For A Socialist Alternative

[RedskinUltraRMC]

For a socialist alternative in the 2006 US elections - Statement of the Socialist Equality Party (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/elec-j12.shtml)

I'm interested to know everyone's thoughts. What do you agree/disagree with?

[Dreckt]

It sounds good, I would probably vote for it if I lived in America.

The thing is, they're asking too much. The way I see it is that America has gone so far that nothing can change it.

A friend of mine went to America a while ago, and he argued that American democracy may already be dead. Almost all political decisions are made within one or the other party, not by discussion between parties. Local and state governments have been in the hands of either the Republicans or the Democrats for decades.

Voting functions as a cerenomy, people hold inflexible party loyalties that seem unlikely to change, no matter what policy the party itself has. Most Republicans will vote for their party, regardless of what the Republicans actually do, as is the same for the Democrats.

There are, however, voters who do change side, but this almost never goes outside the Republican vs Democrat view. With the two main parties using different rethoric but largely the same policies, the people of the US are given the illusion that they have the power, while in reality, they have none.

Remember that the US wasn't a kingdom or empire at it's creation, it became a republic. "American" was the very symbol of democracy, freedom and so called the pursuit of happiness. A one-party state wouldn't hold for a day. No, a dictatorship in the US requires deception. It must look, sound, smell and whatever as a democracy to the people, in order to survive.

He also mentioned the Roman emperor Octavian Augustus, that as he secretly made his empire, the people on the other hand, still though the republic was intact. I hear many comparisons to the Roman Empire - and I agree that the US shares some similarities.

But once again - this party simply has no chance. The ruling class will not allow it. So, how can the US become socialist? It must be some form of organization. But once again, the US has protection against this too.

The secret is the Patriot Act. It's very existance protects the way the US functions now. It is stated that it will protect the citizens of the US against any terrorist organization - outside as well as inside. So if a Socialist Resistance was to be formed, it would be counted as a terrorist organization, and quickly disbanded.

So, this is the very essence of dictatorship. I believe many here have seen or read Orwell's 1984. At least in the movie, Winston recieves this book where the truth is revealed to him. It said something like this:

"War and poverty are means to keep the population under control. It doesn't matter if the war is fought with Eurasia or Eastasia - the war is never meant to be won. Etc..."

And the scary thing is that this is true. Ever since the Second World War, the US has followed the pattern of 1984. Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Cold War - all the coups in all Cold War "communist" countries (Greece, Chile etc) - and now the so called "War on Terror". Rumsfeld himself said that "the war on terror could take decades", which is about the only true thing he have said since his birth.

There is another person in human history that shared the same view as the US. That person was Adolph Hitler. If Germany would have won the war, exactly the same thing would have happened, because he knew that a government is at it's strongest when at war.

Then, what can be done? I think the thought of World Revolution is a good idea...

[RedskinUltraRMC]

It is because of the reactionary developments you mentioned that they are participating in the election. The main goal of the campaign is to raise awareness about these issues and create interest in building the party. Obviously there are numerous undemocratic obstacles in the way of small third parties but this is about much more than winning votes.

You can't comprimise your principles by limiting your demands to limited reforms. This strategy has proven to be a complete failure.

With only two major parties who defend the interests of a wealthy elite dominating politics, there is no representation in government for the vast majority of the American population. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on how best to run the empire and some social issues they are first and foremost defenders of capitalism and US hegemony around the world.

While US foreign policy is based on invasion and plunder abroad, the ruling elite is drastically cutting social programs and services domestically. They are committing imperialist crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and violating civil liberties while obsurdly claiming these actions are being done in the name of "freedom." These lies are certainly Orwellian.

While the bourgeoisie of the US and the world may seem too strong to overthrow, you have to remember the revolutionary role of the proletariat. If workers unite under the banner of socialist internationalism we are more than capable of taking power and laying the basis for social equality.

It may not be apparent to everyone at the moment but the potential for major upheavals in the near future exists. With the globalization of production there is a growing contradiction between the nation-state and the international economy. The constant attacks on the hard-fought for rights and privileges of working people around the world will have it's consequences.

The crisis of world capitalism and the decay of American democracy are the very reasons we must build an independent party of the working class based on a socialist program.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The crisis of world capitalism and the decay of American democracy are the very reasons we must build an independent party of the working class based on a socialist program.

.. that runs candidates in bourgeois democratic elections.

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Why don't you make a specific criticism so I can respond...

[Sentinel]

Why don't you make a specific criticism so I can respond...

I think he just did? ;)

He means your party is a reformist fraud since it participates in bourgeois elections. Which is kind of pointless everywhere, but especially in the US I figure. If elections really meant something in a capitalist society they'd be forbidden. :(

[Kia]

Quick Note:
The comparison to The Roman Empire isnt uncommon due to the fact that all super powers through out history hold similiar traits.
Also, the Hitler comparison is a little weak. Strongest while during war? As noted by the american mass media, that bush's administration has taken a nose dive in support since the war began. Maybe in the future it will strengthn the american government, but for now its weakened its public and international image. Hopefully people in the USA and the international world will realize from this war that the USA isnt as picture perfect as it seems (HA! it never was..but the majority use to think so).

Ill agree that the chances for a 3rd party to emerge and gain real political power in a country like America which has been stuck in a bipartisan government almost since its existance is slim. The green party has tried, and done almost nothing.
Though, Im glad they're trying. Even if that is so called "reformist fraud" making an attempt to change a "corrupt" government from the inside out is better then waiting around for people to pick up guns and fight a bloody battle like so many other countries.
Any attempt or step in the right direction is a good thing, we cant expect the most powerful country in the world to suddenly swing our way.

[GoaRedStar]

The age of reformist in the US is dead kids.
Even the liberal democrat have abandon reformism they see it as being to expensive for the coporations and individual billionaire who buy them.

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Well I know what he was alluding to but wasn't sure what angle he was coming from exactly.

I don't see the harm in officially running candidates and calling on the working-class to break with the Democratic Party. The election campaign is simply to be used as a platform not an alliance with a bourgeois government. Building a socialist party would give independence to the working class.

Third parties on the left can only help to expose the undemocratic nature of US politics.

This an attempt to make elections more meaningful. They are predictable and pointless charades because there is such a lack of alternative views that are allowed to be expressed.

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:46 PM
The green party has tried, and done almost nothing.
The Greens are a petty-bourgeois party who capitulate to Democrats on a constant basis.

Their sister party in Germany openly endorses German militarism and supported the Social Democrats' dismantling of the welfare state.

[Kia]

How can the age of reformism be dead in the USA? The USA has barely been around compared to many other countries. There is always a chance for reform, tossing out the window and only resorting to mass revolution is ridiculous. Wouldnt you rather have political change happen peacefully then violently? or do you want bloodshed?
The liberal democrats may have abandoned all hope, but that doesnt mean a new party cany try. If america wishes to break free and peacefully enter into socialism/communism/anarchy (whatever you want) they must allow new parties to have a fighting chance in changing the way american politics works.

The green party is a petty-bourgeois party ( i dont support them) but it was just an example of a well known party in america trying. not saying that this party is the same..it could happen though.

[Sentinel]

While this makes some sense.. :


I don't see the harm in officially running candidates and calling on the working-class to break with the Democratic Party. The election campaign is simply to be used as a platform not an alliance with a bourgeois government. Building a socialist party would give independence to the working class.

Third parties on the left can only help to expose the undemocratic nature of US politics.


..I don't see how this does:


This an attempt to make elections more meaningful.

While I can, to some degree, see the point in using election campaigns (if they are publicly funded, is yours?) as a method of getting your voice heard, I fail to see how the bourgeois elections themselves could ever mean anything concrete.

Besides, by participating in them you acknowledge the system, no matter what your party programme says. It takes away your credibility as revolutionaries.

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:25 PM
How can the age of reformism be dead in the USA?
No one is talking about abandoning "bread and butter issues" in terms of reforms. Of course workers must still fight to protect the rights they've won and continue to struggle to improve their conditions.

It is the reformism of Social Democracy and the trade union bureaucracies that is dead. The Social Democratic governments are crumbling under wholesale privatization as the welfare state is being dismantled.

The national trade unions have been rendered obsolete since the globalization of the means of production. Workers stand no chance against transational corporations and international financial institutions within national borders. They must unite with other workers internationally who they increasingly have more in common with.

The size of the proletariat has never been as large as it is today and with technological and scientific advances the basis for rational planning based on human needs has never been more promising.

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 12 2006, 11:36 PM
While I can, to some degree, see the point in using election campaigns (if they are publicly funded, is yours?) as a method of getting your voice heard, I fail to see how the bourgeois elections themselves could ever mean anything concrete.
The SEP doesn't accept any contributions from large corporations (not that they'd ever be offered any!). Funds are raised from small donations among the party membership and supporters.

I didn't mean to imply that participating in the elections would grant the current political state of affairs any legitimacy. Only that it would attempt to give a voice to the masses of people who are not represented. For example, polls show the majority of the public has turned against the war, wants universal healthcare (even if that meant higher taxes) and feels that corporations have far too much power. Yet the Democrats who claim to be the "people's party" have failed to come out in favor of any of these views. Obviously that's because they defend the profit system along with the Republicans.

So if the SEP could bring it's program to a wider audience it could be the beginning of a movement.

Refusing to acknowledge the system and pretending it's not there is an anarchist or syndicalist practice that betrays the proletariat and therefore aids the bourgeoisie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We know it's there, and we know how it works, which is why refuse to participate in it.

What does running in a bourgeois democratic election tell the working class?

It tells us that you think the system is legitimate enough to participate in, which is the exact opposite of what we as a class need to began to understand: that revolution is the only solution.

[redstar2000]

It's a kind of sad document in a way. With a few changes, it would sound almost plausible in 1932 and very plausible in 1912.

Now its proposals sound as, well, archaic as Victorian poetry.


Originally posted by SEP+--> (SEP)The SEP campaign will give voice and leadership to the opposition of millions of working people and youth within the United States and internationally to the Bush administration’s policies of war, repression and exploitation.[/b]

The SEP will be entirely ignored as totally irrelevant. Not because they don't "mean well" -- I'm sure they do.

But because however cogent their description of some of the current outrages of the existing system may be, they miss the heart of the situation.

Bourgeois "democracy" in the U.S. is no longer even remotely democratic!

That stuff is all over with...and has been since 1948.

The U.S. has been "drifting" into fascism ever since...every decade has seen more repression than the previous one.

The only set-backs for the American ruling class in that whole period have come from mass movements "in the streets".

And since the 1970s, there've been no significant defeats for the ruling class at all.


Originally posted by Dreckt+--> (Dreckt)A friend of mine went to America a while ago, and he argued that American democracy may already be dead.[/b]

He's right. In fact, it's a stinking corpse!

Something that our domestic Leninist cargo-cults inexplicably refuse to admit.

The SEP is a Trotskyist party...but it's not just them. I think that all of the parties here that still celebrate October still speak and act "as if" the U.S. was some kind of "free country".

It's as if they all lived in some kind of "time-warp".


He also mentioned the Roman emperor Octavian Augustus, that as he secretly made his empire, the people on the other hand, still thought the republic was intact.

Most perceptive of him. Dissident intellectuals like Gore Vidal (who exiled himself to Italy) and Lewis H. Lapham (the editor of Harper's Magazine) have been making this point for decades.

The U.S. still "looks like" a republic...but it really hasn't been for a long time.


Originally posted by Kia
Even if that is so called "reformist fraud", making an attempt to change a "corrupt" government from the inside out is better then waiting around for people to pick up guns and fight a bloody battle like so many other countries.

No, it's not "better"...for several reasons.

Trying to change a corrupt government "from the inside out" is a hopeless perspective...and leads to nothing but demoralization of the people who try it.

What is really needed in the present situation is a message that states precisely that things [i]are hopeless as long as the bourgeoisie rules!

That's what the working class has to believe "in their guts" before the idea of revolution makes sense.


[email protected]
This an attempt to make elections more meaningful.

:lol:

One may as well attempt to make the superbowl half-time show "more meaningful".


Kia
There is always a chance for reform...

No...there isn't "always" a chance for reform. When systems become really "rotten", then they can no longer be reformed. They must be overthrown.


Wouldn't you rather have political change happen peacefully then violently?

It's not a matter of "what we want"; it's a matter of objective political and economic conditions.

In my opinion, those conditions point with unmistakable clarity towards an enormous mass upheaval sometime within this century that will destroy the rule of the capitalist class.

How "violent" it may be cannot be predicted at this time. When revolution is made by tens of millions of people, there's usually not all that much violence...because that's a force that is really irresistible.

To be honest, there will be probably a fair number of deaths (among the elderly and the sickly) due to the temporary disruptions involved -- the power and the water may go off, food deliveries will be interrupted, etc.

But if you're young and healthy, you'll live through that and take part in building "a new world".

Communism! :D

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

[RedskinUltraRMC]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13 2006, 01:51 AM
It tells us that you think the system is legitimate enough to participate in, which is the exact opposite of what we as a class need to began to understand: that revolution is the only solution.
You're still misinterpretating and reading too much into the reason for running this election campaign.

The SEP-ICFI stands for socialist revolution. It has no illusions about reforming the system from within or that society's ills can be solved under capitalism.

Anyway, I was more interested in what people thought about the various issues raised in the statement and not so much the validity of election campaigns.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13 2006, 01:51 AM
What does running in a bourgeois democratic election tell the working class?

It tells us that you think the system is legitimate enough to participate in, which is the exact opposite of what we as a class need to began to understand: that revolution is the only solution.
Not necessarily. It does depend on the message you put forward. For example, we would support an electoral campaign that had as one of its key pillars the exposure of the bourgeois electoral system as the "slaughterhouse" it is. If it's done right, we can still use the "rope" the capitalists make available to us to hang them. The problem is that most left organizations have no clue how to do it right, including the SEP.

Personally, I think they're spinning their wheels by trying to do anything in this election cycle. Even Cindy Sheehan, who is by no means a communist, understood that. Running for local or state offices, or for U.S. Congress, is a meaningless gesture. Even if a self-described communist were to win, there is little they could do to affect the material situation, given the balance of forces.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's one argument I never understood comrade.

How does participating in a bourgeois election show that bourgeois elections are a sham? If you really think bourgeois elections are a sham, then you should show it by refusing to participate in them, and telling our class brothers and sisters to do the same.

I think now, in 2006, there is no question left as to whether or not any significant change can be made by running in bourgeois elections -- especially in the U.S.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13 2006, 09:18 PM
That's one argument I never understood comrade.

How does participating in a bourgeois election show that bourgeois elections are a sham? If you really think bourgeois elections are a sham, then you should show it by refusing to participate in them, and telling our class brothers and sisters to do the same.
It's not the election itself that is valuable, but the platform it offers for both educational and agitational work. Unfortunately, working people in this country are still more inclined to listen to someone who is a political candidate than they are someone just giving a political speech. It's one of the main contradiction of workers in the U.S. -- they see the government as thoroughly corrupt, but they have yet to break with the political system that embodies the corruption.

As one of our late comrades once put it in one of our pre-formation discussions, "they may despise the slaughterhouse [of bourgeois elections], but they still see it as the only door to political activity." I tend to think that it's our job to stand in front of the door as they try to go in and tell them of another way.

An independent workers' candidate, running as an open communist on a communist platform, using the platform that comes with being listed as a political candidate to educate and agitate for a workers' republic and the overthrow of capitalism (i.e., for a revolutionary movement in the streets), has the ability to use the avenues that are opened to them -- in the media, in public events, etc. -- to reach many more people than we, with our limited resources, can alone.

Strangely enough, running in a bourgeois election on a platform that openly calls the current electoral system what it is -- the aforementioned "slaughterhouse" -- also has a liberating effect on both the candidate/agitator and their audience.

Miles

[JC1]

i generaly agree with miles' comment's. however, in the context of the US, Parlimentary struggle has no use.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:02 PM
i generaly agree with miles' comment's. however, in the context of the US, Parlimentary struggle has no use.
In a sense, I agree with you, JC1. I don't think that this tactic (and, let's not forget, running in elections is a tactical question) has much value on a local, state or Congressional level any more. The changes to the political system in the U.S. in the last five years has reduced its effectiveness to only one office: the highest one, the presidency.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:24 AM
U.S. in the last five years has reduced its effectiveness to only one office: the highest one, the presidency.

That makes sense, however there hasn't been anyone for almost a hundred years to fly the red banner in the most provative way when running for president: Eugene Debs.

We don't know how he did it, but he did it!

[Dreckt]

Also, the Hitler comparison is a little weak. Strongest while during war? As noted by the american mass media, that bush's administration has taken a nose dive in support since the war began.

Yes, but what has the support really done? The Patriot Act isn't going away, neither are the troops in Iraq. He has been criticized since he first stepped into the White House. And this isn't the first time. Every US president has been involved in one or the other violent action around the world since WW2.

The US is about the only nation that has a standing army around the whole world, in about 750 bases around the world. The bases are not just another bunker, they include everything a five star luxury hotel could possibly dream of. These things have costs billions of dollars, the American people's money, every year. Why do they need all these bases? Why in places such as Germany and Japan?

But this isn't the only thing. War doesn't only mean literal war between countries, it can also encompass rebellions and "terrorism". The War on Terror is an example. When a state is thrown into such a conflict it can easily equal all organizations hostile towards it into one "terrorist entity".

[Andy Bowden]

I think there are conditions when standing in Bourgoise elections are justified so long as you accept that it is a tactic, and not the end.

By standing in bourgoise elections you can propagandise for your group - and if you capture seats, then you are more likely to recieve more media attention, and attract more recruits to a Socialist programme.

The key is to remember that Parliament is a means, not the end - lest you spiral into reformism and careerism.

[Revolution 9]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 14 2006, 10:27 PM
I think there are conditions when standing in Bourgoise elections are justified so long as you accept that it is a tactic, and not the end.

By standing in bourgoise elections you can propagandise for your group - and if you capture seats, then you are more likely to recieve more media attention, and attract more recruits to a Socialist programme.

The key is to remember that Parliament is a means, not the end - lest you spiral into reformism and careerism.
I agree with you but wouldn't you think that if we participated in elections, eventually the members of Congress or Parliament (depending from what nation you're from) would become corrupt, as lobbyists would pay them to vote for things their way?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Feb 14 2006, 03:48 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Feb 14 2006, 03:48 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 10:24 AM
U.S. in the last five years has reduced its effectiveness to only one office: the highest one, the presidency.

That makes sense, however there hasn't been anyone for almost a hundred years to fly the red banner in the most provative way when running for president: Eugene Debs.

We don't know how he did it, but he did it! [/b]
Actually, I've been looking at this recently, and I think I might have the answer to that question. What Debs was able to do was to take the "high theory" he believed in (Marxism) and make it understandable to working people, without jargon or hype. He could relate communist theory (and let's make no mistake, Debs was a communist) to the everyday experiences of workers, and then take that relationship and again generalize it out to show the need for a workers' republic. He was both an educator and agitator when he was campaigning, and that was what struck a chord with people.

There are few people who consider themselves socialists or communists who can do this. Debs was certainly one of those people. William Z. Foster could have been one of those people, if he wasn't encumbered by his bureaucratic politics. In his prime (the 1940s), James Cannon could have been one of those people. Mel Ravitz was one of those people. Today, I can only think of one person who has shown an ability to be one of these people.

Miles

[JC1]

Today, I can only think of one person who has shown an ability to be one of these people.

And who would that be ?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:20 PM

Today, I can only think of one person who has shown an ability to be one of these people.

And who would that be ?
Lisa Weltman, who is a member of the Detroit Working People's Association. She won more votes in her communist campaign for local school board last year than any of the self-described "socialist" and "communist" campaigns for president in 2004.

Miles