Can't We All Just Get Along?

[CrazyModerate]

I know there are many competing ideologies, and many, if not most of the forum members are opposed to trusting democratic candidates. But can't you atleast give some of the centre-left parties a chance. I think any move towards ending poverty and supporting development aid is a good thing.

Atleast give Nader or Kucinich a chance. I know they are bourgeoise or whatever technical jargon you want to label them, but they seem to have a very legitimate intresest in fighting corporate America and assissting the poor and oppressed. I think an inability of moderate and more radical leftists from uniting has resulted in right wingers gaining power with ease. The inability of the SPD and the KPD to form a coalition allowed Hitler to get into power.

I really do agree that Liberals and Social Democrats don't get stuff don't fast, but they are quite often FAR better than Conservatives, and some make quite large steps to progressing ALL members of society. I think the New Deal and FDRs support of Trade Unions is one of the key reasons workers in America were given better conditions and is the reason they were considered "middle class."

I think the best way to combat the rise of neo liberalism and neo conservatism is too work in two ways. Continue the regular fight, but also be a bit more willing compromise with moderates, as many of these "bourgois" individuals strongly oppose Imperialism, they oppose an unchecked free market, and they have problems with globalization.

[Janus]

It is true that they can provide some short term relief as long as they are in power but what else? They cannot change the general societal and economical conditions. As a result, workers are still oppressed under such a system even if it is somewhat better than before.

Yes, we should work for better conditions for the people but we cannot cut our long term goals in order to satisfy short-term ones. That is one of the key points behind out struggle.

[CrazyModerate]

Thats a fair point, but these short term goals have often result in a chain reaction of continuous progress. I believe the democracies of the world were far better off until the 80s, when this chain of progressivism was broken by Reagan, Thatcher, and others. And it continued into the 90s with Clinton and the Liberals in Canada, who falsly veiled themselves as progressive, but their economic policy has harmed the worst off.

[Delta]

I agree that short-term gains are worthy of pursuit as long as one does not get caught up in the short-term and forget about the final aim. When politicians do something that we like, we can't say "ooohh hooray, go Democrats!!", but more along the lines of "nice work, now do this for us. *****".

For the record, I don't vote Democrat, but Green. I think voting Democrat just shifts the political spectrum to the right more.

[Sabocat]

Yeah. Hooray. Reformism is just what we need. A few more scraps off the table.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists view things is class terms. We're not going to support a party because they represent the capitalist class in a "nicer way".

And the Greens are a bourgeois party too, just like the Democrats. They represent the same class that the Democrats and Republicans do.

[Fidelbrand]

Nice topic. thumbs-up!

I see this problem among ourselves, let alone this forum.

Solidarity and harmony is important among ourselves, our differing views from one focus (class struggle) is leading us astray from fighting a beautiful war, let alone any war at all, when the cappies just have one shared objective on politico-economics -----> " $ " .

P.S. CrazyModerate, try read Leo Pantiech's "Renewing socialism" and/or David Schweickart's "Against capitalism and "Market Socialism : the debate among Socialists / [edited by Bertell Ollman]". :)

[*[email protected]*]

As far as im concerned we dont have the luxury to bicker amoungst ourselves when the worlds falling to shit.

Anyone who is pissed at the injustices against the enviroment, the proiteriat or really anything that doesnt deserve to be downtrodden on is my comrade and if they would be willing to die for the cause they take up id be happy to join them!

:che:

[RedJacobin]

This is an interesting idea:

Should We Advocate an Election Boycott in the US?
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/flanders270606.html

Telling people to vote, even for a Kucinich or a Nader, is equivalent to telling them that this international system of exploitation and oppression is legitimate.

CrazyModerate puts the turning point at the 1980s, when a "chain of progressivism was broken by Reagan, Thatcher, and others."

What happened in the 1960s and 1970s? A murderous war was waged against the people of Vietnam.

Or going further back, the good old days of FDR included Jim Crow, the lynching of Black people, and the locking up of Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

There never were any "good old days" because from day one the system was founded by capitalists and slaveowners.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But can't you atleast give some of the centre-left parties a chance.

No we can't. It's been tried for ages and is still shit.


I think any move towards ending poverty and supporting development aid is a good thing.

Nothing a "centre-left" party does is going to move towards ending poverty. That's one of the crazyiest things I've heard.

What is going to end poverty? A proletarian revolution.


I know they are bourgeoise or whatever technical jargon you want to label them

It's a bit more complicated than that dude. Being "bourgeoisie" is not just a word, it means you are the CLASS ENEMY of the workers. No matter what they advocate they work against us.


but they seem to have a very legitimate intresest in fighting corporate America and assissting the poor and oppressed.

What would that be? Moralism? :lol:


The inability of the SPD and the KPD to form a coalition allowed Hitler to get into power.

Actually it was the fact that the groups in Germany weren't militant and pushing a revolution RIGHT THEN AND THERE. The anti-fascist "communists" should have been out on the streets attacking hitler and his brown shirts when they were a fledgling organization.


but they are quite often FAR better than Conservatives

Yes so lets just put off revolution for 10000 years and wait for them to make the conditions better. :rolleyes:

You'll get pie in the sky when you die, THATS A LIE!


I think the New Deal and FDRs support of Trade Unions is one of the key reasons workers in America were given better conditions and is the reason they were considered "middle class."

One of the key reasons workers have better conditions is because we fucking fought and died for them.

[Delta]

The revolution isn't going to occur when people are so right-wing that they vote for conservatives and read books by Ann Coulter. And in any case, if the revolution were to occur in these circumstances, they would massacre us lefties in a revolution, since we are outrageously outnumbered. "Damn secularists! Make Falwell the leader of the revolution!"

I don't vote for Greens because I want them to be elected. They wouldn't probably do anything if they had the votes to be elected. I only do it to shift the political spectrum to the left. If the Greens were elected, I'd vote for the party that was even further to the left than them. I don't view this is as putting off the revolution, just killing some time with something that may or may not be useful until then.

[CheRev]

It's an interesting question and one that needs to addressed. I'm not from the US so I don't really know all the parties so bare with me, however, I know of the main difficulties that arise since it's broadcast pretty much 24/7 everywhere when the election's on.

It really annoys me to hear Lefties saying vote Democrat in order to get rid of the Republicans. Why? There is no point. You may as well leave the Republicans in power because if you continue to vote Democrat everytime the Republicans get into power you obviously end in a circler pattern that plays into the bourgeoisies' hands: they always have a party that represents their interests in power.

The question is more complicated when it comes to Nader or the Greens. They're better than nothing but not what we want. However, to stretch the current power structure would it not be best to have the vote split 3 ways instead of the usual scenario? Yes, but I presume those that vote for Nader would take away predominantly from the Democrats rather than the Republicans. So I'm thinking the only way of splitting the vote better and putting pressure on the current powers is for the third party to focus on the current non-voters and try to bring them into the electorate, and then the Democrats and Republicans can fight away for the ones that always vote for them... Of course it's only a short term tactic and would never result in a meaningful revolution.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:22 PM
So I'm thinking the only way of splitting the vote better and putting pressure on the current powers is for the third party to focus on the current non-voters and try to bring them into the electorate, and then the Democrats and Republicans can fight away for the ones that always vote for them...
I think this statement captures a big problem with leftist 3rd party campaigns in the US.

Almost half of the eligible voters in the US don't vote in presidential elections.

There were more non-voters in 2004 than people who voted for either Bush or Kerry. Combined with the electoral college--literally a remnant of slavery--it's pretty clear that no matter who was elected, the will of the people wasn't expressed.

So the role of the leftist 3rd party should be to target non-voters, raise false hopes, and bring MORE people into this utterly corrupt system? That doesn't make sense at all.

Instead of creating illusions about voting, the Left should be talking to people about how political decisions are really made in this country.

If a 3rd party campaign must be run, I think it should target Democratic voters instead of non-voters, to attempt to deliberately split the Democratic Party. The Left in this country is incredibly small, but it does have the power to make Democrats lose elections.

The Left might be able to learn something from the Christian fundamentalists. When a politician doesn't say what they want to hear, they don't hold their noses and go to the polls anyway, they stay home. That works if it's combined with patient community organizing (some of these megachurches are organized like Leninist parties).

[CheRev]

If a 3rd party campaign must be run, I think it should target Democratic voters instead of non-voters, to attempt to deliberately split the Democratic Party. The Left in this country is incredibly small, but it does have the power to make Democrats lose elections.[QUOTE]

A proper and meaningful revolution will not happen through the ballot box, so all this talk of a third party is irrelevent in the long term. However, if it takes 20 or 30 years for the conditions to be correct for such a revolution I wouldn't fancy a US (or a World for that matter) controlled by the Republicans, which is effectively what you end up doing by taking the vote from the democrats.

It's a difficult one really because you end up left with two crap solutions: Republicans in power or an uneducated voting population. But as you say:

There were more non-voters in 2004 than people who voted for either Bush or Kerry. [QUOTE]

So I do think that these are the people that the third party should focus on and educate.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by CheRev+Jul 9 2006, 10:25 AM--> (CheRev @ Jul 9 2006, 10:25 AM)
fats
There were more non-voters in 2004 than people who voted for either Bush or Kerry.
So I do think that these are the people that the third party should focus on and educate.[/b]
Telling people to vote for Nader is not the same as educating them. It's more like fooling them.

Any third party that tries to bring MORE voters into the electoral process is going to be lying to the people to some degree. Even the small socialist parties that run candidates spread illusions and false hopes.

When Nader talks about voting for him to "take this country back from the corporations," he might be sincere, but he's spreading a whole bunch of wrong ideas.

First, voting won't change anything because real decisions in this country are not made through the ballot box. The only thing voters do is put a stamp of legitimacy on decisions that were already made. This point has to be repeated again and again.

Second, corporations are not the problem. The problem is capitalism-imperialism.

Third, there never was a time when this country wasn't controlled by capitalists and slaveowners.