, even if Hilary Clinton is not...

I joined this site because I am still trying to find myself politically. I like what some Democrats stand for, and I also like some elements of Socialism. I get interesting points of view on this site, some are well founded(equality of man), others are not(some people here think it is good when US soldiers die in Iraq). But for now I am still considering myself an extremely left wing Democrat, for the simple fact that they as a party have more impact on this country than any other party that is left of center.

I have read a lot of Chomsky and am quite a fan of him, so it surprises me that I have missed such a big thing as Kosovo. That is one conflict I am not that well versed in. I will read about it when I get a chance.

And for the record, for my American Political Theory class I am writing my term paper on the life and politics of Eugene V. Debs. I find him great to read and identify strongly with the labor movement.

I could keep typing all night, but I have a test tommorow. So I will check back tommorow.

Peace

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well Debbs is a good place to start.


Originally posted by Debs
That is the only rivalry there is between the two old capitalist parties—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party—the political twins of the master class. They are not going to have any friction between them this fall. They are all patriots in this campaign, and they are going to combine to prevent the election of any disloyal Socialist. I have never heard anyone tell of any difference between these corrupt capitalist parties. Do you know of any? I certainly do not. The situation is that one is in and the other trying to break in, and that is substantially the only difference between them.

The democrats wouldn't exist at all if they didn't have something appealing in their message, but I think faith in them is misplaced.

I probably agree with Kusinich on many issues more than Nader, but as independant from the Dems, Nader was able to stick to his guns in being anti-war (that's a funny phrase). Kusinich on the other hand, promised his supporters he would take the anti-war message to the DNC, but instead subjigated his demands and told his supporters to vote for Kerry.

The Dems said vote for Kerry or it will be the end of the world. Bush won, and now he is less popular than ever, but where are the Democrats? Cindy Sheehan and Kanye West have put up more of an opposition and done more to turn people against Bush than the Democrats have all year! One of the main things I heard from my liberal friends about voting for Kerry was that even though he was more right-wing than they'd like, if Bush was reelected, he'd appoint anti-abortion judges. Well he has done this and who has put up an opposition to these jusdges? Conservative bloggers!?

What the hell good is an opposition party if they don't oppose!

[youdontknowjake]

Not voting is the tool of anarchists. in order to deal with the problems at hand we MUST VOTE. we need to have our OWN candidates. we need them in every country we can influence. we need to show the validity of our power.

[Reds]

What ever happend to pro labor republicans?

[NE_Liberal]

Pro-Labor republicans are Pro-cheap labor republicans.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:18 AM
What ever happend to pro labor republicans?
Do you seriously think they existed at a some point in time? :lol: