Would you vote republican

[FidelCastro]

If the candidate wasen't a power hungary oil tycoon like G. W. Bush but just a fair, proper, just guy who happened to be Republican and the Democrat running was a total dick like Jack Thompson.

[Red Heretic]

I think a better question would be whether or not we would vote period.

[FidelCastro]

Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.

[Comrada J]

Choose your asshole?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:16 PM
Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.
*SPITS*

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:11 AM
If the candidate wasen't a power hungary oil tycoon like G. W. Bush but just a fair, proper, just guy who happened to be Republican and the Democrat running was a total dick like Jack Thompson.
If you participate in electoral politics, meaning you actually have a chance at winning, you are a liar, a scumbag, and a rich asshole in general. There are no "good guys" in rich people's parades.

[Zak]

You don't vote? How can you have any political opinions about overthrowing the government, if you don't exercise your already granted political power? You don't have to vote for the two big guys, vote for yourself if you want. You don't only have to vote in national polotics vote in local politics there you can actually make a differance. If you think Gore would have been the same as Bush you have to take the Iraq war into account. Would it still have happend with Gore? Most likely not.

[Tekun]

Wrong forum fellaz!
Doesn't this belong in opposing ideologies?

REVOLUTIONARY LEFT - hint, hint :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:43 AM
Wrong forum fellaz!
Doesn't this belong in opposing ideologies?

REVOLUTIONARY LEFT - hint, hint :lol:
Hint taken. :lol:

Thread moved.

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

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 04:16 AM
Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.
Why wouldn't you pray to Jesus Christ? It is your right. It would be a spit in the faces of those who fought for freedom of worship if you don't pray.

[Orthodox Marxist]

*SPITS*

Seconds that.

[Wanted Man]

Anyway, FidelCastro, you tell me that it is my right to vote, but the way you put it rather looks as if you're telling me that it's actually my duty. As if it's not actually an unalienable right, but rather: "If you don't exercise your 'right', maybe we should just take it away..." Voting is not really a "gift" from the bourgeoisie, it's only a bargaining chip that they can take back whenever they want to.

[RASH chris]

Participating implies supporting. By voting you are validating the system which you wish to destroy.Socialists participating in capitalist democracy is absurd, its working against themselves.

Look, in developing nations they have election observers and if not enough people vote then the election is declared to be invalid. The solution lies in taking the power ourselves, not wresting the power in the hands of the best liar. Follow?

[cyu]

Personally, I'd encourage all leftists to both vote and oppose the lack of real democracy in the system at the same time. I think it's a dangerous trend among leftists to boycott elections. If every leftist refused to vote, then the country is being handed over to the right and giving them legitimacy. I'd even vote for the center-left candidate if the radical-left one has no chance of winning and I'd just be throwing away my vote. I think the important thing to remember is not to just stop your political activity with voting. It's just the least you can do - spreading your ideas (even after voting for a center-left candidate you don't agree with) is much more important.

[bezdomni]

"I would rather vote for something I believed in and not get it; than vote for something I don't believe in and it get."
-Eugene V Debs

I don't take bourgeois elections seriously, but it is a good philosophy none the less.

All of the people who voted for Kerry, the "lesser of two evils" still voted for an evil. That is the basis of bourgeois democracy - you can't get what you want.

[cyu]

Let's say there was an election in some other country that was about to be won by a socialist. Would you rather have a president in power who is planning to use the intelligence / military resources of your own country to start a coup and replace that socialist with a military dictatorship or a president in power who just lets them do their thing - leaves them alone. Sure the centrist president may not be encouraging socialism around the world, but if by not voting (or throwing my vote away on a candidate with no chance), I'm helping to install in power someone who is going to help oppress our brothers and sisters around the world, delaying the day it spreads to this country, then I'm not going to do it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You don't vote? How can you have any political opinions about overthrowing the government, if you don't exercise your already granted political power?

Wow, talk about irony.

Why would you participate in the "granted power" of a government YOU WANT TO OVERTHROW?

That makes NO SENSE!


You don't have to vote for the two big guys, vote for yourself if you want.

It requires lots of money to win elections. Something proletarians dont have.


You don't only have to vote in national polotics vote in local politics there you can actually make a differance.

See above, no difference is made.


If you think Gore would have been the same as Bush you have to take the Iraq war into account.

Iraq or no Iraq, democrats take part in imperialist actions. They are capitalists! NO CAPITALIST IS A GOOD CAPITALIST!

[Oh-Dae-Su]

whatever , 1% of the population of America (leftist) is not going to make much of a difference if they don't vote or not. They can keep being the utopian believers they are, we keep marching forward into the next millenia, we keep living in the real world, while they keep having wet dreams about Karl Marx and his supposed theorized "revolution". Listen it's so stupid, if you have the power to vote, and you oppose both Republicans and Democrats, at least vote for Ralph Nader or for the fucking Communist Party of America, hahaha, which makes no difference because you'll have to wait for hell to freeze over for any of these two to at least get 10 % of the votes. So yeah, you lefties are right on not voting, like i said your not going to make a difference, unless of course you vote for either of the 2 obvious candidate parties.

[cyu]

Personally, if I were Hugo Chavez, faced with the opposition of corporate media who reported only events that would promote a coup against him, I would democratize the media - hand control over to the employees. If there's going to be a revolution that still preserves freedom of the press, you have to make sure the reporting isn't controlled in a top-down manner by upper management and shareholders. Real democracy requires a democratic press if you're expecting to see views that go against the interests of those who currently run the media.

[C_Rasmussen]

I'm sorry for not reading the entire topic but just a topic of this nature is quite absurd. Reason being, why would you ask revolutionary leftists if they'd vote Rep.?

[FatFreeMilk]

"Would you vote Republican?"
Yes. I'm no fan of either party (and I say either as in only two because the rest don't count) but if you make the situation worse, people will no longer be satisfied with their lives.

The reason there aren't as many leftists here as there are in any other country is because people are satisfied with their lives. I mean satisfied enough to where they don't feel that strong of a need to do something to change what's going on around them. If people voted Republican consistently in presidential elections, and even like in local elections cus those have more of an impact on the community, for a few terms then shit would get really fucked up.

Imagine if we had more Reagans and Bush Sr.s and little 'ol Jr.s in office for like a couple of decades; shit would go straight down the drain. That's when people would become dissatisfied with their lives enough to actually do something about it. I'm not saying that Dem's are America's saftey party but having the more reactionary party in for longer would do more damage than a pansy Democrat. Well?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah your right, people feel these are the right parties, literally :lol: get it? whatever.....so yeah i don't think the population of America wants a new face in power other than democrats and republicans, because sincerely we are happy, its what fits our ideology, its like in an Arab nation, your not going to ever get a Christian president, you might get a candidate, but hell get like what? maybe 1% or less ? same here with leftist parties, its just how it is.

and cyu, you have to be kidding me, are you meaning to tell me that the media in Venezuela only reports against Chavez? please the guy is a fucking idiot just like Fidel, they are both dictators, don't be bias cyu, just because they are leftist. I see a lot of people here who defend blindly anyone who is "left". I guess it's how some of you unite, but thats wrong, you have to give credit where it is due, or viceversa, for example, im sort of a republican, but Bush is an idiot, and he is not a good president and i accept those facts. And the fact of the matter is , Chavez uses his supporters to harrass the media that portray the truth about him. He has becomed a dicatator, and thats how it goes, he is even buddies with the wacko president of Iran who said Israel should be wiped out of the face of the earth, get real cyu, who else do you support? Kim Jong Il? :rolleyes:

[cyu]

are you meaning to tell me that the media in Venezuela only reports against Chavez?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_represe...ugo_Ch%C3%A1vez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_representation_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez)

"Private media openly urged their audiences to support the coup, broadcasting widely criticized footage by, among others, international journalists for its subjective selection of detail and even digital manipulation of images... Once the counter-coup was launched by Chavistas and loyalist elements of the Palace Guard, these five stations censored any reporting on the events. Private media owners and managers instead chose to broadcast classic films and sitcom reruns."

Feel free to edit that entry if you have different facts.


Chavez uses his supporters to harrass the media that portray the truth about him.

If they are directly attacking reporters, I wouldn't support it, but if Chavez were to decide to implement media democracy, I wouldn't call that harrassment. Anyway, just because I said I'd do things one way or another if I were him doesn't mean I support everything he does. (In fact, it means I'd at least do that one thing differently... duh.)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:44 PM
If you think Gore would have been the same as Bush you have to take the Iraq war into account. Would it still have happend with Gore? Most likely not.
Well I would imagine that even if Gore were simply only as bad as Clinton, then Gore would have:

1) conducted more military operations in more countries than G. W. Bush has
2) Killed 1 million Iraqis through sanctions and airstrikes
3) Passed repressive laws and attacks against civil liberties such as Clinton's "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act"

Don't ask, don't tell and welfare reform were also Clintonian effects. Just because Democrats arn't as bad as Republicans don't make 'em any good.

When 9/11 happened and bush declared that the US would fight a war against terror that would last a generation, I don't recall any Democrats asking any questions or offereing any other corse... I do remember them voting for war powers and being pro-war. So why do you believe that things would have been any different if a member of that party had been in office? Do you think an Iraqi child being killed by Clinton's sanctions is greatful that he is being killed by the "softer option" of American Imperialism?

Please, let's get serious here comrades.

[RedStarOverChina]

:) heheheh this is what I like about this site...defiance.

Defiance is good.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:54 AM
"Would you vote Republican?"
Yes. I'm no fan of either party (and I say either as in only two because the rest don't count) but if you make the situation worse, people will no longer be satisfied with their lives.

The reason there aren't as many leftists here as there are in any other country is because people are satisfied with their lives. I mean satisfied enough to where they don't feel that strong of a need to do something to change what's going on around them. If people voted Republican consistently in presidential elections, and even like in local elections cus those have more of an impact on the community, for a few terms then shit would get really fucked up.

Imagine if we had more Reagans and Bush Sr.s and little 'ol Jr.s in office for like a couple of decades; shit would go straight down the drain. That's when people would become dissatisfied with their lives enough to actually do something about it. I'm not saying that Dem's are America's saftey party but having the more reactionary party in for longer would do more damage than a pansy Democrat. Well?
That's actually very wrong.

You seem to think that if you mobilise as many workers as possible to vote for reactionary parties and keep them in power, these very same workers will, once those parties mess up bad enough, suddenly have some sort of device inside them automatically switch on, causing them to suddenly rise up against the reactionary party they once massively voted for? Of course, I can't be sure what exactly you mean by "people voting Republican consistently", but I'll just assume it means that all comrades should work as hard as possible to get as many people to vote Republican as possible, because if only you and some other comrades did it, it would have little to no effect.

How would you convince people to vote Republican, anyway? Would you pose as an uber-patriotic hawk, and then after the revolution, be all like: "Congratulations, comrades!!! Your constant moronic voting for a reactionary party(incited by myself) has now finally set off your magical Final Fantasy anti-fascist Limit Break, causing you to suddenly rise up against the party that you've propped up for all those years!"

Please. The "vote reactionary until they fuck up so badly, that everyone will rise up" is wrong, insulting(fool the dumb proles into voting for Party X until Party X fucks up so bad, they'll rise up against it! And yes, I know you never said that, but if the only persons actually carrying out your plan are yourself and some other forum kiddies, what's the point?) and highly dangerous.

Why would all workers suddenly have a proletarian class consciousness under an extremely reactionary Republican regime, but not under, umm, "vanilla" capitalism? The consciousness of people is not necessarily aligned to the social conditions they live in. If it was, revolutions would literally constantly be succeeding each other. There wouldn't be a day without the destruction of yet another economic model for a more progressive one, as society doesn't stand still.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

cyu, you said it, "private" media, most of these are educated intelligent people, of course they are going to oppose Chavez insteand of the poor illeterates that do support him!! this is only obvious, plus i saw a documentary in Discovery Times Channel, about the elections in Venezuela, and there was this opposition reporter, and the fans of Chavez wanted to beat the living hell out of him, he had to be moved inside a building if not he was going to be lynched.

anyways, gravedigger made a clear point, when Bush declared war on terrorism, everyone, i mean everyone not just here in America, but probably elsewhere in the world, supported this. Because 9/11 was an act of war, this is the sort of thing you actually go to war for. Who ever opposed or still opposes the invasion of Afghanistan has to be retarded, Iraq, is a different thing, because we got lied. Since we got lied thats what makes Iraq a mistake, plus all the problems that have comed up and that are happening right now. I supported Bush and im sure most of us did, until Iraq. Saddam Hussain i admit had to be dealt with, but we should not have rushed things, and specially lie in order to go into Iraq, more diplomacy should have been made. By the way fuck the French.

The fact is , that in the next elections, it will not matter if you are republican or democrat, but rather who has the best resolutions to our worries, specially in Iraq. Eitherway, i believe that whoever is president, will probably try to reduce some of our presence in Iraq, let the Iraqis deal with their shit alone, but like Germany, Korea, Japan and everywhere else we have been, our military presence will be there forever.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that the two parties share the same intrests in keeping the US ruling class in power and dominating other parts of the world as well.

Iraq and Afganistan had little to do with 9/11 except that 9/11 provided our lrulers a great excuse to more agressivly persue things they wanted anyway.

1) Only weeks after the bombing of Afganistan, reporters were asking George W. Bush where Ossama Bin Lauden was and Bush said he didn't care and that Ossama was irrelevent.

2) Paul Wolfowitz designed a plan for a possible U.S. re-invasion and occupation of Iraq before 9/11

3) Bush was talking about "rogue nations" like Iraq and Iran and N. Korea before 9/11, but then changed his description of them to "terrorist nations" after 9/11

4) Clinton continued US policy in Iraq and bombed Iraq countless times and his administration also talked about a possible re-invasion of Iraq... again, long before 9/11.

5) Even now when 2/3 of the population in the US is against the war (70% of troops in Iraq say that troops should leave and probably much more than 2/3 of people who vote Democrat are against the war), the most the Democrats can offer is "redeployment" of troops in Iraq... in other words, the same thing as what we have now, but wraped in a different color box.

This is why voting for one of the two parties is meaningless... both are dedicated to carrying out the same basic things. They may disagree on how to run capitalism or the occupation of iraq or if american imperailism should be more militaristic or through trade agreements, but it's like argueing weather surface streets or the freeway is better: both take you to the same place.

[cyu]

"private" media, most of these are educated intelligent people, of course they are going to oppose Chavez insteand of the poor illeterates that do support him!!

Do you think corporate media would say the same thing if it was democratically run and the stories aren't ordered from the top-down? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It remains to be seen, but I doubt it could be much worse than the way it is now, which is why if I were Chavez, I'd democratize it. Let me just ask you flat out, are you opposed to democracy in the media?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:54 AM
"Would you vote Republican?"
Yes. I'm no fan of either party (and I say either as in only two because the rest don't count) but if you make the situation worse, people will no longer be satisfied with their lives.

The reason there aren't as many leftists here as there are in any other country is because people are satisfied with their lives. I mean satisfied enough to where they don't feel that strong of a need to do something to change what's going on around them. If people voted Republican consistently in presidential elections, and even like in local elections cus those have more of an impact on the community, for a few terms then shit would get really fucked up.

Imagine if we had more Reagans and Bush Sr.s and little 'ol Jr.s in office for like a couple of decades; shit would go straight down the drain. That's when people would become dissatisfied with their lives enough to actually do something about it. I'm not saying that Dem's are America's saftey party but having the more reactionary party in for longer would do more damage than a pansy Democrat. Well?
So the people of Germany and the Italy and Spain, they should have risen up during their fascist times then? Is fascism not "bad" :lol: This is a very bad idea.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Gravedigger are you American? maybe your not, i just want to ask you what do you suggest should have been done, what actions should the USA have taken after 9/11?? "ohh lets, just rebuild and hope they don't do it again?"..please



Let me just ask you flat out, are you opposed to democracy in the media?

democracy in the media? what is that? like the editors of a newspaper vote if they publish positive or negative things about somebody? wtf? :blink: you mean freedom? of course i want freedom of speech in the media, something which is not 100% in Venezuela and defenitaly 0% in Cuba, because if not you will go under attack and harrassement like i told you. If what your trying to tell me is that if you were Chavez you would give more freedom of speech and more freedom to criticize or sympathize with the regime freely, than of course im with you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I live in the U.S.

So what do I think the rulers of this government should have done? Well not overthrowing governments and setting up Shahs and Saddams in other countries would have been a good start.

The US government dosn't care about people who live here that should be obvious after 9/11 and Katrina and so on. Likewise the intrests of regular americans and our rulers are not the same. Acutally, american people and people in Afganistan and Iraq have more in common with eachother than Joe American has with George Bush and Joe Iraqi has with Saddam; neither of us like to have bombs dropped on us for example.

[KC]

defenitaly 0% in Cuba, because if not you will go under attack and harrassement like i told you.

I'm sure if I wrote in a major newspaper "Down with the American Government!" or something along those lines I would be imprisoned too. People have been imprisoned for much less things without cause.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

im sorry , but either im an idiot, or i did not see a clear response from your gravedigger to my question, either your evading the question itself because you don't have a rational awnser or , or, i dont know?
you just replyed by saying that we should not have installed Saddams and Shahs? :blink: , you mean Karzai is another Shah or Saddam? wtf? :blink: well what do you suggest if he was a "Shah"? that we installed another Ayatollah Khomeni? :lol: , listen your just one of the 1% who thought we should not have gone into Afghanistan, which is ridiculous, because every true American was obviously pissed off, we went into WW2 for Pearl Harbor for god's sake, we def. had to go to war for 9/11 , im disregarding Iraq, im talking about the Taliban fucking regime which harbored Osama. Yes maybe Bush said that about Osama, but what difference is it going to make if we capture Osama or not? is that going to somehow repay all the lives lost in 9/11? at least we took out the regime which harbored such radicals, and at least we have Osama (if he is alive) running scared from mountain to mountain, in a sense he really is of not much more importance, he is incapable of doing anything, hello he even made a video recently wanting to make a truce.


I'm sure if I wrote in a major newspaper "Down with the American Government!" or something along those lines I would be imprisoned too. People have been imprisoned for much less things without cause.

WTF!? Lazar if you don't know what your talking about than don't embarrass
yourself, im Cuban, born there, lived there, and i participated in rallies that said just that ^^ ,so don't give me that bullshit, you know damn well that there are major events in Cuba where Fidel makes 1 million people gather and give his usual speeches and encourages the people to say "DOWN WITH BUSH AND AMERICA", "DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALISM", all of this i lived it, so please don't give me that bullshit, you might give it to someone else who doesn't know shit, but not to me buddy because i lived it. Anything derogatory against America is acceptable in Cuba, anything derogatory in the minimum against Fidel and his regime is punishable by jail.

[cyu]

If what your trying to tell me is that if you were Chavez you would give more freedom of speech and more freedom to criticize or sympathize with the regime freely, than of course im with you.

We have agreement there.


democracy in the media? what is that? like the editors of a newspaper vote if they publish positive or negative things about somebody?

What I mean is that the way corporate media is currently structured, the CEO and shareholders have final say over anything that's reported. If the head of the Fox News division says to report more negative stories on Democrats, then the order comes on down to individual reporters to do what the head of the news division says. If they refuse to go along, they're fired. Too much power in the hands of the few. Democracy in the media means deciding what to report on isn't decided by one person, it's decided by all the employees. Sure there will be disagreements among the employees, so some time will have to be given to explore each of the major views or stories the reporters think are important.

If 33% of the reporters want to publish an editorial in favor of politican X, while 67% of the reporters want to publish an editorial against politician X, the decision isn't left to the head of the editorial department (unless he was elected by the employees). I'd be in favor of publishing 1 editorial in favor, and 2 against.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah cyu, i agree. But you have to understand, if something is privately owned, your not the owner so you have to follow along. If not, make your own publishing newspaper or whatever, that way you can make it democratic. Im sure there are some democratic media's out there here in America, just like there are less democratic like you explained. Rememeber that this is capitalism, its about competition, a newspaper might not give a fuck about the new agreement China made with Russia , instead they give all their attention to all the bullshit Bush spoke in his last speech, because that's what the public is interested on, and thats what makes the money. Its only common sense cyu, in the world we live in.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If I were the American government, then I would have invaded Afganistan and Iraq and hopefully Iran as well so that I could control resources necissary for China and Europe and therefore ensure that America could remain a superpower and have power over possible future competators such as China and the EU.

I would have also restricted civil liberties in the name of protecting people from terrorism so that I could hopefully repress any anti-war movement that might demand an end to the generation long war that I wanted to wage.

I would do all this because it would be in my intrests as a ruler of the US.

But as a person who lives in the US, I would not want any of thoes things. I would rather have 1 trillion dollars spent on hospitals and schools and in getting jobs for people so that I could have a good job and other people could have jobs instead of turning to crime and drugs and so on.

In Los ANgeles, they shut down the only emergency room in SOuth Central... so that means when a big earthquake happens and if the freeways collapse, then downtown LA will look like the Superdome in New Orleans because there is no where to go and no hospitals and so on. Screw and earthquake what happens if I'm driving home on the 10 and get in a car crash, but I die because there's no hospital in the area... this is what worries me, not controlling oil so that China or Europe can't overtake the US economically.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

we are in agreement with eachother than, we pretty much have the same views, i support both the interest of our country as well as of our people. But sometimes since we are in America, we take many things for granted, and want more, sure a hospital is necessary, but how many countries have only hospitals in their capitals? at least a helicopter will pick you up in the freeway if your dying, how many people have that privilage around the world?

[cyu]

But you have to understand, if something is privately owned, your not the owner so you have to follow along.

Well, now you see why I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I don't care if it's privately owned or not. I believe employees should have the right to claim ownership of the means of production - in other words, to establish democratic control over their corporations. If a country is going to claim to be democratic, it's media institutions will have to be democratic if you expect the people to make informed choices. Otherwise, leaving the control of ideas in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, you're not going to get a government that really represents the people.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well sorry thats not how things work, its like are you willing to democratize your house or your belongings etc? :rolleyes: thats crazy man , yeah you sure are an anarchist. :lol: but i dont mean that in a bad way, i respect everyones beliefs here.

[cyu]

its like are you willing to democratize your house or your belongings etc?

Anarchists draw a distinction between personal property and productive property. Personal property is stuff you use everyday. Productive property is stuff the shareholder owns, but doesn't actually use. The employees use it. Anarcho-syndicialists believe that since it's the employees that produce things, and the shareholder just parasites off the money the employees make for him, then the employees should be able to assume ownership of the things they already use everyday to do their jobs.

[violencia.Proletariat]

well sorry thats not how things work

Thats not how they work in capitalism, its a clash of idealogies. But dont worry, we wont try and reform to syndicalism, we will just take our means of production back from you :lol:


its like are you willing to democratize your house or your belongings etc?

Well the household (members) should be democratized. Parents treat their kids like property these days :o


i respect everyones beliefs here.

You can say that for now but its not true. It's a class war, when workers take over the means of production, whos side are you gonna be on?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

It's a class war, when workers take over the means of production, whos side are you gonna be on?

umm , im pretty sure i'll be a couple thousand years dead by then, if it actually does occur anyway, so, yeah, it's not something im worrying about right now :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 24 2006, 12:16 AM

It's a class war, when workers take over the means of production, whos side are you gonna be on?

umm , im pretty sure i'll be a couple thousand years dead by then, if it actually does occur anyway, so, yeah, it's not something im worrying about right now :lol:
Maybe in our lifetimes in Western Europe. But violent repression of proletarian dissent will happen long before then. Are you with the cops crackin skulls or the proles?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Maybe in our lifetimes in Western Europe. But violent repression of proletarian dissent will happen long before then. Are you with the cops crackin skulls or the proles?

well yeah, MAYBE, maybe the earth can crack open and the lost city of Atlantis reapears. Anything is possible, but realistically, the world is not eager or showing signs of wanting to let go of "free trade" and "private enterprises", specially the ones who already have an advanced stage of this system, like Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea, and now of course China, and yeah Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore , Hong Kong etc. etc. you get my point....But of course, you believe that for communism to happen it has to have an advance stage of what im talking about, but also realize that for it to work, the world would have to be in the same stage, something which is not happening and will defenitally not happen in our lifetimes. I mean think about it, for just all of Africa to even reach the status of South Africa, psss my bones probably wont even be able to be carbon dated lmao :lol:

[Xanthus]

Of course I'd vote. If there was no labour party where I lived (such as in the US), I'm not sure exactly where I'd place that vote, but in any country where there is a party with a primarily working-class rank and file, that's where my vote would go. Of course, I'd not only vote for that party but work within it to attempt to convince it's left wing towards a revolutionary stance.

I'm actually quite shocked that so many Marxists say they wouldn't vote, it is a symptom of ultra-leftism. Here's a snippit from Lenin's Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm):

Originally posted by Chapter 7 - Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German "Left" Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:

"... All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected"

This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. "Reversion" to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of "reversion"? Is this not an empty phrase?

Parliamentarianism has become "historically obsolete". That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be "historically obsolete" many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism.

For the full story of Lenin's opinion, read that chapter. Actually, I'd urge most people here to read the full book.

[kurt]

You realize that quoting Lenin doesn't constitute a valid argument, right? What has bourgeois politics done to advance proletarian revolution in the last 100 years?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:17 AM
You realize that quoting Lenin doesn't constitute a valid argument, right? What has bourgeois politics done to advance proletarian revolution in the last 100 years?
I think maybe the point Lennin was trying to make is that radicals shouldn't stand outside of where working class stuggle is at the moment, but should engage with that struggle and try and argue for a way forward.

In the book Lennin talks about radicals creating new unions from scratch because existing trade unions are not radical enough and sometimes cooperate with the bosses. Lennin argues that instead of trying to attract workers to new "ideologically pure" unions, that radicals should come to where the workers already are and engage in a debate about the best way forward for unions and workers in general.

Similarly, if workers have already managed to build a electoral party, radicals should engage these workers in the process and bring radical politics into the mix. It's one thing to simply stand on the sideleines and proclaim electoralism as being inadaquate for workers, it's far more effective to engage in the process and show its inadaquacies in action.

Run in an election and all the while telling people that this is not enough and that parlement in incapable and unwilling to grant workers what they really need within the constraints of the system.

[Xanthus]

That's pretty well it Gravedigger. Obviously one quote does not do it, but that chapter, or better yet the book does. I hope anyone who holds Lenin's opinion in relatively high regard (as do many here) would take the chance to read the book if they disagree with what I presented.

The reason for not turning a blind eye to traditional forms of struggle (labour parties, unions, etc) is that to do so is to drive a wedge between yourself as a Marxist and the active core of the working class. Instead of distancing yourself from those who participate in party politics, you should be standing beside them, all the while explaining the limitations of those traditional forms of struggle and helping them to understand the revolutionary point of view.

Of course, that paragraph of text comes nowhere close to explaining what I mean as well as Lenin's book... and chances are that most Marxists will be less likely to take it as face value when coming from me, who they do not know, and almost certainly do not have as much developed respect for.

[Wanted Man]

Oh, and I definitely agree with Lenin on that one, the topic here though is "would you vote for a Republican if a really asshole Democrat ran?"(as if the previous Democratic leaders haven't been assholes)

[kurt]

I think maybe the point Lennin was trying to make is that radicals shouldn't stand outside of where working class stuggle is at the moment, but should engage with that struggle and try and argue for a way forward.

So called "working class struggle" in the form of electioneering does not exist! Do you actually think any revolutionary will come from the bourgeois state itself? Don't you think it's in the class interests of the bourgeois to maintain the look of "democracy" while the real show is run in smoke-filled boardrooms?


Similarly, if workers have already managed to build a electoral party, radicals should engage these workers in the process and bring radical politics into the mix. It's one thing to simply stand on the sideleines and proclaim electoralism as being inadaquate for workers, it's far more effective to engage in the process and show its inadaquacies in action.
This is a contradiction, plain and simple. "Communist" and "Socialist" parties that run in elections are on one hand, lending the bourgeois state credibilty by even engaging in its wretched "politics", yet at the same time "denounce" it as a show. Which is it? Why waste resources when it's "inadequate". And that isn't even taking into account the utter abysmal record of social-democracy and all its variants in the twentieth century. When some "socialists" actually had seats in parliament prior to World War I, they were just as eager as any bourgeois scum to engage in the blood bath!

That's ok though, you're not "like them" right? They were "evil".


Run in an election and all the while telling people that this is not enough and that parlement in incapable and unwilling to grant workers what they really need within the constraints of the system.
Can't you see the sheer stupidity of such a statement? Waste resources running in an election, all the while telling the workers that what you're doing is "not enough". It's not a "good medium". Why don't you stir up some real shit, and protest elections? Everyone who's voting at that polling station will see you, and be forced to at least take into account your message. Or did you really just want a nice plush seat in the capital?



Of course, that paragraph of text comes nowhere close to explaining what I mean as well as Lenin's book... and chances are that most Marxists will be less likely to take it as face value when coming from me, who they do not know, and almost certainly do not have as much developed respect for.
I don't care who states the argument, I only care for the merits of it. You need to get over your reverence for authority.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You need to get over your elietish bs. Lennin was not talking about Democratic Socialism or trying to change they sytem through elections... he was talking about how to engage with workers where they are.

THe problem with "left-wing" communists is they expect workers will just come to them and their ideas like drones, preset and just waiting for someone to tell them to have a revolution. My own experience and history and all other forms of observation tell me that people are not atomitons waiting for some anarchist to throw the right rock through the right building to revolt. People have all sorts of different ideas how to do things, marxists think we have the best way forward for the class struggle, so I believe it is important to argue and debate with workers in my workplace and union and in my neighborhood about these things. This is not unique to our class; the ruling class has different views on things and thats why they organize ideas through think tanks and universities and eliete clubs and so on.

But somehow many radicals (frustrated that everyone dosn't automatically agree with them and inable to engage workers on a grassroots everyday level) expect every worker to have the same consiousness and ideas from birth.

So, let me reiterate because you didn't seem to understand the concept of engaging in electoral politics and not wanting to win and get into the existing power system. Unlike social democracy which runs candidates in order to win seats in parlement and then try and change the system from within, what we are suggesting is that radicals participate in electoral politcs, not to win, but to engage with workers who see this as the only means of changing society and argue with them that reforms are not enough.

Having a high profile candidate can be more effective than 1,000 radicals boycotting the elections altogether. Even a non-radical like Nader was able to move political discorse further by using his campaign in 2000 to attack the 2 party system and show how the democracts are just as tied to corporations and capitalists as the republicans... this was a big step forward compared to 2004 where the majority of the anti-war movement believed electing a pro-war democrat was somehow better than a pro-war republican.

Now imagine if there had been someone like Eugene Debbs running instead of a reformist like Nader... it would change the nature of mainstream discourse in the US and suddenly the questions in the campaigns wouldn't just be "what's the best way to run capitalism and the war" but why do we have capitalism and a war, is there something better.

Electoral politics have a huge impact on consiousness and we both agree that we want workers to seek change through their own power, not through the system which is set-up against them, so the question is what is the best way to move consiousness from the constraints of electoralism to activism and ultimately revolution?

So don't come back here with another straw-man about democratic socialism, becaus e that's not what we are talking about.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:24 AM
So, let me reiterate because you didn't seem to understand the concept of engaging in electoral politics and not wanting to win and get into the existing power system. Unlike social democracy which runs candidates in order to win seats in parlement and then try and change the system from within, what we are suggesting is that radicals participate in electoral politcs, not to win, but to engage with workers who see this as the only means of changing society and argue with them that reforms are not enough.
Although I appreciate the thought, I'm not sure I agree with this. We do participate in electoral politics to win, although without the illusion of being able to effect change from within the system. Basically, we will run a candidate with the idea that their presence in parliment (although unable to change anything from within) presents an extremely good position to create debate and further the positions of a Marxist tendancy, not to other politicians, but to the people.

For example, in the Pakistani parliment, the vast majority of MPs are thugs with private armies. However, also in the Pakistani parliment sits Manzoor Ahmed, a Marxist and comrade of The Struggle. In parliment, he argues against the pro-imperialist policies of the government, for the revolutionary struggle, and even denounces the parliment from within, saying that the whole parliment is a sham and will be destroyed when the revolution comes. Obviously, this is not a message intended for the other politicians (although, 2 well-meaning MPs have come over to the Marxist viewpoint and the Struggle as a result), but rather, it is aimed towards the Pakistani masses. Transcripts of Manzoor's speeches in parliment are printed and distributed to the masses, and he uses the authority of his position to aid the cause of militant trade unionism, and other causes. It is not that the parliment can be changed from within, but that action from within can have great effect outside the parliement.

Similar tactics have been used by (among others), the British Militant tendancy in the 80s, where they were making great progress towards building a genuine mass revolutionary tendancy, before the takeover by Taffe. That tactic was also used by the Bolshevik party within the corrupt and useless Kerensky parliment. The Bolsheviks only began to boycott the parliment on the eve of October, when they had developed the capability to overthrow it immediately.

To be honest, I think that in most cases, there are better uses of a revolutionary's time then to fight a campaign they have no hope of winning, but, if there is hope, then it must be remembered that a parliment can be (only in the right circumstances) a wonderful podium from which to express revolutionary messages to the masses.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I didn't mean they should run specifically to "loose" the election, I mean that they are not trying to win power to change the system from within unlike social-democrats.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zak+--> (Zak)You don't vote?[/b]

Zak
overthrowing the government

Sorry, too funny to pass up.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Would you cut your nuts off with a rusty hacksaw?

I would never vote for a Republican or a Democrat. I doubt I will ever vote again. The US government does not represent me or anyone I care about.

[Zak]

Originally posted by Zero+Mar 25 2006, 10:16 AM--> (Zero @ Mar 25 2006, 10:16 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
You don't vote?

Zak
overthrowing the government

Sorry, too funny to pass up. [/b]
sorry you missed my point.

Do you know the origin of voting? Men would raise their swords to take a head count. The side of the issue with the most swords raised would win the vote because in the event of a conflict they would proabley win. The man with the most votes could probabley kill the other. Authority derived from violence.

Voting is exercising authority. If you beilive the system is so utterly screwed that you can't do anything about it, like gravedigger said it raises awarness.

A revolution in a country like the USA would be hard to pull off with out first gaining some credibility and authority in mainstream politics.

But I think the governments of today, through elections are leaning that way. Europe is far more socialized today than it was 100 years ago.

[Zak]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 22 2006, 01:12 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 22 2006, 01:12 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 07:43 AM
Wrong forum fellaz!
Doesn't this belong in opposing ideologies?

REVOLUTIONARY LEFT - hint, hint :lol:
Hint taken. :lol:

Thread moved.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Why is voting and opposing ideology? I thought this forum was anyone who opposes Capitilism. I would think advocating not voting and therefore a lack of democracy, therefore authoritarian governments, would be an opposing ideology.

[Atlas Swallowed]

The vote in the US is rigged.

Promoting voting is giving legitamacy to the government. Participating in a government sponcered activity is hardly revolutionary. I would not call opposing ideology, perhaps misguided ideology but thier is not a thread for it :)

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:32 PM


So called "working class struggle" in the form of electioneering does not exist!

:lol:


THe problem with "left-wing" communists is they expect workers will just come to them and their ideas like drones,

They have good intentions but they are idealists and isolated from the working class.

[Zak]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 26 2006, 02:21 PM
The vote in the US is rigged.

Promoting voting is giving legitamacy to the government. Participating in a government sponcered activity is hardly revolutionary. I would not call opposing ideology, perhaps misguided ideology but thier is not a thread for it :)
If you mean that the presidential election yes it has been for a very long time. But I don't think the School board is involved in money laundering scandals for canidacy.

People have a problem of associating the president with some sortof king like power and ignore the local government.

It's also important. If the city concilmembers of some small town in wherever were all comunists things would be run alot differently.

Unlike the presidential election there is a place where you can actually do something. Instead of just *****ing about how screwed we all are by the oppressing booz-wa-zee.

[Zero]

If power and violence derive from 'head-counts' and 'the popular vote' why would you want to encourage the system it spawned into?

I used to believe that my vote mattered. However with the atrocities (actually in my case lack of movement on them) that are commited by the people who actualy do Bush's, or Blair's dirty work are turning people to the left every day. I have convinced quite a few of my moderate right wing friends into actually looking at the facts and not taking whats presented to them... you know what they did? They -- without my prompting -- bought Das Kapitol, picked up some of Marx's works, and Che's Global Justice after I simply explained the concept of Workers Dictatorship, and the difference between such individuals as Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin... and to call them the same word would be an absolute atrocity to history. Their parents have nearly killed me a few times, they never turn down an opportunity to shove Stalin in my face, and they constantly attempt to barrage me with loaded questions that they have probably been sitting on for weeks. However this has worked in my favor, as more and more people in my community have come to me for Marxist literature.

Influenceing a single individual on my part sparked an intrest in the majority of my friends. Even people I don't know have come up to me and had been told to talk to me, and get information.


You don't need to play into their hands to change the world you know.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:49 PM
It's also important. If the city concilmembers of some small town in wherever were all comunists things would be run alot differently.

Unlike the presidential election there is a place where you can actually do something. Instead of just *****ing about how screwed we all are by the oppressing booz-wa-zee.
Where I live that would mean running myself and have little to do with voting since the choices here are Republican, Conservative and um um ah um yeah.

Nice assumption, some of us do more than just *****. If thier was a crackhouse in my neighborhood that I wanted gone, would I start selling crack for them? I do not support a change of government, I am for total abolishment of it.

It is state and federal government that is the problem for the most part, other than the local blue suited nazis.

[Zak]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 26 2006, 11:00 PM
Nice assumption, some of us do more than just *****. If thier was a crackhouse in my neighborhood that I wanted gone, would I start selling crack for them? I do not support a change of government, I am for total abolishment of it.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply anything to you personaly; I of course have no idea what your political/social actions are. I was talking about the majority of people who complain but don't vote or take action.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Thanks for the apology, was not offended though. I understand where you are coming from on the vote though. I registered to vote on my 18th birthday and always voted up until several years ago. The more I read and learn the more I despise government. Government has served the common man little since recorded history and has always been geared for the few to hoard wealth and power.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 22 2006, 04:41 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 22 2006, 04:41 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 11:16 PM
Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.
*SPITS*

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
holy shit we agree :o

[JudeObscure84]

If you guys love supporting the working class, then you would know that a big bulk of it supports Bush and the Republican party.

Face it the working class in this country are very right wing. if not that, then moderate or conservative democrat. The bougie crowd you guys hate so much is strongly liberal-left and marxist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 22 2006, 04:41 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 22 2006, 04:41 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 11:16 PM
Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.
*SPITS*

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Would you still have that attitude if there was a fascist standing in your local election?
In the UK we have the British National party trying to win seats so british leftists dont have the luxury of taking an apathetic attitude towards elections.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:03 AM
If you guys love supporting the working class, then you would know that a big bulk of it supports Bush and the Republican party.

Face it the working class in this country are very right wing. if not that, then moderate or conservative democrat. The bougie crowd you guys hate so much is strongly liberal-left and marxist.
If you look at the issues, most people in America are pretty leftist.

[patrickbeverley]

Would I vote Republican?

I'm British. I won't get the chance not to.

Would I vote for the Conservative Party?

HELL no.

Never.

[JudeObscure84]

Would I vote Republican?

I'm British. I won't get the chance not to.

Would I vote for the Conservative Party?

HELL no.

Never.

Ok well then would you vote labour?

[JudeObscure84]

If you look at the issues, most people in America are pretty leftist.

I think you mean moderate.

HOw do you figure most people are leftists?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:19 PM

If you look at the issues, most people in America are pretty leftist.

I think you mean moderate.

HOw do you figure most people are leftists?
Most people want health care - except the ones in power

70% of US troops in Iraq think troops should be pulled out within a year - I guess it really is the government that dosn't "support the troops" since Bush said they will remain for at least 3 more years.

2/3 of all americans are against the war and the most likely democraphic of people against the war in the US are midwestern housewives according to a poll in 2004

And I think when you talk to people, people often say things that are far to the left of the Democrats. And if people seem conservative in many polls and in elections, that's because of the 2 choices they are given are conservative! THis is why I think in order for our struggle to move forward people need to see that there are options to the left of the democrats!

If there was a 3rd party candidate or Labor candidate in the US who got even 15% of the vote on the basis of universal health care, ending taft-heartly, and ending the war, these issues could no longer be seen as "frindge issues" and this would encourage the anti-war movement to make harder demands (rather than being afraid to offend the Democrats), union members would be encouraged to fight for health care and reforms to strngthen the power of unions and so on.

This is what the comrade ment about the story about voting and swords... if even 15% of the population voted on the basis of one of these issues, then that means there are millions of people who might be willing to fight for these issues! It would send a clear message to the ruling class - they would most likely respond by trying to give piece-meal reforms to bring the popuilation back to the two parties.

In San Francisco, the Green party is now the second party behind the Democrats (Republicans are the 3rd party) and in a mayoral race where a Green was in the position to win, the Republican party backed the Democract and when they democract was eventually elected, he was the first to pass Gay-Marriage even though he didn't campaign on that issue... breaking the two parties is a threat to the ruling class!

[JudeObscure84]

What if the third party was Reform, Libertarian, or Constitutionalist?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't support a 3rd party to the right of the 2 mainstream parties. I was speaking of left-wing parties since this is a discussion about the left and political parties.

I suppose right wing parties have the same effect of moving the mainstream discussion - but in the opposite political trajectroy.

In Franch and other parts of Europe where Le Pen and similar right-wing anti-immigrent parties have gotten electoral support, this has cause the "mainstream" right-wing to respond with more restrictions on immigration to appease the right-wing forces - but appeasement only makes these forces more emboldened.

[JudeObscure84]

See when you say right wing, (especially in the EU) I think of protectionist, nationalist movements like Le Pen or British National Party or German NDP. I think of people who want to enjoy thier national soverignty and oppose globalization and neo-liberalism.
Its the same in the United States, when I hear right wing, (in the real sense) I think of Pat Buchanen, Michael Savage, Reform Party, Constitutionalist Party, and Neo-Confederates. These groups are also protectionist, nationalist and ultimately conservative.

Today's Republican and mainstream politics are very moderate, centrist, pro-globalization and neo-liberalism. The Republican party today especially under GWB is very moderate, neo-liberal, and interestingly anti-nationalist (theyspeak nationalist while sell factories to China) . The Republican party is no more distinguishable then the Democratic Party. In fact the GOP under Bush has already matched social spending under Clinton.

So what constitutes right wing anymore? The two main parties are angering thier constituates because the GOP hoodwinked the right wing public into thinking they were conservative, while the Dems hoodwinked the public into thinking they were left wing. In reality both are moderate centrist parties that favor liberal social democracies, where private business is friendly to federal government.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:18 PM

Would I vote Republican?

I'm British. I won't get the chance not to.

Would I vote for the Conservative Party?

HELL no.

Never.

Ok well then would you vote labour?
I practice anti-Conservative tactical voting, ie I vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping out the Conservative candidate in my seat. Last election it didn't work, :( and now my seat is represented by Mr. Geoffrey "sucks" Cox, an out-and-out Tory. The one consolation of this depressing loss is that him being the new MP meant that he went to shake hands with all the players at a local football match, giving a bunch of leftist buddies and me the opportunity to loudly sing "who ate all the pies" at his fat arse.

[theraven]

Yes I would. I don't vote exactly party line, but fairly close.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:48 PM
Mr. Geoffrey "sucks" Cox
It occurs to me in retrospect that the nickname I applied to Mr. Cox is somewhat offensive. May I offer my heartfelt apologies to those men who do suck cocks, and assure you that I in no way connect you to the policies of my local fucking MP. Sorry about my brief lapse into homophobia, I didn't mean it.

[JudeObscure84]

Atleast you guys have parties that make it into Parliament. Sometimes I feel sorry for many of the third parties in the US who do not make it on to the national scene. Whether they be right wing nationalists or the Greens or the Libertarians.

You can talk the talk all you want in Washington appealling to your constituents about free market reforms on one aisle or socialist reforms on the other, but if you're not moderate and favor subsidation (i.e. corporate welfare) than your pretty much a fringe group.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:28 AM
Why wouldn't you vote, it is your right, a spit in the face to those who fought for that right if you don't vote.
They "died for my right" to own a gun, as well. I happen to not own a gun. Am I spitting in their face?