Our friends the Democrats? - Democrats in 2004

[JohnRedDavis]

[Let me know what you think, what I could add in to make this more effective. Any historical tidbits about the treachery of the Democrats would be appreciated, as well. Thanks.]

After suffering through over two years of George W. Bush's assault on workers at home and abroad, many on the left are waging a campaign to a elect a Democrat, by any means neccessary.

Even people who consider themsevles Greens or socialists are flirting with the idea of "sucking it up" and backing a Democrat to stem the Bush assault. This notion flies in the face of Marxism and the history of the Democratic party in America.

As I see it, there are two ways to stopping Bush's attacks: 1. Vote for a Democrat (so someone else can take over the attack on working-people), or 2. Build a mass movement that forces Bush or his successor to be more accountable to the majority in this country.

For eight years, millions of Americans went without any form of health insurance. Millions languished in minimum wage jobs or in prison (or both!). Hundreds were executed. Thousands deported.

Clinton's military adventures led to the deaths of an estimated 10,000 Somalis, unknown Haitians, Serbians, Croats, Afghans...and of course, all of the Sudanese who suffered after half of their pharmeceutical production capability was destroyed. Then there's the half million in Iraq, along with the billions in Second and Third World countries who lived under eight years of neoliberal IMF imposed austerity measures and World Bank loans.

Gays were not allowed to serve openly in the military, what is in essence government-sponsored discrimination. Nor were they allowed to openly, officially marry in many states. A woman's right to choose was chipped away at and demonized by Clinton.

But Clinton isn't an abberation, before him Kennedy launched the Vietnam War, Truman let the anti-labor law Taft-Hartley pass in Congress and Roosevelt interred thousands of Japanese.

In fact, it was under Nixon that the Supreme Court first gave women the right to choose, because of the huge movement against the Vietnam War (which built off of the Civil Rights movement). The pressure from below was too much, even for a staunch, corrupt conservative.

It is true that the Republicans are more reactionary and probably more vile, but if the Democrats simply represent the "status quo"--a status quo that kills millions yearly--is that acceptable? I believe not.

So, in my opinion, the Democratic Party (including Kucinich, who'll never get the nod anyway--but will end up stumping for Kerry, Dean or Gephardt) is a dead end for people genuinely committed to worker's rights, let alone international socialism.

To fight back against the right in America and internationally will require not deep campaign funds but deep conciousness and tireless organizing and activism. If unions took their money out of Democrat's campaign treasure chests and put it into organizing more workplaces, they'd be able to dictate things to the White House--no matter who occupies it.

Ultimately, socialism will come through the self-activity of the working-class. Sandbagging for Democrats is not only a diversion from our task, it is counter-intuitive.

[abstractmentality]

Have fun (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=799&start=10) John.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:19 am on June 17, 2003)

[Sabocat]

"So, in my opinion, the Democratic Party (including Kucinich, who'll never get the nod anyway--but will end up stumping for Kerry, Dean or Gephardt) is a dead end for people genuinely committed to worker's rights, let alone international socialism. "

We have a couple of problems here. I think most of us here agree that for the most part, the Democrats represent no real appreciable difference from the Republicans. It is bad enough where it has been suggested (in jest) that the parties consolidate and form one party, called the Republicrats or Demopublicans. Campaign finance has for the most part, ruined any chance of us getting a "free thinker".

However, I think we also can agree that there are candidates out there that represent an improvement over GW. If we are going to proceed with electoral politics, then it is incumbent on us to at least try to endorse the person most closely aligned with our ideals. Change, unfortunately isn't going to come over night, and perhaps the best road to Socialism, is by electing a person closer to those ideals.

It's disheartening that your defeatist statement (and most likely quite realistic), regarding Kucinich is most likely going to play out in exactly the fashion that you have stated. However, Kucinich represents the best opportunity of a "left" president. (You gotta believe that a guy that listed as a residence "the family car" at one point in his life, wants to see some real change) My opinion is that it is worthwhile supporting this kind of candidate regardless of his chances of winning. Perhaps, by voting for people of his ilk, it will send a message to the Democratic party that there is a large block of Democrats on the left that are unhappy with the mediocre choice being given them from the traditional candidates. Especially, if this large voter block is casting ballots for a candidate that borders on being a Socialist. We should accept no substitutes. Kerry and Gephardt represent nothing but the same old, same old.

If we don't make the change through electoral politics (and I seriously doubt we can), then we'll have to come up with a better plan for the country and our futures. Just what is it? I wish I had a clue.

[Umoja]

John you spoke exactly my mind. It's a shame that people's blind hatred of Bush is leading them to actually consider voting Democrat. Bush is no worse then Clinton, and is probubly better for PR, at least he acts dumber then Joe Dirt.

[Sabocat]

So is the answer to simply support a fringe candidate? One that realistically has no chance of winning but will make a statement with the electorate?

What's a good leftist to do? Even in the course of the struggle, (protests, strikes etc.) doesn't it make sense to a least try to get someone elected that will be more sympathetic to our cause, rather than call out the National Guard and have us all shot?

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 1:18 pm on June 17, 2003
So is the answer to simply support a fringe candidate? One that realistically has no chance of winning but will make a statement with the electorate?

What's a good leftist to do? Even in the course of the struggle, (protests, strikes etc.) doesn't it make sense to a least try to get someone elected that will be more sympathetic to our cause, rather than call out the National Guard and have us all shot? The fact of the matter is, the Democratic Party would not, and never will be, sympathetic to a Marxist revolutionary movement. There really isn't much else to say about this topic besides that. End of story.

[Sabocat]

So it makes more sense to do nothing and allow a president that would be more intolerant and would label us as terrorists?

I realize that the Democrats also have a vested interest in keeping things status quo, but isn't in our best interest if we help elect someone in the mean time that is more compassionate to the poor, (welfare programs, unemployment programs) funding for the arts, etc?

Should we abandon these causes as well? Keep in mind, I'm speaking in terms of immediacy. People that need help now, not just people in 25, 50,100 years that will benefit from a socialist or communist revolution.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 2:20 pm on June 17, 2003
So it makes more sense to do nothing and allow a president that would be more intolerant and would label us as terrorists?

I realize that the Democrats also have a vested interest in keeping things status quo, but isn't in our best interest if we help elect someone in the mean time that is more compassionate to the poor, (welfare programs, unemployment programs) funding for the arts, etc?

Should we abandon these causes as well? Keep in mind, I'm speaking in terms of immediacy. People that need help now, not just people in 25, 50,100 years that will benefit from a socialist or communist revolution.The Democrats had EIGHT years to "help the people", but instead look what we got from them: welfare-deform, NAFTA, the Anti-Terrorism Act (in 1996, the prelude to the Patriot Act), imperialist aggression in Yugoslavia, imperialist economic sanctions against Iraq (which murdered one million people), etc, etc, etc. That is what the 1990s were all about, and those were the Clinton years! At least now when Bush does the SAME things that Clinton did, the people are more resistant to him because he doesn't have a nice safe "D" beside his name!

[abstractmentality]

yes, foreign policy is very much similar, but is economic policy? no. please, look at the link i posted before. also, just look at the FCC ruling recently. the 2 democrats wanted national open hearings, the 3 republicans didnt. the 3 republicans voted for it, the 2 dems voted against it. to say they are the same is silly, to be blunt. i will most likely be voting democract in 2004 for all of the reasons The Muckracker (vox) laid out in the link.

[Sabocat]

I totally agree with what you're saying. Clinton was a disaster. He unfortuantely ran as a liberal Dem. and conned a lot of people into voting for him. His platform was bought and paid for by the same lobbyists as the Republicans'.

The question remains however. Are you saying we're better off with another 4 years of GW? Is this a case of the "Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't?".

If their truly is a "left" choice for Dem. nomination, wouldn't it be better to have him in office?

Are you advocating not voting at all?

Believe me, I'm not a believer in the electoral process either, but what are we to do in the interim? Isn't it incumbent on us at least to try and get the "leftist leaning" candidate possible? I understand that candidates are not always what they appear to be.

What is the solution?

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 4:55 pm on June 17, 2003
yes, foreign policy is very much similar, but is economic policy? no. please, look at the link i posted before. also, just look at the FCC ruling recently. the 2 democrats wanted national open hearings, the 3 republicans didnt. the 3 republicans voted for it, the 2 dems voted against it. to say they are the same is silly, to be blunt. i will most likely be voting democract in 2004 for all of the reasons The Muckracker (vox) laid out in the link.
And in what way are the Democrats any different from the Republicans regarding economics?

Lets see Clinton supported Welfare-Deform, and NAFTA, which both hurt American workers!

Where is our universal health care? Where is our living wage? Why does it cost so fucking much to attend university?

The Democrats had their chance, and they really could have done a lot if they had wanted too. However, the Democratic capitalist politicians get their money from the same class that the Republicans do, so to expect anything different from them is just silly and naive. Someone with a Marxist understanding should already know this.

Btw, I already read the link you posted earlier, and all of Redstar2000's posts in it were truly excellent.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 5:00 pm on June 17, 2003
I totally agree with what you're saying. Clinton was a disaster. He unfortuantely ran as a liberal Dem. and conned a lot of people into voting for him. His platform was bought and paid for by the same lobbyists as the Republicans'.

The question remains however. Are you saying we're better off with another 4 years of GW? Is this a case of the "Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't?".

If their truly is a "left" choice for Dem. nomination, wouldn't it be better to have him in office?

Are you advocating not voting at all?

Believe me, I'm not a believer in the electoral process either, but what are we to do in the interim? Isn't it incumbent on us at least to try and get the "leftist leaning" candidate possible? I understand that candidates are not always what they appear to be.

What is the solution?
Shrug, well I've been following the Democratic primary race for about a year now. And basically there are three candidates that have a real chance at winning: John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Gephart. All of them are useless right-wingers. And Joseph Lieberman seems the most likely to win (he has been leading most of the polls ever since Gore dropped out).

While Kucinich and Sharpton say some nice things they clearly are not going to win the primary (in most polls Sharpton is 5% and Kucinich is 2%). And then there is this other guy, Howard Dean, who is popular among some liberals (and has a "strong" 5% support in the polls), yet he claims to be "fiscally conservative". So basically they are all worthless and the more moderate candidates have no chance of winning anyway.

I will vote for the Green Party's candidate in 2004, because the Socialist Workers Party or Workers World Party presidential candidates are never on the ballot in my state! =(

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Sensitive on 6:13 pm on June 17, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 4:55 pm on June 17, 2003
yes, foreign policy is very much similar, but is economic policy? no. please, look at the link i posted before. also, just look at the FCC ruling recently. the 2 democrats wanted national open hearings, the 3 republicans didnt. the 3 republicans voted for it, the 2 dems voted against it. to say they are the same is silly, to be blunt. i will most likely be voting democract in 2004 for all of the reasons The Muckracker (vox) laid out in the link.
And in what way are the Democrats any different from the Republicans regarding economics?

Lets see Clinton supported Welfare-Deform, and NAFTA, which both hurt American workers!

Where is our universal health care? Where is our living wage? Why does it cost so fucking much to attend university?

The Democrats had their chance, and they really could have done a lot if they had wanted too. However, the Democratic capitalist politicians get their money from the same class that the Republicans do, so to expect anything different from them is just silly and naive. Someone with a Marxist understanding should already know this.

Btw, I already read the link you posted earlier, and all of Redstar2000's posts in it were truly excellent.


But right now, we have a choice of a Dem. that wants to get rid of NAFTA and WTO (Kucinich), restoration of Family Farms, Repeal of the Patriot Act, Universal Health, Guaranteed Education, etc, etc....

I realize that these are lofty goals, (many of which will probably never get through Congress) but wouldn't we better off trying?

Are we better off not voting for someone like this than GW? That's the question.

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Sensitive on 6:23 pm on June 17, 2003

Quote: from Disgustapated on 5:00 pm on June 17, 2003
I totally agree with what you're saying. Clinton was a disaster. He unfortuantely ran as a liberal Dem. and conned a lot of people into voting for him. His platform was bought and paid for by the same lobbyists as the Republicans'.

The question remains however. Are you saying we're better off with another 4 years of GW? Is this a case of the "Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't?".

If their truly is a "left" choice for Dem. nomination, wouldn't it be better to have him in office?

Are you advocating not voting at all?

Believe me, I'm not a believer in the electoral process either, but what are we to do in the interim? Isn't it incumbent on us at least to try and get the "leftist leaning" candidate possible? I understand that candidates are not always what they appear to be.

What is the solution?
Shrug, well I've been following the Democratic primary race for about a year now. And basically there are three candidates that have a real chance at winning: John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Gephart. All of them are useless right-wingers. And Joseph Lieberman seems the most likely to win (he has been leading most of the polls ever since Gore dropped out).

While Kucinich and Sharpton say some nice things they clearly are not going to win the primary (in most polls Sharpton is 5% and Kucinich is 2%). And then there is this other guy, Howard Dean, who is popular among some liberals (and has a "strong" 5% support in the polls), yet he claims to be "fiscally conservative". So basically they are all worthless and the more moderate candidates have no chance of winning anyway.

I will vote for the Green Party's candidate in 2004, because the Socialist Workers Party or Workers World Party presidential candidates are never on the ballot in my state! =(


Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for. You said that Kucinich has no chance of winning (unfortuntely I think you're probably right) but does he have less of a chance of winning than the Green party?

Sadly, our state is also sadly lacking in Socialist candidates.

[Sensitive]

Shrug, well, we can vote for Kucinich in the primary, but he isn't going to win it.

And as we all know, voting in this country is completely worthless anyway. I only vote for the same reason I occasionally scratch my ass - it feels good.

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Sensitive on 6:28 pm on June 17, 2003
Shrug, well, we can vote for Kucinich in the primary, but he isn't going to win it.

And as we all know, voting in this country is completely worthless anyway. I only vote for the same reason I occasionally scratch my ass - it feels good.


LOL :biggrin:

[Sean Reynolds]

I'm new here, but thought I'd give my worthy? opinion on this subject.

Firstly, any one that doubts Clinton was a conservative has been living under a rock for the last 8 years. Granted he was more liberal than Reagan and Bush, but he still was a Republican in Dem clothing.

I feel that there are some rebels in the Democratic Party, but sadly their voice doesn't conform to the vast majority of that in the United States. You only get small enclaves of support throughout the country. It's not large enough to elect someone that even has the slightest view points as us.

But does that mean we give up? No, because ultimately we hurt even more. If George DUHbya is re-elected president, we will see another 4 years of tyranny and war. Can we deal with that? Can OUR country deal with an economically irresponsible president? I don't think so.

Even though I really dislike Clinton's conservative views, I think most could agree he isn't as bad as what Duhbya is today.

Firstly, we need a president that will bring equality to EVERY social realm, not just the rich; not just the white. IMO Bush never will do that. A Republican will never do that. While a Republican is in office social freedom will slowly evaporate until there is nothing left.

What even scares me more is Bush will not have to worry about a re-election in his 2nd term. Thus he doesn't need to appease the voters as much as he would if an election were up and coming. I have no doubt that if Bush was re-elected John Ashcroft and that whole administration would chip at our individual freedoms.

Where am I going with this? As much as I hate most of the Democratic hopefuls, I think ALL (except LIEberman) would do a better job than Bush is.

With that said, it's time to start at the grassroots. It's always nice thinking big, but it's just NOT possible right now. Slowly change the look of local politics.

I know here in Salt Lake City our mayor is a Socialist Democrat. He's also VERY popular. If we can garner support there, we can slowly build up onto a national level.

I do think the closest Socialist we've had in the White House was FDR, and he's ranked as one of the best presidents in our nations history. So it CAN happen, but you need educate the public on the matter. And you can only do that at a local base.

[canikickit]

Fist of all, I'm not that sure how much I understand American politics (that's my disclaimer, at least).

I am reminded of Tony Blair however. Many of the people I've encountered feel that Tony Blair is a good leader, and a man worthy of respect. They admire the fact that he tried to get UN justification for the war in Iraq. However, would it have been a more just war if the UN had sanctified it? No. I fear that Tony Blair is the type who could lead people to believe a situation better than it is. If we truly want the working class to rise up, the majority must be conscious of their oppression. The democrats perhaps apply a veneer of affability, but do they make a solid improvement to the life of Joe Q. Public on the street?

I don't feel that I know the true answer, but I am confident the difference is slight.

[Red Comrade]

The Democrats are NOT allies of the Communist Party, or to any anti-capitalist movement.

The American Democrats and Republicans are generally the same capitalist, only difference is that the Democrats pretend to care about the poor in order to generate votes, but they still favor the rich. What about Clinton's help in assaulting our comrades in Chiapas, Mexico? Or his support of Zionist Jews in Israel? Or his constant bombardment of the territory surrounding Yugoslavia?

We forget so easily, although Republicans are obviously much worse than democrats, they are both capitalists, IE, our enemies!

[sc4r]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 7:18 pm on June 17, 2003
So is the answer to simply support a fringe candidate? One that realistically has no chance of winning but will make a statement with the electorate?

What's a good leftist to do? Even in the course of the struggle, (protests, strikes etc.) doesn't it make sense to a least try to get someone elected that will be more sympathetic to our cause, rather than call out the National Guard and have us all shot?


The point is that the democrats are not any more sympathetic to our cause than the republicans. They are not (quite) as odious perhaps but thats about all.

A vote for either Democrat or Republican is a vote for the American system (call it capitalism or Liberal democracy) and as such will help perpetuate it.

Its annoying to feel that your vote wont change anything immediately. But if no-one ever takes the initiative and sacrifices immediate tiny gain for the possibility of ultimate victory you will neber see that ultimate victory.

If you are a socialist vote socialist. It is the only democratic weapon you have, even if it is not an especially lethal one at the moment. What do you think big 'capitalists' would like you to do ?

best would be to vote republican of course

But not far off would be vote Democrat.

So dont.

(Edited by sc4r at 11:00 am on June 18, 2003)

[Sabocat]

I definitely understand that there is little or no difference between the current two parties. Keep in mind, however that there are enormous populations of people that have not involved themselves with the election process. What did the last election bring for turn out, 25-35%? That leaves a huge group that have yet to be tapped.

The reason people aren't voting, is that they, like us, don't think there is anyone to vote for. No one is igniting their spirits. Didn't Martin Luther King say something to the effect "The black man down South, can't vote, and the black man up North, has no one to vote for"? That statement rings very true today.

Having said all this, which Socialist Party has the best chances of getting public/voter recognition? WWP? SLP? SP-USA?

Even if someone from one of the Socialist Parties was elected, how effective would they be without a Socialist Congress?

Do we vote for a Socialist candidate that we know has no chance of winning, or for a Dem. or Green Party candidate that has extreme left or Socialist leanings that has a real chance?

I know it's a shitty choice.

[sc4r]

To my mind its pretty straightforward. You dont vote for someone because you think they can win but because you believe in them.

In other words you express your opinion. God knows its a tiny enough concesion they have made that even this is allowed.

As soon as you start down the road of 'tactical voting' you have lost all hope of ever achieving anything beyond preventing the very worst immediate
excesses. Its kinda like taking painkillers to cure a toothache. It may seem like a good idea at the time (relieves the pain a littleand saves you a dentists bill plus saves the discomfort of the dentists chair) but long run it achieves nothing and makes the pain eventually become worse.

I could see a tactical vote in really extreme specific circumstances but there really is nothing worth talking about between DEms and Repubs here. The difference is 99% style.

I can, obviously, understand your frustration but regreattably thats part and parcel of being in an extreme minority.

If any reform is to come through the representative voting system it will only ever come through people ignoring the 'advice' of the major parties not to 'waste' their vote.

I repeat they want you to do this, that in itself should probably be sufficient reason not to.

[Umoja]

Thank you sc4r, I totally agree with your sentiments. And if you look at American history, the two party system has always existed but the parties themselves have continuously refined themselves. We started out with Federalist and Anti-Federalist. Then it became Federalist and Democratic-Republicans, then Whigs-Democratic-Republicans, and then Democrats vs. Republican.

Regardless of this, the Democrats if anything are worse for the leftist movement, because if people are happy with the current system, who will want to change it?

[abstractmentality]

many people here write about NAFTA under clinton being a horrid thing, and it was, no doubt. however, if a republican were in office, would that have happend? im strongly convinced it would have. when you read these pro-globalization freaks literature (if you can call it that), they say that globalization was just something that needed the right time, and that right time was after the fall of the soviet union. its the "new" way of life. look at FTAA that is being negotiated right now, under Bush. (im getting the thoughts above from Thomas Friedmans book The Lexus and The Olive Tree, which is horrible).

would the dems be cutting taxes on the rich as bush is doing? no. would we see softer restrictions from the FCC? no. would we see the possible overturn of Roe v Wade because of supreme court judges that Bush will appoint when one or two retire? no. the fact of the matter is that their will be generally less human suffering, as The Muckracker writes, and that is what the left is about: helping people.

yes, both parties support capitalism. but, will your vote for the SPUSA do anything besides make it easier for Bush to come to power again?

as people have written prior to me, Bush is worse that any dem to be in office (with the exception of Liberman).

i never said anything about stopping activism. i will be just as involved with my student activism if a dem wins or if bush wins. thats important. however, how will voting SPUSA or not voting at all help the average person? it wont, it will make their lives worse then it could have been. are we about making peoples lives worse or better? i always thought it was better. if not, then im on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:52 pm on June 18, 2003
"would the dems be cutting taxes on the rich as bush is doing? no."

What makes you say "no" so quickly? Recall that the Democrats have always been supporting tax cuts for the rich, just slightly smaller than the ones that the GOP wanted. It's the same the shit!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:52 pm on June 18, 2003
"would we see softer restrictions from the FCC? no."

LOL, I guess you forgot that Clinton strongly supported the Telecommunications Reform Act (in 1996, I believe), which allowed for the massive consolidation of media ownership to begin. So you can thank Bill Clinton for Clear Channel Communications!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:52 pm on June 18, 2003
"would we see the possible overturn of Roe v Wade because of supreme court judges that Bush will appoint when one or two retire? no. the fact of the matter is that their will be generally less human suffering, as The Muckracker writes, and that is what the left is about: helping people."

First of all, the Supreme Court is already loaded with very conservative judges, and they have not tried to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The threat that Bush is going to appoint some right-wing judges that will automatically steal women's right to have abortions is nothing more than a pitiful scare tactic. Recall that there were Supreme Court judge appointments during the previous Republican presidential terms, yet women still have the right to choose. I have yet to see any hard evidence that the situation is as dire as the Democratic Party campaign adds claim it to be!

(Edited by Sensitive at 1:39 pm on June 18, 2003)


(Edited by Sensitive at 1:41 pm on June 18, 2003)

[Sean Reynolds]

Again, Clinton isn't a true Democrat. IMO there are only a hand full of people running in this election that even COME close to sharing Social views. I understand that you all tend to feel that a Democrat and Republican are the same (I do too), but getting a more liberal Democrat into office can only bolster the movement further.

Right now we've turned back to the 70s, when Nixon made 'liberal' a bad word. Bush and his thugs are doing the EXACT same thing. Since the 70s the Democratic Party has aligned itself CLOSER to the center because the general public has been brainwashed into believing that anyone of liberal ideology is bad.

It's time we start PULLING the Democratic Party to the left again. I understand you may not agree with their logic, hell I don't on most issues. But the die hard Dems do tend to favor Social issues, unlike Republicans and conservative Democrats.

This nation needs to realize that it isn't the liberals that are killing the system, it's the Republicans. And until you've GOT a liberal in the White House, that preception is always going to be there. Thus, it'll push back the advancement of our Social cause.

The nation is full of fickle minded people. They're sheep, they hear how 'evil' the left is, they recoil. How is that doing us ANY good?

I mean you can say Republicans and Democrats are all alike, but the fact is, the more Republicans we have in power, the more the left will shrink toward the center. Sooner or later there will be NO voice on the left; just a large, dominating voice on the right.

I believe it's time that we show Americans Socialism works. All they need to do is look back toward FDR - he changed this country in the social realm.


(Edited by Sean Reynolds at 8:34 pm on June 18, 2003)

[JohnRedDavis]

are we about making peoples lives worse or better? i always thought it was better. if not, then im on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

Abstract,

George Meany and Lane Kirkland said the exact same thing about helping U.S. workers in the 1950s and 1960s. To make temporary gains for U.S. workers (to alleviate their suffering, of course) they made "minor" comprimises with trade union ideals.

They accepted the argument that securing more and better jobs for U.S. workers--at the expense of the international working-class--was the lesser evil of snubbing the ruling-class and risking attacks.

The AFL-CIO supported protectionism that excluded foreign goods from entering the U.S. market--and the flip side of the policy, imperialism which forced U.S. goods down the throats of foriegn markets. (Afterall, is it better to be employed as a result of imperialism, or unemployed?)

The AFL-CIO was complicit in the overthrow of Salvador Allende and the murder of thousands of trade unionists in Chile. (Its a tragedy we had to be involved in the killing of Chilean brothers and sisters, but it was their head or else we won't be favored by our government!)

For decades, Meany, Kirkland and other AFL-CIO Presidents right on through John Sweeny have accepted that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils and will cause less harm to American workers than the Republicans.

With Democrats controlling the White House and the Congress approximately half of the time in the past 50 years, one would expect the kinder, gentler capitalist party to have thrown some bones towards workers.

What do we have now? Taft-Hartley (Truman), Disabled veterans (Kennedy/Johnson), NAFTA (Clinton), Immigrant bashing laws (Clinton, again). And 10% unionization--down from over 30% a few decades ago!

What causes more suffering? Accepting the lesser of two evilism argument for the next 100 years (always pushing for that Kucinich candidate...) or throwing our energies into destroying the roots of racism, sexism and class division in 10 to 15 years time?

If you are anti-capitalist and recognize the Democrats as a ruling-class party, there's an inherent contradiction in supporting them. Especially considering they probably won't end up counting your vote anyway. We have to break with the capitalist parties, no matter how polite they address us. Their ultimate aims and goals are fundamentally in support for the same system which chews up and spits out millions of people every year.

If we're genuinely concerned about alleviating the suffering of people in the U.S. and aboard *right now* then we need to redouble our organizing efforts and build a resistence capable of fighting back. Socialists are organizing in cities all across the United States and the world, hook up with them and fight to change the world.

--John

[Sabocat]

Quote: from JohnRedDavis on 3:54 pm on June 18, 2003

are we about making peoples lives worse or better? i always thought it was better. if not, then im on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

Abstract,

George Meany and Lane Kirkland said the exact same thing about helping U.S. workers in the 1950s and 1960s. To make temporary gains for U.S. workers (to alleviate their suffering, of course) they made "minor" comprimises with trade union ideals.

They accepted the argument that securing more and better jobs for U.S. workers--at the expense of the international working-class--was the lesser evil of snubbing the ruling-class and risking attacks.

The AFL-CIO supported protectionism that excluded foreign goods from entering the U.S. market--and the flip side of the policy, imperialism which forced U.S. goods down the throats of foriegn markets. (Afterall, is it better to be employed as a result of imperialism, or unemployed?)

The AFL-CIO was complicit in the overthrow of Salvador Allende and the murder of thousands of trade unionists in Chile. (Its a tragedy we had to be involved in the killing of Chilean brothers and sisters, but it was their head or else we won't be favored by our government!)

For decades, Meany, Kirkland and other AFL-CIO Presidents right on through John Sweeny have accepted that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils and will cause less harm to American workers than the Republicans.

With Democrats controlling the White House and the Congress approximately half of the time in the past 50 years, one would expect the kinder, gentler capitalist party to have thrown some bones towards workers.

What do we have now? Taft-Hartley (Truman), Disabled veterans (Kennedy/Johnson), NAFTA (Clinton), Immigrant bashing laws (Clinton, again). And 10% unionization--down from over 30% a few decades ago!

What causes more suffering? Accepting the lesser of two evilism argument for the next 100 years (always pushing for that Kucinich candidate...) or throwing our energies into destroying the roots of racism, sexism and class division in 10 to 15 years time?

If you are anti-capitalist and recognize the Democrats as a ruling-class party, there's an inherent contradiction in supporting them. Especially considering they probably won't end up counting your vote anyway. We have to break with the capitalist parties, no matter how polite they address us. Their ultimate aims and goals are fundamentally in support for the same system which chews up and spits out millions of people every year.

If we're genuinely concerned about alleviating the suffering of people in the U.S. and aboard *right now* then we need to redouble our organizing efforts and build a resistence capable of fighting back. Socialists are organizing in cities all across the United States and the world, hook up with them and fight to change the world.

--John

I completely agree with everything your saying. I also think that unfortunately, there are far more people that would be willing to vote for a liberal Democrat than a Socialist. Educating the masses to the ideals of Socialism is our first priority. Then the transition will come. The bottom line, is that in order for socialism to take hold here, I think it has to be introduced through an extreme left candidate first and then the final evolution to a socialism. While we are constantly working towards that end, we should be seeking someone who brings us closer to our ideals, so that the transition is less shocking to the centrists and right wingers. A good left Democrat ( a true left democrat) could bring us closer to our goal. Looking at Kucinich's platform, I think you'd have to agree that this guy would be a lightyear improvement over Bush. Perhaps, a candidate like this, is ideologically a socialist, but realizes that his best shot of winning is without the "title".

Dennis Kucinich: The Progressive Vision

It’s time for America to resume its glorious journey. Time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights. Time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. Time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies. Time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media. Time for those who have much to help those who have little by maintaining a progressive tax structure. Time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true because the government is on the side of its people.

Unfortunately, America now leads the world in categories we should not be proud of. America is now the world’s leading jailer with an incarceration rate higher than China. We lead the industrialized world in poverty and in the growing gap between rich and poor. And we are the only industrial nation not to provide national health care.

This is what a Kucinich administration would work to deliver for America:

[1] Universal Health Care with a Single Payer Plan
Over 40 million Americans have no health care and 30 million more have only minimal coverage. Those with coverage often pay exorbitant amounts. The current profit-driven system, dominated by private insurance firms and their bureaucracies, has failed.

A Kucinich administration would establish streamlined national health insurance, Medicare for All. It would be publicly-financed health care, privately delivered. It would provide affordable prescription drugs, thanks to bulk purchasing. The General Accounting Office of Congress has concluded:

"If the U.S. were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs would be more than enough to offset the cost."

[2] Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
Social security is the basic covenant our society has with workers who have built our economy. At a time when CEOs earn 240 times the pay of the average worker, it is unconscionable not to return full retirement benefits to age 65.

A Kucinich administration would make that possible through a progressive tax structure and reordered national priorities. Social Security must not be privatized. Retirement years cannot be dependent on the rise and fall of the stock market.

[3] Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
The global trade regime of NAFTA and WTO has enriched multinational corporations. But for workers, family farmers, and the environment, it has meant a global race to the bottom. Companies leave the U.S. in search of low wages, low commodity prices, anti-union climates, and lax environmental laws. NAFTA has been used to whipsaw workers at the negotiation table, forcing wages and benefit concessions under threat of moving jobs overseas. Trade treaties must be conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights, and environmental principles.

Among the first actions of a Kucinich Administration will be withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO—to be replaced by fair trade agreements.

[4] Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records.

[5] Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
In a Kucinich administration, a woman’s right-to-choose will be protected as essential to personal privacy and gender equality. Only those who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade will be nominated for the Supreme Court. Civil rights (and voting rights) enforcement will be intensified. Lesbians and gays will be afforded complete equality throughout society. Affirmative action will be maintained as a tool for racial and gender equality. Drug policy will emphasize treatment over criminalization, and not a rampaging war that erodes Constitutional freedoms, privacy, and law enforcement resources. An end to capital punishment will be sought.

[6] Balance Between Workers and Corporations
American workers are working longer and harder for less pay than 20 years ago. What’s needed is a resurgence of organized labor, and a Kucinich administration will tenaciously defend the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Since the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped 21% in two decades, it’s time for living wages, not minimum wages. And it’s time to reverse tax cuts that benefit the already well-to-do, and retain an estate tax. Investing $500 billion to rebuild schools, roads, bridges, ports, and sewage, water and environmental systems will do more to stimulate our economy than tax breaks for the wealthy.
[7] Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K through College
Since education is the only proven way to reduce poverty, it is unacceptable that a child’s education be dependent on where they are born or the financial status of their family. The federal government spends only 2.9% of its budget on education. That will change under a Kucinich administration, because quality education is a core American right and value.

Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test-taking. Schools need money to decrease class size, increase teachers’ salaries, renovate decaying facilities, and include hands-on job training for those not going to college. Pre-K and after-school programs will get increased funding, and the soaring costs of college will be reversed.

[8] A Renewed Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy
America will return to its role as the most admired—not hated—nation. The doctrine of "pre-emption" will be retired, as will an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that makes our homeland less secure, not more. Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the U.N. instead of acting like an Empire, arrogantly undermining international agreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Small Arms Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Climate Treaty. As President, Kucinich will work to implement two measures he sponsored in Congress: the Space Preservation Treaty, which bans space-based weapons, and a cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish non-violence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs.

A Kucinich administration will cut bloated and unneeded weaponry from a military budget that now almost equals the military spending of all other countries combined. The Kucinich peace dividend will be invested in education, health care, environmental clean-up, urban infrastructure, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and other pressing domestic needs.

[9] Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
Agriculture, trade, and economic policies that favor agribusiness conglomerates have devastated family farmers, rural communities, and the environment. While the number of family farmers has plummeted, profits have soared for a handful of agribusiness giants that increas-ingly control everything from seed to shelf.

A Kucinich administration will break up agricultural monopolies and restore a strong, independent family farm system with fair prices for farmers and healthy food for consumers. A Kucinich Administration will monitor and reduce contamination of our air, water, and food from factory farms, with strong USDA enforcement of tough new food safety laws.

[10] Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
Clean air and water, as well as an intact ozone layer, are not luxuries, but necessities for our children’s future.

A Kucinich administration will toughen environmental enforcement, support the Kyoto Treaty on global climate change, reduce oil dependence, and spur investment in alternative energy sources, including hydrogen, solar, wind, and ocean. Clean energy technologies will produce new jobs. Tax and other incentives will favor sustainable businesses that conserve energy, retrofit pollution prevention technologies, and redesign toxins out of their manufacturing processes. The right to know (for example, when food is genetically engineered) will supercede corporate secrecy. Globally, the U.S. will become a leader in sustainable energy production and a partner with developing nations in providing inexpensive, local, renewable energy technologies.

It's a very difficult decision for me to make. On one hand, I really want to push for a Socialist candidate, but on the other hand, I would still like to get a true liberal in the White House in the mean time, to help the poor, elderly, minorities, sick etc.

[Severian]

Improvements don't come by elected somebody who hands down good things to you.

They come when people organize and fight for them, through mass movements and action in the streets.

There have been "true liberals" who implemented major attacks on the working class, and conservatives who gave up concessions to us, because of how much pressure they were under.

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive:

what is better for us: 500billion in tax cuts for the rich, or 350billion? now, i agree completely with you that neither should happen, but if you have to choose, which do you choose? the less, right? and if you dont have to choose, if its put to a vote, what does not voting do besides make it easier for the 500billion to pass? how does not voting help? it doesnt.

yes, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 96 was horrid, their is no doubt. but, what is worse, the reform of 96 or the reform of 03? which is going to cause more harm? the 03 reform, and their is no doubt in that.

about abortion: "With many rights - including the right to safe, legal abortion - currently hanging by a 5-4 balance, these Bush appointments have the potential to turn back the clock on a range of hard won rights." (http://www.feminist.org/chat/) yes, give bush an appointment, and we will lose abortion, no doubt. it is very close right now, and if he appoints an ashcroft like judge, their is no doubt that abortion will be lost.

JohnRedDavis:
i think you have a misconception about what i am writing. you wrote that "f we're genuinely concerned about alleviating the suffering of people in the U.S. and aboard *right now* then we need to redouble our organizing efforts and build a resistence capable of fighting back," but i dont see how me registering to vote and taking 10 minutes to vote inhibits my activism. im not here running around justifying everything the democrats do, by far im not; i just wrote that the reform of 96 was horrible. my voting for a democrat does not inhibit my activism whatsoever. i have also written here that i will continue my activism just as heavily under a democrat or a republican. im still going to talk to my next door neighbor about why capitalism needs to go if i vote for a democrat. yes, the democrats are never going to bring socialism, but thats not why i am voting for them. im voting for them because it will create less human suffering than if i dont vote, making it easier for a republican to come into office. how is not voting, or voting for the SPUSA going to help people in the presidential election? it doesnt, it simply makes it easier for the republicans to win.

as i have pointed out as well, globalization is going to happen under a democrat or a republican. im voting democrat in 04, but that is not stopping me from going to the anti-globalization protest in Sacramento this weekend.

And 10% unionization--down from over 30% a few decades ago!

some statistics: "eighty percent of compnies hire a consultant to stop employees from forming a union. Employers spend an estimated $300 million a year employing such consultants, not inculding litigation and legal expenses used to fight or delay a unionization effort.
"ninety one percent of companies force employees to attend antiunion information meetings; 77 percent distribute antiunion leaflets; and 58 percent show antiunion videos.
"thirty percent fire workers who actively support the union. an estimated 10,000 workers a year are fired for wanting to join a union.
"fifty percent of companies threaten to close the office or plant when people try to unionize." [Economic Apartheid in America, Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel (New York: The New Press, 2000), p.85]

its kinda hard to blame all of the de-unionization on the democrats.

does big business give more money to the democrats or the republicans? the republicans. do labor unions give more money to the democrats or the republicans? the democrats. hmm...

(Edited by abstractmentality at 2:18 pm on June 20, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 4:17 pm on June 20, 2003
Sensitive:

what is better for us: 500billion in tax cuts for the rich, or 350billion? now, i agree completely with you that neither should happen, but if you have to choose, which do you choose? the less, right? and if you dont have to choose, if its put to a vote, what does not voting do besides make it easier for the 500billion to pass? how does not voting help? it doesnt.

yes, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 96 was horrid, their is no doubt. but, what is worse, the reform of 96 or the reform of 03? which is going to cause more harm? the 03 reform, and their is no doubt in that.
Ah yes, the old support the "lesser evil" argument. Well I don't buy it, supporting a "lesser evil" is still supporting evil. Voting for the Democrats is still voting for capitalism, something I will never do!

However, regarding the "Telecommunications Reform Act (of 96)" it seems like you think that is merely what the Democrats wanted. You see, the ruling class does not quickly steal something from us - that would be too obvious. They are much craftier then that - so instead, they slowly steal freedoms and rights from us. The latest "reform" by the FCC is merely a progression on what began in 1996, (the two Democrats on the board were allowed to vote against it, because it already had majority support anyway).

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive:

How is not voting helping the average person? all i want you to do is answer that.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 10:12 pm on June 20, 2003
Sensitive:

How is not voting helping the average person? all i want you to do is answer that.Voting in this country is completely worthless (the restrictive ballot access laws, the capitalist media coverage, the electoral college, etc, etc, etc). Voting - especially for a Democrat or Republican - is just a way of showing support for the capitalist system here.

Now, let me ask you this, how does voting for a Democrat help us (the proletariat)? What have the Democrats done for us? Where is our living wage? Where is our universal health care? Where is our 30-hour workweek? Why do our universities cost so much to attend? Clearly, if the Democrats really supported even the few minor reforms of the capitalist system that I mentioned above we would already have them. Yet they do not, and they never will, because the Democrats, just like the Republicans, get their money from the bourgeoisie - our class enemy, the ones that exploit us!

The Democratic Party is not the party of Kucinich (a minor reformer); it is the party of Gore, Clinton and Lieberman (all deeply in love with this capitalist system of exploitation). The only way to bring change is by a mass movement (e.g. the 1960s) - that is how you force concessions out of the ruling class. Voting for ruling class parties (like the Democrats) will accomplish nothing, besides showing support for the capitalist system.

If you really just have to vote, then vote for the Green Party, because at least they support reforms and offer a voice for the political left in this country (and we have ALWAYS been disenfranchised!)

[abstractmentality]

that was a really nice way of not answering my question. please, tell me how not voting helps the average person.

your ideas of not voting should be for a reason, which, from what i can tell, is that voting would "show[] support for the capitalist system." however, when you vote greens, you are also voting for a party that is not socialist, but is capitalist. what is the difference? The greens have much nicer, softer, more cuddly capitalist policies, but is capitalism none the less (their are many anarchist greens, but the actual platform of the Greens is capitalist). So then, if you are willing to vote for the Greens, which still support capitalism, why not vote for the Democrats? they also support capitalism, but a slightly nicer one then the republicans. no, we do not have the things you mentioned, but is this really about all or nothing? i have shown you the difference with respect to abortion, and that is a material difference in their policies. Bush right now is probably worse than any democrat that is running (i say probably because good ol' lieberman is in there) for the presidency. if we leave him there (to answer your first question), the proletariat will suffer because of roll backs in abortion rights. if we leave him there, he will continue with his supply side economics, which includes large tax breaks for the rich. bush's recent plan for Rx drugs for senior citizens relies on good ol' free market competition to bring down prices. if we leave him there, it will hurt senior citizens.

Really, voting Green for presidency seems nice, but what are you doing when you do that since the greens have no chance at winning? you are doing nothing more than helping bush get elected. however much florida was contested, if half the greens in florida voted democrat, bush would not be in office. we have to be realistic about what we are doing and not stick to theoretical ideological purity: that will get you nowhere. these are the facts:
1. Bush is worse than almost any democrat.
2. The democrats are the only people that have any chance at winning.
3. The democrats will produce less human suffering than bush for another 4 years (its still a lot of suffering, but it is realitively less).

so, what do we do? we vote for less human suffering.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"that was a really nice way of not answering my question. please, tell me how not voting helps the average person."

Actually, I did reply to your question, you just might not have liked my response. I replied with, "What have the Democrats done for us (the proletariat)?". As we both know, the Democrats have done absolutely nothing for us. Nothing... The only things they (and the Republicans) have offered were concessions in response to mass movements.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"your ideas of not voting should be for a reason, which, from what i can tell, is that voting would "show[] support for the capitalist system." however, when you vote greens, you are also voting for a party that is not socialist, but is capitalist. what is the difference? The greens have much nicer, softer, more cuddly capitalist policies, but is capitalism none the less (their are many anarchist greens, but the actual platform of the Greens is capitalist). So then, if you are willing to vote for the Greens, which still support capitalism, why not vote for the Democrats? they also support capitalism, but a slightly nicer one then the republicans."

First of all, the Green Party is not a true capitalist party, because they do not receive their campaign funding from the bourgeoisie (like the Democrats and Republicans do). The Greens would be ideological "social democrats", in theory a system with a weak capitalist class that has no real political power. Although there also many socialist Greens (watermelons - Green on the outside, red on the inside). Also, the Green Party is a new left-wing electoral opposition to the establishment, something that has not really been seen in this country since the last Progressive Party run for presidency in 1948. For these reasons, the Green Party is clearly the best political party that actually runs a relatively large number of candidates for various offices in the US. That is why I said, "If you really want to vote, then vote for the Green Party"...

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"no, we do not have the things you mentioned, but is this really about all or nothing?"

When did I ever say "all or nothing"? Recall that I only mentioned a few minor reforms to the capitalist system. I never said the Democrats had to support a communist revolution in order to get my vote (and that would truly be "all or nothing")...

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"i have shown you the difference with respect to abortion, and that is a material difference in their policies. Bush right now is probably worse than any democrat that is running (i say probably because good ol' lieberman is in there) for the presidency. if we leave him there (to answer your first question), the proletariat will suffer because of roll backs in abortion rights. if we leave him there, he will continue with his supply side economics, which includes large tax breaks for the rich. bush's recent plan for Rx drugs for senior citizens relies on good ol' free market competition to bring down prices. if we leave him there, it will hurt senior citizens."

Whoa! First of all the Democrats are only pro-choice during campaign season (recall that in the recent legislation that banned the "partial birth" abortion procedures over 70 Democrats voted for it, giving it a clear passing majority).

Also, what makes you think Bush alone is so bad? He is merely doing the will of the ruling-class, which he represents (that is the role all politicians play in a capitalist system). Clinton did the same thing while in office (NAFTA, Welfare Deform, imperialist aggression in Yugoslavia, etc, etc, etc). And as for the other things you mentioned, the Democrats support those same capitalist policies too. The Democrats are really just better politicians (better at lying to the masses), the Republicans are just more blunt and more honest about their intentions.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"Really, voting Green for presidency seems nice, but what are you doing when you do that since the greens have no chance at winning? you are doing nothing more than helping bush get elected. however much florida was contested, if half the greens in florida voted democrat, bush would not be in office."

If Gore had actually run a halfway decent campaign he easily could have defeated a verbally blundering Texan like Bush. The same class that funded the Bush campaign funded the Gore campaign. They offered little to the proletariat, (either in economic and especially not political reforms). The Nader campaign offered these things! However, any progressive campaign in this country is obviously going to face immense opposition (and slandering in the capitalist media).

It made perfect since for the pro-Gore capitalists in the media to blame Nader and his supporters for the 2000 election. Here are the reasons... They could obviously avoid pointing out the real flaws in the electoral process in this country (the harsh ballot access laws, the pathetic media coverage, the dominance of the two-party machine, the laughable "electoral college", the corruption in the Florida election system, etc, etc, etc). It was also another great way to attack a popular left-wing candidate like Nader. Blaming Nader is truly blaming the victim (a very basic right-wing belief, which we would expect to see from the Democrats).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"we have to be realistic about what we are doing and not stick to theoretical ideological purity: that will get you nowhere."

This is not a matter of "ideological purity", and keep in mind, your views are hardly Marxist, as you imply that our true enemy are the Republicans. That might be true for activists working within the Democratic Party, but not for Marxist revolutionaries on this forum. We have only ONE enemy, and that is the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie fund both the Democrats and Republicans. The bourgeoisie get what they want. They wanted the Iraqis oil, now they have it. This wasn't just some crazy idea Bush and Cheney came up with one night. They are doing the will of the class that they represent in office, the same thing that Clinton did while in office.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"these are the facts: "

No they are not, and here is why...

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"1. Bush is worse than almost any democrat."

Worse than all the Democrats that voted for the war? Worse than all the Democrats that voted for tax cuts for the rich? Worse than all the Democrats that voted to restrict abortion rights of women? I could go on but you get my point...

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"2. The democrats are the only people that have any chance at winning."

LOL, you wana know why? Because they have the support of the ruling-class! And all the restrictive ballot-access laws they support help A LOT too... and the Democrats also have the support of the capitalist media. They can win because they represent the bourgeoisie in a system that is based around serving that class! They can win because they will only make things worse for the proletariat. That is why they can win!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:48 am on June 21, 2003
"3. The democrats will produce less human suffering than bush for another 4 years (its still a lot of suffering, but it is realitively less).

so, what do we do? we vote for less human suffering."

How are the Democrats going to reduce human suffering? Will they pull the imperialist soldiers out of Iraq? Will they not invade other countries? Hah... We know what Clinton did (one million Iraqi civilians died because he supported the economic sanctions, and he invaded Yugoslavia). Human suffering will not stop (or be reduced) under the rule of a Democrat!

(Edited by Sensitive at 2:19 am on June 21, 2003)

[Sabocat]

"The Democratic Party is not the party of Kucinich (a minor reformer); it is the party of Gore, Clinton and Lieberman (all deeply in love with this capitalist system of exploitation). The only way to bring change is by a mass movement (e.g. the 1960s) - that is how you force concessions out of the ruling class. Voting for ruling class parties (like the Democrats) will accomplish nothing, besides showing support for the capitalist system. "


So if the Democratic party is not Kucinich, and you are declaring him a minor reformer, and yet he is running as a Democrat, why would he offer no choice compared to a Republican? Maybe he is a true Democrat, and the other candidates are "Centrists". From what I can see, Kucinich is every bit as left if not more so than anyone in the Green party running for president.

So if his platform is equal to or greater than the Greens, and he has a better shot at winning (just because of his declaration of party) and displacing the likes of GW, than a Green candidate, should we not at least take a shot with him?

Isn't it better to try and move the country more to the left than it's current position? And make no mistake, the Democrats (at least the liberal Democrats) still offer more in the way of left ideals than the Republicans. True Democrats that is...not Republicrats or Demopublicans like Liebermann, Clinton, Gore, Gephardt etc.

[Sensitive]

Disgustapated, Kucinich has no chance of winning. He only has 2% support in polls for the Democratic primary (that is 2% of the 35 million Democrats, and only half will vote in the primary, so it is really 2% of 17.5 million (that is a lot less support then Nader had in 2000)). And really, he is not as far left as you think (he seems to still be struggling with the abortion issue, and he also voted in favor of a ban on burning the US flag - just to name a few things). He says nice things, but clearly he is not going to even win the Democratic primary. If he really wants to get votes in November of 2004, he will have to run as a minor party candidate (like the Greens, or more likely the Natural Law Party (which Kucinich has been making friends with lately)).

Also, even if someone like Kucinich was elected president, what the hell could they really do? They would need a whole Congress full of "Kuciniches" in order to pass anything (and clearly the Democratic Party itself is strongly opposed to most of Kucinich's positions).

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive:
As a leftist, i assumed that you want to alleviate suffering in some way shapre or form. Now, since you advocate the voting for of Greens in the presidential election, i ask: how will my vote for a Green candidate help in the alleviation of suffering of the people? How will my vote change the material conditions, in some way shape or form, for the better? (disregard all of the election rules, voter registration laws, electoral college, etc, as that is what we have to deal with now, period.)

"First of all, the Green Party is not a true capitalist party, because they do not receive their campaign funding from the bourgeoisie (like the Democrats and Republicans do). The Greens would be ideological "social democrats", in theory a system with a weak capitalist class that has no real political power. Although there also many socialist Greens (watermelons - Green on the outside, red on the inside). Also, the Green Party is a new left-wing electoral opposition to the establishment, something that has not really been seen in this country since the last Progressive Party run for presidency in 1948. For these reasons, the Green Party is clearly the best political party that actually runs a relatively large number of candidates for various offices in the US. That is why I said, "If you really want to vote, then vote for the Green Party"... "

The greens would take public funding without even thinking about it if they had the chance to. if they had reached the 5% threshold in the 2000 election, they would have accepted public funding. the only reason they dont right now is because they havent had the numbers to get it. They are a capitalist platform on the national scale. i wrote them when i became of voting age about their economics. their reply can be paraphrased as this: "our party is not built on economics, but we do support certain reforms." I do support the greens at local elections, however, as that is where they have the most chance of making a change.

Whoa! First of all the Democrats are only pro-choice during campaign season (recall that in the recent legislation that banned the "partial birth" abortion procedures over 70 Democrats voted for it, giving it a clear passing majority).

how many democrats are in the house? surely their are more than 140. that would mean that a minority of democrats are in favor of the partial birth abortion ban. i can recall how many their are in the house, but i do know that most voted against that legislation, hardly making the democratic party against abortion.

Also, what makes you think Bush alone is so bad? He is merely doing the will of the ruling-class, which he represents (that is the role all politicians play in a capitalist system). Clinton did the same thing while in office (NAFTA, Welfare Deform, imperialist aggression in Yugoslavia, etc, etc, etc). And as for the other things you mentioned, the Democrats support those same capitalist policies too. The Democrats are really just better politicians (better at lying to the masses), the Republicans are just more blunt and more honest about their intentions.

He is powerful because he has the power to appoint judges in some lower courts, because he has the power to appoint supreme court judges, because he has the power of veto, because he can propose 500 billion dollar tax cuts for the rich. he is very powerful. I have already explained NAFTA, and have mentioned that democrat and republican foreign policy is very similar.

If Gore had actually run a halfway decent campaign he easily could have defeated a verbally blundering Texan like Bush. The same class that funded the Bush campaign funded the Gore campaign. They offered little to the proletariat, (either in economic and especially not political reforms). The Nader campaign offered these things! However, any progressive campaign in this country is obviously going to face immense opposition (and slandering in the capitalist media).

It made perfect since for the pro-Gore capitalists in the media to blame Nader and his supporters for the 2000 election. Here are the reasons... They could obviously avoid pointing out the real flaws in the electoral process in this country (the harsh ballot access laws, the pathetic media coverage, the dominance of the two-party machine, the laughable "electoral college", the corruption in the Florida election system, etc, etc, etc). It was also another great way to attack a popular left-wing candidate like Nader. Blaming Nader is truly blaming the victim (a very basic right-wing belief, which we would expect to see from the Democrats).

blaming it on the capitalist again, eh? well, count the votes in florida. if half the greens would have voted for gore, he would have won. that is fact, nothing distorted. you cannot blame the capitalist media, you cannot blame the democrats for running a shitty election campaign, that is fact. yes, the greens offered better changes, but we are not in a dreamland: they have NO chance at winning.

This is not a matter of "ideological purity", and keep in mind, your views are hardly Marxist, as you imply that our true enemy are the Republicans. That might be true for activists working within the Democratic Party, but not for Marxist revolutionaries on this forum. We have only ONE enemy, and that is the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie fund both the Democrats and Republicans. The bourgeoisie get what they want. They wanted the Iraqis oil, now they have it. This wasn't just some crazy idea Bush and Cheney came up with one night. They are doing the will of the class that they represent in office, the same thing that Clinton did while in office.

I would never call myself a Marxist, as that implies dogmatism. pleas, see my signature for more on that issue...

I know who the real enemy of the people is, you must not patronize me. but the fact is that most working class people are not in tune with socialist thinking right now. we have to get the true word of the left out, and that is what i do when anybody asks, or when i have the opportunity to. Labor Unions give much, much more money to the Democratic party, does that tell you something? (i know unions are not in their best conditions right now)

Worse than all the Democrats that voted for the war? Worse than all the Democrats that voted for tax cuts for the rich? Worse than all the Democrats that voted to restrict abortion rights of women? I could go on but you get my point...

Once again, their foreign policies are very similar. And the dems cut down the bush tax cut by, i think, 30%. that is a real difference. and the abortion rights thing i already mentioned. you blame the party for supporting measures that were voted for by a minority of people that voted differently from the majority, weird.

LOL, you wana know why? Because they have the support of the ruling-class!...

we must deal with the material conditions of now. we have horrid restrictions, we have the electoral college, etc, but we have them and we have to deal with them. i hate those things to, i just spent a whole quarter learning about that crap. but the fact is that we have to deal with them now. they are not being changed by the next election.

How are the Democrats going to reduce human suffering? Will they pull the imperialist soldiers out of Iraq? Will they not invade other countries? Hah... We know what Clinton did (one million Iraqi civilians died because he supported the economic sanctions, and he invaded Yugoslavia). Human suffering will not stop (or be reduced) under the rule of a Democrat!

i have already written about foreign policy. suffering will not stop, but it will be reduced.

I think many people here recognize that bush is worse than almost any democrat. i think that is a fair conclusion. now, do we vote for something better than bush, do we waste our vote with a candidate that as absolutley no chance of winning, or do we not vote at all? either way, you must explain your decision with how it will change, in some way shape or form the suffering of the people.

"Isn't it better to try and move the country more to the left than it's current position?" - Disgustapated

good point. i think people should realize the conditions we must work in right now, and deal with it.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"Sensitive:
As a leftist, i assumed that you want to alleviate suffering in some way shapre or form."

First of all, what do you mean by "suffering"? As we already went over in my previous post, the Democrats do not "alleviate suffering", and they do not reduce "suffering". So what other suffering are we talking about? The suffering Democrats feel because George W Bush has a "R" beside his name instead of a "D"? That is the kind of "suffering" I see the most. Clinton did all the same kind of things Bush is doing now, yet hardly anyone on the "left" would ever speak out against Clinton (because he had that nice, safe, wonderful little "D" beside his name).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"Now, since you advocate the voting for of Greens in the presidential election, i ask: how will my vote for a Green candidate help in the alleviation of suffering of the people? How will my vote change the material conditions, in some way shape or form, for the better? (disregard all of the election rules, voter registration laws, electoral college, etc, as that is what we have to deal with now, period.)"

Actually, I don't "advocate" voting for the Greens. Recall what I said in a previous post, "if you just have to vote, then vote for the Green Party"...

Also, how will voting for a Democrat change anything? Clinton was just as bad as Bush is now (and I have went over all the reasons why in countless previous posts). So obviously another Democratic president will not change a damn thing (for the good), and they will only continue to represent the bourgeoisie while in office.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"The greens would take public funding without even thinking about it if they had the chance to. if they had reached the 5% threshold in the 2000 election, they would have accepted public funding. the only reason they dont right now is because they havent had the numbers to get it."

Ok, this post here shows that you clearly do not understand what you're talking about. A political party receiving government money (taxpayer dollars) for reaching 5% in a presidential election is NOT getting funding from the bourgeoisie! That is NOT how the Democrats and Republicans stay in power (they receive millions of dollars worth of "soft money" directly from the from the ruling class (recall all the guys that lobby for corporations in Washington?)) The public funding for minor parties that reach 5% in presidential elections was actually a hard won reform made in the 1970s - it has NOTHING to do with kind of funding that the Democrats and Republicans get. I want to make this very clear, because this is a very important point!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"They are a capitalist platform on the national scale. i wrote them when i became of voting age about their economics. their reply can be paraphrased as this: "our party is not built on economics, but we do support certain reforms." I do support the greens at local elections, however, as that is where they have the most chance of making a change."

The Greens are a social democratic reformist party, as we already went over in a previous post. While they are not a revolutionary communist organization or even a real socialist party, they are still FUNDAMENTALLY different than the Republican or Democratic parties (because they refuse to take large corporate "donations", which is what fuels the two ruling parties).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"how many democrats are in the house? surely their are more than 140. that would mean that a minority of democrats are in favor of the partial birth abortion ban. i can recall how many their are in the house, but i do know that most voted against that legislation, hardly making the democratic party against abortion."

I think you missed my point here, if the Democrats were truly a party that cared about defending women's reproductive rights then they never would have tolerated treason from 70+ party members! They would have rightfully kicked those traitors out of the party (if they actually cared about this issue). But they did not, because to them, this is not an important issue (they don't receive millions of dollars from pro-choice organizations, they get their money directly from the bourgeoisie!)

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"He is powerful because he has the power to appoint judges in some lower courts, because he has the power to appoint supreme court judges, because he has the power of veto, because he can propose 500 billion dollar tax cuts for the rich. he is very powerful. I have already explained NAFTA, and have mentioned that democrat and republican foreign policy is very similar."

What is your point? Any capitalist politician that occupies the White House is obviously going to have some power. That was never the issue here. My point was, how is Bush WORSE than previous capitalist politicians to occupy the White House (like Clinton). They are all equally "evil" and they all equally support the bourgeoisie - that is my point!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"blaming it on the capitalist again, eh? well, count the votes in florida. if half the greens would have voted for gore, he would have won. that is fact, nothing distorted. you cannot blame the capitalist media, you cannot blame the democrats for running a shitty election campaign, that is fact. yes, the greens offered better changes, but we are not in a dreamland: they have NO chance at winning."

Yes, the capitalists are the ones to blame for 2000, because it is their electoral system, it was their mess. Now, answer me this, why the fuck should the Nader supporters have voted for Gore? Gore was just another servant of the bourgeoisie. Gore was just another corporate whore, nothing more. This is what Nader campaigned specifically against and THAT is why people voted for him, because he was truly different. It was the same reason why the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the Workers World Party all received votes in Florida too (their voters could have given Gore the majority as well).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"I would never call myself a Marxist, as that implies dogmatism. pleas, see my signature for more on that issue..."

I already knew you weren't a Marxist, simply from what you had posted so far. And, having a basic Marxist understanding of society is not "dogmatic" at all. However, fanatically supporting a corrupt entity known as the Democratic Party, even though they are just as bad for the proletariat as the Republicans are - now that is dogmatism!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"I know who the real enemy of the people is, you must not patronize me. but the fact is that most working class people are not in tune with socialist thinking right now. we have to get the true word of the left out, and that is what i do when anybody asks, or when i have the opportunity to. Labor Unions give much, much more money to the Democratic party, does that tell you something? (i know unions are not in their best conditions right now)"

Just supporting the Democrats is not going to get "the message of the left" out to the masses.

We do not support a pro-ruling class party (like the Democrats) since it is our intent to overthrow the very ruling class that they support, defend and serve! If you want the masses to support socialism then you have to support a real socialist party (e.g. the SP, WWP, SWP, PFP, etc). Otherwise, our ideas will never get out.

Also, the support that the Democratic Party gets from conservative union leaders is very minimal (like 10% of their regular funding). The Republicans also get similar amounts from right-wing religious organizations. So both are really irrelevant, because they still get the vast majority of funding (80-90%) directly from the ruling-class.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"Once again, their foreign policies are very similar. And the dems cut down the bush tax cut by, i think, 30%. that is a real difference. and the abortion rights thing i already mentioned. you blame the party for supporting measures that were voted for by a minority of people that voted differently from the majority, weird."

The Democrats domestic policies are also just like the Republicans (recall the Telecommunications Reform Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Patriot Act, Welfare Deform, and NAFTA definitely does affect us directly, so it is not just "foreign policy" differences). And like I said earlier, if the Democrats really cared about abortion rights, then they would have kicked those 70+ traitors out of the party!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"we must deal with the material conditions of now. we have horrid restrictions, we have the electoral college, etc, but we have them and we have to deal with them. i hate those things to, i just spent a whole quarter learning about that crap. but the fact is that we have to deal with them now. they are not being changed by the next election."

LOL, and my point is, things will never change (for the good) by just voting for Democrats. If you want to force concessions out of the ruling class then you need a mass movement. Just voting for Democrats accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"i have already written about foreign policy. suffering will not stop, but it will be reduced.

I think many people here recognize that bush is worse than almost any democrat. i think that is a fair conclusion. now, do we vote for something better than bush, do we waste our vote with a candidate that as absolutley no chance of winning, or do we not vote at all? either way, you must explain your decision with how it will change, in some way shape or form the suffering of the people."

We already went over this - Bush is just another capitalist politician. Just like Clinton, just like Reagan, etc. He is merely representing the people that put him in office (the bourgeoisie).

You have yet to explain to me how there will be "less suffering" under the rule of a Democrat. Things only got worse under Billy "Welfare Deform" Clinton (and the Democratic Party is like him, not like some an anomaly such as Kucinich). The "FDR" style Democrats, like Wellstone, truly are a dying breed (and pardon the pun).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:13 pm on June 21, 2003
"good point. [Disgustipated] i think people should realize the conditions we must work in right now, and deal with it."

And finally, supporting a pro-ruling class party like the Democrats will never, ever help the left. Their interests are completely different than ours!

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive:

I will get to this in a few days, probably tuesday. i am leaving in a bit for sacramento. (watch the news on sunday, we may be there)

[redstar2000]

As was the case in an earlier thread on this subject, the matter appears to turn on the question of "reducing human suffering".

Those who propose to vote for the U.S. Democratic Party do so on the basis that there will be "less human suffering" under any Democrat than under Bush. Though no one has yet said so, the logic of that position demands that you campaign for the Democrats as well. That is, you campaign for Kucinich in the primaries and, after he loses, campaign for whatever mainstream Democrat wins the nomination. You would register voters in areas likely to produce a large number of Democratic votes, you would put up posters and hand out leaflets, you would take part in "getting out the vote" on election day or even be a poll-watcher, etc. This is what bourgeois electoral politics means down at the level of ordinary people, and if your motive is to "reduce human suffering" and you think electing a Democrat will do that, then--if you are sincere in your conviction--you have to do all that other shit, too.

You may, of course, keep quiet about it at Che-Lives to avoid being "flamed"...bourgeois electoral politics is very tolerant of the "need to lie" in a "good cause".

I would like to address the central proposition: is our purpose as leftists to "reduce human suffering"?

In my opinion, the answer is no. The left is not supposed to be a more sincere or less arrogant "charity", offering tastier soup in our soup kitchens and more comfortable beds in our homeless shelters...not to mention secular sermons or more "caring" politicians.

We should not want people to "look to us" as politicians who "care", as "concerned individuals" who people can "trust" to "look after them".

Those who have such a conception of political priorities should be in the charity racket...and in the Democratic Party. It's where they belong.

I think we "of the left" have an altogether different concept of what "human suffering" under capitalism really is...it is wage-slavery. All of the forms of "human suffering" that even the bourgeois media publicize from time to time follow from the existence of wage-slavery.

We "of the left" are for the overthrow of the capitalist class and the abolition of wage-slavery. We are, in fact, in exactly the position of the abolitionists in the United States prior to 1850...a despised minority who, disregarding "human nature", wished to end a form of exploitation of humans by humans that had hitherto characterized most human societies.

There were those, of course, who wished to "reduce human suffering" by making slavery "more humane" and, perhaps in a few instances, they had some limited successes. But we know, do we not, who really "reduced human suffering"...those who "stuck to their abolitionist guns" until Lee's ragged and starving army of slaveowners and fools finally surrendered.

We are in the same position as those early abolitionists. Many people think we are "crazy". Others think we are "blue sky utopians" who "don't care about people" because we refuse to become involved in trivial "improvements" in the conditions of wage-slaves. And our contempt for the shams and spectacles of bourgeois electoral politics is derided as "infantile" and "purist".

(One of the early abolitionists said that the United States Constitution was "a compact forged in Hell and endorsed by the Devil." Allowing for the theological rhetoric of that era, he was right!)

So be it. I am not interested in which slave owner gets elected in 2004 or any other year. I am not interested in which party of slave-owners gets elected to which offices. If that makes me a "cold-hearted bastard who doesn't care about people", then make the most of it.

Here's one of my favorite quotations, from abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in the first issue of The Liberator, January 1, 1831:

I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard!

He was heard. We will be too.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:35 pm on June 21, 2003)

[JohnRedDavis]

To paraphrase the American socialist Hal Draper: When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you often end up with both.

When Democrats know they can reel in the support of the left-wing, from socialists, greens, independents, etc. then they have a free hand to pander to the right.

For eight long years, left-wing groups (for example, NOW) would not lift a finger to criticize Clinton no matter what he did. So when Clinton knew he had the pro-abortion wing locked up, he was able to pander to the center and the right.

Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a platform of supporting the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would repeal *some* of the reactionary state laws regarding abortion (but leave many others intact, such as parental consent, restricting late-term abortions and even refusing to pay for abortions!). Instead, he let this minor reform die on the table, because he knew his left-wing was locked up ("He's better than the Republicans!") so he pandered towards the right.

Not only should we oppose the Democrats for the reasons redstar and others have laid out, but also simply because they often won't even reduce human suffering, as abstract argues.

--John

[Eastside Revolt]

I figure that's a twisted way to see demacracy.

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive

Clinton was just as bad as Bush is now

actually, you have shown that clinton did some horrible things, which we all knew, but you have not proven, to me at least, that bush is just as bad as clinton. how many jobs were created under clinton? how many jobs have been lost under bush?

Ok, this post here shows that you clearly do not understand what you're talking about. A political party receiving government money (taxpayer dollars) for reaching 5% in a presidential election is NOT getting funding from the bourgeoisie! That is NOT how the Democrats and Republicans stay in power (they receive millions of dollars worth of "soft money" directly from the from the ruling class (recall all the guys that lobby for corporations in Washington?)) The public funding for minor parties that reach 5% in presidential elections was actually a hard won reform made in the 1970s - it has NOTHING to do with kind of funding that the Democrats and Republicans get. I want to make this very clear, because this is a very important point!

i appologize for that, i either misinterpreted what you wrote, or wasnt thinking when i wrote my reply...

The Greens are a social democratic reformist party, as we already went over in a previous post. While they are not a revolutionary communist organization or even a real socialist party, they are still FUNDAMENTALLY different than the Republican or Democratic parties (because they refuse to take large corporate "donations", which is what fuels the two ruling parties).

they are not fundamentally different because they still support capitalism. the democrats are for capitalism, so are the republicans, and so are the greens. its just that the greens have a nicer form of capitalism that will help to make people feel less suffering in life relative to the democrats and republicans.

I think you missed my point here, if the Democrats were truly a party that cared about defending women's reproductive rights then they never would have tolerated treason from 70+ party members! They would have rightfully kicked those traitors out of the party (if they actually cared about this issue). But they did not, because to them, this is not an important issue (they don't receive millions of dollars from pro-choice organizations, they get their money directly from the bourgeoisie!)

im not to well versed on abortion politics, but what does the funding of the party have to do with why they dont kick out dissenters from the party? so, when any member of the democrats votes differently from the majority, they should be kicked out? one must realize that a conservative republican in iowa is not as conservative as the one in california. perhaps these dissenters recieved mass amounts of phone calls about this issue, and their constituents wanted them to vote against it. as fucked up as the "democracy" in america is, is it wrong for the representatives to actually represent their constituents? call me whatever you wish, but a fundamental requirement of representative democracy is to fulfill the wishes of your constituents.

What is your point? Any capitalist politician that occupies the White House is obviously going to have some power. That was never the issue here. My point was, how is Bush WORSE than previous capitalist politicians to occupy the White House (like Clinton). They are all equally "evil" and they all equally support the bourgeoisie - that is my point!

liberals tend to appoint more liberal judges, just as conservatives tend to appoint more conservative judges. now, is it better to have more liberal or more conservative judges? yes, they will both do some horrible things, they will both support capitalism, but which will be better? which tends to be in favor of abortion?

Yes, the capitalists are the ones to blame for 2000, because it is their electoral system, it was their mess. Now, answer me this, why the fuck should the Nader supporters have voted for Gore? Gore was just another servant of the bourgeoisie. Gore was just another corporate whore, nothing more. This is what Nader campaigned specifically against and THAT is why people voted for him, because he was truly different. It was the same reason why the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the Workers World Party all received votes in Florida too (their voters could have given Gore the majority as well).

how many votes did the socialist parties get (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/bios/main.exclude.html?state=FL&chamber=P&name=phillips.howard.ind)? i cant even find them in this article. yes, nader did offer a much better platform, im not arguing this. the election system that is in place right now is horrid; i have done speeches on how messed up it really is. but the fact of the matter is that that is what we have to deal with right now. we are not living in any other country, we do not have anything even close to a democracy, but we are living here and must deal with this now. also, nader got 97 thousand votes, gore lost by a number much smaller than that.

your question on why nader supporters should vote for gore is a good one though. one can subsribe to the Debs answer of "it is better to vote for what one wants and not get it than to vote for what one does not want and get it," which i used to think exactly like. however, in this current time, i think its important to vote for the lesser of two capitalist parties because of the single member district format of the system. if we had proportional representation, i would say to vote for whatever it is that you want to vote for. i also would like to see transferable vote systems, or even bringing back the old fusion voting. that would help out many times over. but that is not what we have, and those are reforms we must also attempt to get.

I already knew you weren't a Marxist, simply from what you had posted so far. And, having a basic Marxist understanding of society is not "dogmatic" at all. However, fanatically supporting a corrupt entity known as the Democratic Party, even though they are just as bad for the proletariat as the Republicans are - now that is dogmatism!

lol. i have a basic understanding of marxism, why do you think i have been on this site for such a long time? why do you think i even first came to this site? as my signature says, marx knew that the material conditions change from time to time, and we must also adjust ourselves to those times, otherwise we fall into dogmatism. why would marx say that he is not a marxist?

and fanatically supporting of the democrats by myself? lol. i have written on here many times that the democrats are horrible. i have said here many times that i dont ever expect the democrats to bring about socialism. i have said here many times that the reason i am most likely going to vote democrat in 04 is because of the conditions of the voting system today. hardly dogmatism. you have also not yet proven to me that they are just as bad as the republicans for the proletariat, just that they are bad.

Just supporting the Democrats is not going to get "the message of the left" out to the masses.

i never said it was going to. i said that i, on my own, do that. the democrats will provide a small, weak left relative to the republicans, however.

Also, the support that the Democratic Party gets from conservative union leaders is very minimal (like 10% of their regular funding). The Republicans also get similar amounts from right-wing religious organizations. So both are really irrelevant, because they still get the vast majority of funding (80-90%) directly from the ruling-class.

your percentages on funding from the ruling class are wrong (http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/source/AllCands.htm), from what i can tell.

The Democrats domestic policies are also just like the Republicans (recall the Telecommunications Reform Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Patriot Act, Welfare Deform, and NAFTA definitely does affect us directly, so it is not just "foreign policy" differences). And like I said earlier, if the Democrats really cared about abortion rights, then they would have kicked those 70+ traitors out of the party!

didnt i already show you how the telecommunications act of 96 was bad, but not as bad as the recent reform? that is fact. and i already have told you that NAFTA would have been enacted regardless of who was in office. (also for the reason of the downfall of the PRI, the US needed to be able to control the country, which they would have wanted if clinton, bush sr, bush jr, etc would have been in office.) it is also hard to say what the dems, if in power, would have done after 9-11, when talking about the patriot act and the ata. i have no doubt in my mind that something would have come out, but how it would be compared to that of the above is in question by all. and, remember, these were brought up under a republican president, even though the dems voted for it. as far as welfare reform, not sure if the republicans would have done that or not. they most likely would have, though. either way, it was something that we did lose.

We already went over this - Bush is just another capitalist politician. Just like Clinton, just like Reagan, etc. He is merely representing the people that put him in office (the bourgeoisie).

Yes, bush is yet another member of the ruling class, just like clinton, but are all ruling class members equal? were all slave holders equally mean to their slaves? yes, they were all slave owners, but did some treat their slaves better? to say that they are all equal is, well, silly.

You have yet to explain to me how there will be "less suffering" under the rule of a Democrat. Things only got worse under Billy "Welfare Deform" Clinton (and the Democratic Party is like him, not like some an anomaly such as Kucinich). The "FDR" style Democrats, like Wellstone, truly are a dying breed (and pardon the pun).

i have actually shown you how the democrats tend to be in favor of abortion rights. i have also made the argument that they would not have made the huge tax cuts to the rich that the republicans have done (considering the recent one was cut down tremendously, as well as some democrats talking about how the tax cuts should be for working class people.) i have shown you that jobs were gained under clinton, even bush sr, and we have now lost jobs under bush. we have increased the unemployed percentage. are these all lies? no, they are fact. that is how the working class can benefit.

Redstarr2000

should we fight for more welfare for people? should we fight for better medical coverage for people? why should we fight for that if these people are still under capitalism? those reforms would help people, whats wrong with that?

the abolitionist just before the civil war also had many, many people on their side. they had enough to overthrow the system, we do not. we cannot live our lives thinking that most people in this country want socialism, because they dont. so, we must deal with that. when we reach that critical mass, we can overthrow the system, and i will be standing should to shoulder with you on that.

john

is your basic argument that the democrats are equally as bad as the republicans? i really hope that it isnt.


(Edited by abstractmentality at 5:21 pm on June 26, 2003)

[redstar2000]

should we fight for more welfare for people? should we fight for better medical coverage for people? why should we fight for that if these people are still under capitalism? those reforms would help people, whats wrong with that?

You can...if you think it will make a significant difference. You can also give a quarter to every homeless person that you see in the street...with a similar degree of effectiveness.

And you don't have to be any kind of leftist to do that...just ordinary generic compassion will be sufficient justification.

My argument, which you did not respond to, suggested that real leftists have a different conception of what it means to "help people".

the abolitionist just before the civil war also had many, many people on their side. they had enough to overthrow the system, we do not. we cannot live our lives thinking that most people in this country want socialism, because they dont. so, we must deal with that. when we reach that critical mass, we can overthrow the system, and i will be standing should to shoulder with you on that.

I think you have missed my point again. From 1830 to roughly 1850, the abolitionists were a tiny minority without any public support to speak of. No one would have predicted that they would ever have significant public support.

It is the same for us now. If Marx was right, then material conditions will inevitably create a "receptive climate" for our ideas...as happened for the abolitionists. We do not need to busy ourselves with velcro chains and shaded auction blocks.

To improve our ideas and figure out how to insert them into the public domain is work enough for real leftists.

Bourgeois electoral politics is just a distraction from our real work.

:cool:

[Sensitive]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"actually, you have shown that clinton did some horrible things, which we all knew, but you have not proven, to me at least, that bush is just as bad as clinton. how many jobs were created under clinton? how many jobs have been lost under bush?"

Sigh, this is the same claim you have been making in all your posts, yet you still have not given any evidence to prove how Bush is worse then Clinton was. And I have shown you repeatedly in previous posts that Clinton was doing the SAME things that Bush is doing now.

But... Clinton did have that wonderful, sweet, little "D" beside his name. "Aww, it makes me feel so good inside! Weee! Such a wonderful man!" *barf*

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"i appologize for that, i either misinterpreted what you wrote, or wasnt thinking when i wrote my reply..."

Uh-huh...

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"they are not fundamentally different because they still support capitalism. the democrats are for capitalism, so are the republicans, and so are the greens. its just that the greens have a nicer form of capitalism that will help to make people feel less suffering in life relative to the democrats and republicans."

Once again, this is something that I have already explained to you, yet you make the exact same claims without adding anything to back them up!

The fundamental difference between the Green Party and the Democrats/Republicans are the following: 1, the Greens do not receive their funding from the ruling-class; 2, the Greens are ideologically social democrat (not "capitalist"). The social democrat ideology is truly neither capitalist nor socialist, but it has elements of both (as I already explained in detail in previous posts).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"im not to well versed on abortion politics, but what does the funding of the party have to do with why they dont kick out dissenters from the party? so, when any member of the democrats votes differently from the majority, they should be kicked out? one must realize that a conservative republican in iowa is not as conservative as the one in california. perhaps these dissenters recieved mass amounts of phone calls about this issue, and their constituents wanted them to vote against it. as fucked up as the "democracy" in america is, is it wrong for the representatives to actually represent their constituents? call me whatever you wish, but a fundamental requirement of representative democracy is to fulfill the wishes of your constituents."

Once again, my point was that if the Democrats truly cared about the abortion issue (which you claimed in your previous post), then they would have kicked the 70+ traitors out of the party who voted for the ban on that particular abortion procedure.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"liberals tend to appoint more liberal judges, just as conservatives tend to appoint more conservative judges. now, is it better to have more liberal or more conservative judges? yes, they will both do some horrible things, they will both support capitalism, but which will be better? which tends to be in favor of abortion?"

LOL, so now we're back to the old "Democrats are liberal", "Republicans are conservative" bullshit? You should consider working for CNN or FOX News!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"how many votes did the socialist parties get (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/bios/main.exclude.html?state=FL&chamber=P&name=phillips.howard.ind)? i cant even find them in this article. yes, nader did offer a much better platform, im not arguing this. the election system that is in place right now is horrid; i have done speeches on how messed up it really is. but the fact of the matter is that that is what we have to deal with right now. we are not living in any other country, we do not have anything even close to a democracy, but we are living here and must deal with this now. also, nader got 97 thousand votes, gore lost by a number much smaller than that."

Never believe what you read on the bourgeois mouthpiece CNN's website. Now follow this link. (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2000data.html)

Gore lost Florida by a mere 537 votes.
The Socialist Party received 622 votes in Florida, the Socialist Workers Party received 562 votes in Florida, and the Workers World Party received 1,804 votes in Florida. Each of these socialist candidates "stole" (according to angry Democrats) just more than enough votes from Gore to give him a majority in Florida.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"your question on why nader supporters should vote for gore is a good one though. one can subsribe to the Debs answer of "it is better to vote for what one wants and not get it than to vote for what one does not want and get it," which i used to think exactly like. however, in this current time, i think its important to vote for the lesser of two capitalist parties because of the single member district format of the system. if we had proportional representation, i would say to vote for whatever it is that you want to vote for. i also would like to see transferable vote systems, or even bringing back the old fusion voting. that would help out many times over. but that is not what we have, and those are reforms we must also attempt to get."

Once again, this all goes back to your "ideology" that the Democrats represent a "benevolent" or "lesser-evil" faction of the ruling-class. You have yet to give any evidence to back up these claims. And I have repeatedly given you countless examples of how Clinton and the Democrats are just as bad as Bush and the Republicans (e.g. Welfare Deform, Yugoslavia, economic sanctions against Iraq, NAFTA, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"lol. i have a basic understanding of marxism, why do you think i have been on this site for such a long time? why do you think i even first came to this site? as my signature says, marx knew that the material conditions change from time to time, and we must also adjust ourselves to those times, otherwise we fall into dogmatism. why would marx say that he is not a marxist?

and fanatically supporting of the democrats by myself? lol. i have written on here many times that the democrats are horrible. i have said here many times that i dont ever expect the democrats to bring about socialism. i have said here many times that the reason i am most likely going to vote democrat in 04 is because of the conditions of the voting system today. hardly dogmatism. you have also not yet proven to me that they are just as bad as the republicans for the proletariat, just that they are bad."

I say that you do not understand Marxism because you believe that a ruling-class entity known as the Democratic Party is somehow "lesser evil" than another ruling-class entity known as the Republican Party. You have not given any evidence to prove how the Democrats are better (or "lesser evil") than the Republicans.

Also, your use of the phrase "material conditions" is getting silly. Just because the capitalist political system in this country is strongly in favor of preserving itself via the two ruling-class political clubs (Dems and the GOP) does not mean we should support one of those equally reactionary elitist clubs! A Marxist or even someone with "a Marxist understanding" would be advocating a proletarian revolution to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie. There is nothing "dogmatic" about that. It is our duty to oppose and attack the enemy, not to endorse its system and politicians by voting for it!

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"i never said it was going to. i said that i, on my own, do that. the democrats will provide a small, weak left relative to the republicans, however."

Yes, I know you think the Democrats are a "lesser-evil" even though I have listed countless examples, which prove that they are most definitely not a "lesser-evil".

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"your percentages on funding from the ruling class are wrong (http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/source/AllCands.htm), from what i can tell."

Actually, that link only lists the "hard money" donations to the candidates. The "soft money" contributions go unrecorded.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"didnt i already show you how the telecommunications act of 96 was bad, but not as bad as the recent reform? that is fact. and i already have told you that NAFTA would have been enacted regardless of who was in office. (also for the reason of the downfall of the PRI, the US needed to be able to control the country, which they would have wanted if clinton, bush sr, bush jr, etc would have been in office.) it is also hard to say what the dems, if in power, would have done after 9-11, when talking about the patriot act and the ata. i have no doubt in my mind that something would have come out, but how it would be compared to that of the above is in question by all. and, remember, these were brought up under a republican president, even though the dems voted for it. as far as welfare reform, not sure if the republicans would have done that or not. they most likely would have, though. either way, it was something that we did lose."

The Telecommunications Reform Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act were both just preludes to what we have seen most recently (Patriot Act, FCC changes). They were not "Democrat" or "Republican" ideas. The ruling-class slowly whittles away at the rights that we have gained in previous struggles. It does not matter who is in office.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"Yes, bush is yet another member of the ruling class, just like clinton, but are all ruling class members equal? were all slave holders equally mean to their slaves? yes, they were all slave owners, but did some treat their slaves better? to say that they are all equal is, well, silly."

All slaveholders forced their slaves to work, all slaveholders supported slavery (even though some might have said nicer things to Northerners), and all slaveholders supported their class interests (preserving slavery). The same is true for the bourgeoisie class. As communists, we would support the abolition of slavery, not some sly politician that claims to fight for "better living conditions" or some other lie that always turns out to be just that - a lie.

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:20 pm on June 26, 2003
"i have actually shown you how the democrats tend to be in favor of abortion rights. i have also made the argument that they would not have made the huge tax cuts to the rich that the republicans have done (considering the recent one was cut down tremendously, as well as some democrats talking about how the tax cuts should be for working class people.) i have shown you that jobs were gained under clinton, even bush sr, and we have now lost jobs under bush. we have increased the unemployed percentage. are these all lies? no, they are fact. that is how the working class can benefit."

Guess why there are more people unemployed now? Because many of the older, higher paying jobs have been sent out of the country (thanks to "free trade" agreements, like NAFTA (thank you very much Bill Clinton)). There are still lots of jobs though, but those all pay the "minimum wage", but maybe the Democrats could get off their asses, stop supporting their ruling-class financial backers and give us a living wage! But course, we both know that they are never going to do that.

Finally, I will not waste any more of my time replying to your posts in this thread because you aren't providing any hard evidence and a decent analysis to back up your claims. We have already gone over this topic now for several pages, and I am tired of seeing you give me the same weak, baseless "vote Democrat" argument over and over. Thankfully I will be out of town for the next week so I won't have to read any more of it! And now you can go off thinking that you have "won" this debate or whatever, but the only people that have truly won are the pro-Democrat bourgeoisie propagandists that have warped your political thinking! Goodbye!

[abstractmentality]

Sensitive:

you dont have to reply, this will probably be my last post in this thread as well, i was getting a little tired of all this as well.

i think that my argument is layed out pretty well in my first post of this thread, which was one line and contained a link, that link is my argument.

either one of us is not going to convince the other: we are both too stubborn.

but their is one thing i just wanted to write before i reply to redstar, about my understanding of marxism. i know that the democrats will not bring about socialism. i know the greens wont either. but i dont bank my life on them doing that. i understand that marx believed that the ruling class will not delicately hand over the state to us. i have written many times that i know a revolution is what i want, and what will be needed for socialism to come about.

Redstar2000:

you bring about some interesting points, no doubt. your writing on whether or not i, as a person who will most likely vote for the democrats in 04, should be out in the streets advocating everybody vote democrat. i was actually thinking something similar the other day while talking to an uncle of mine about politics. im not sure on that issue, its still running around in my head. since im still thinking about that, its a little hard for me to answer the second portion of your post. on the one hand, if i simply vote democrat, and dont run around in the streets trying to get others to vote democrat, then i still have just as much time to spread socialist thought as if i didnt vote democrat....

[Weidt]

The Socialist Party USA will be running a Presidential campaign in 2004. You can view the nominees at votesocialist.org (http://www.votesocialist.org). I support Geoff Braasch and Eric Chester for the SPUSA ticket.

Leftists have been vomitting the same rhetoric over supporting the Democratic Party for decades. The Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA have been ass-pimples of the Democratic Party for decades, and yet the Democratic Party has continued shifting to the center-right. Out of this realization of Democrat failures, the center-left Green Party US came about and has grown to its present size. It too is not socialist, but truly is a better option than either the Republicans or Democrats. (These two corporate ruling class parties in fact act like tendencies of the same party than antagonistic opposites.)

And I thought socialists demanded socialism, regardless of whether the voting population sides with us or not, we should never compromise our ideology simply for the perception of a "nicer" capitalism.

Sure, vote in the Democratic primary for Kucinich. He will lose the primary, and even if he were to magically win, he would lose the election like McGovern did in 1972. That election sparked these similar debates over the Left and socialist elements supporting the Democratic Party and ended up with the largest defeat ever! McGovern lost support from many within the Democratic Party and their typical corporate and media backers and was crushed like a bug on a windshield.

Ugh... that is all I will say on this "debate," which comes across as "odd" to be having on a website devoted to Che Guevara, a man who would surely not support a ruling class like the Democratic Party, but rather take up arms in overthrowing it. (Not that I would support this either, since such an action would not have mass support and thus be pointless and counterproductive.)

(Edited by Weidt at 9:53 pm on June 27, 2003)


(Edited by Weidt at 9:56 pm on June 27, 2003)