What U.S. parties do U.S. members support?

[JohnTheMarxist]

Hello everyone,

I am from Michigan and was just wondering what socialist/communist groups or parties others in the US align with. I hold a membership in the CPUSA and also work with the Workers World Party. I agree with both of these parties the most, however I have worked and had good relaitonships with people from Socialist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America as well. In the end we all want a government truly run by the people so I try not to get into big fights about party affiliations. I enjoy working with socialists of all stripes for our common goals.

[Phalanx]

The closest thing to a party I'm affiliated with is the IWW. We must work outside the system, not within it.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I agree, the IWW and groups like it are the only organisations that can count on my support. I have no love for the political party.

[YSR]

I don't think the Wobs are really a party. Or else I'll have to quit.

Parties lead us only to dictatorships, as every "democratic" and "communist" nation has shown us.

[RGacky3]

wow, I'm suprised there are a lot of fellow Wobblies here.

IWW is'nt a political party at all, I don't support political parties, I don't support politics, there should'nt be such a thing.

[Guerrilla22]

How can the world exist without politics? Will everyone just agree by consensus?

[Tekun]

Im not understanding the question, it seems like you're asking what parties other than the Democratic and Republican have the support of the US population

The Green party is big, though not nearly as powerful or as influential as the other two

Libertarian party is another party, and therez also a Labor party (quite small)
Therez also quite a number of socialist parties promoting and advocating certain beliefs and policies
But in this society, we all know that therez a one party dictatorship, disguised as two seperate parties

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:59 am
How can the world exist without politics? Will everyone just agree by consensus?
if noones in charge of other people, and people make their own desicions, and desicions that effect other people are made collectively, wheres the room for politics? No politicians. People don't have to agree on everything, but no one is coerced into anything so no politics (at least as defined today).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Politics exist whether ultra-leftist utopians want them too or not.

[Anton]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:11 pm
Politics exist whether ultra-leftist utopians want them too or not.
doesn't mean we all have to participate in political parties of the capitalist "democracy", does it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No it doesn't, nor did I said that. I'm simply criticizing the utopian view that we can/should some how "transcend politics."

Politics and bourgeois electoral politics are two different things.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 05, 2007 06:17 am
I don't think the Wobs are really a party. Or else I'll have to quit.

Parties lead us only to dictatorships, as every "democratic" and "communist" nation has shown us.
werent you the one who just said that anarchism is more than Spain 70 years ago?

Well leninism (not marxism-leninism) is more than one failed revolution 90 years ago.

Im not a leninist, but saying that parties lead to dictatorships, period, is nonsense.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:58 pm
No it doesn't, nor did I said that. I'm simply criticizing the utopian view that we can/should some how "transcend politics."
Everyone's just criticizing the politics of the ruling class, not politics in general.

[Eleutherios]

What party do I support? The one that's happening at my friend's house tonight! :D

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+February 05, 2007 07:45 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ February 05, 2007 07:45 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:58 pm
No it doesn't, nor did I said that. I'm simply criticizing the utopian view that we can/should some how "transcend politics."
Everyone's just criticizing the politics of the ruling class, not politics in general. [/b]
Actually someone suggested in this thread that politics should be abolished all together, that people will eventually all agree on certain issues and be able to come to a consesnsus on everything, which is clearly not plausible in the least. Marxist advocate the realistic idea of a worker's controlled democracy where majority rules. That of course does not mean that one should participate in bourgeois elections.

[YSR]

Well leninism (not marxism-leninism) is more than one failed revolution 90 years ago.

No, you're right. It's a shit-ton of failed revolutions throughout the entire 20th century and a flawed doctrine of would-be dictators.


Im not a leninist, but saying that parties lead to dictatorships, period, is nonsense.

Ask your nearest "leninst", smartass, and they'll confirm my statement. They want a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat. Oh, it'll "dissolve," don't worry. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:58 pm
No it doesn't, nor did I said that. I'm simply criticizing the utopian view that we can/should some how "transcend politics."

Politics and bourgeois electoral politics are two different things.
How is that Utopian? I mean how innate is politics, when I say politics, I don't mean people discussing how things should be done, I mean Politicians trying to gain power, thats basically what politics is, if power is done away with (which should be the goal of every Anarchist), theres no power to gain, no politics. Anarchists don't want to gain power, they don't want to get in power, they want to get rid of power ... no power/no politics.

[KC]

I don't think the Wobs are really a party. Or else I'll have to quit.

Parties lead us only to dictatorships, as every "democratic" and "communist" nation has shown us.


:lol:

I love this logic. If the IWW is called a party, and the content of that party is completely unchanged, then it automatically "lead[s] us to dictatorships".

What a load of crap.

[Guerrilla22]

Politics is about differing ideologies, not about power. Believing that everyone will be able to do away with there differing ideas, even amongst people of basically the same political ideology is utopian and just not possible. Aside from that, being apolitical does nothing but empower the ruling class. Politics can be used for the gain of the workers when used correctly.

[RedLenin]

They want a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat.
I am a leninist. I do not want a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, I want a dictatorship of the proletariat. I want workers power through workers councils. What makes me a Leninist is my recognition that this is a state and that a revolutionary party is necessary the lead the class in the creation of this class dictatorship, aka workers state.

About the original question. The party that I support here in the US is the Workers International League (http://www.socialistappeal.org).

[KC]

What makes me a Leninist is my recognition that this is a state and that a revolutionary party is necessary the lead the class in the creation of this class dictatorship, aka workers state.

Actually, the first makes you a Marxist. The second one's debateable as to whether or not Marx or Lenin originally came up with the idea.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:02 am
Politics is about differing ideologies, not about power. Believing that everyone will be able to do away with there differing ideas, even amongst people of basically the same political ideology is utopian and just not possible. Aside from that, being apolitical does nothing but empower the ruling class. Politics can be used for the gain of the workers when used correctly.
Politics is'nt about different ideologies, well, unless those ideologies are about who's in power, who makes desicions, in an anarchist society, those types of ideologies don't really matter, because no one can enforce them on someone else.

websters defines politics "1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government"


No Government no politics. Politics CAN'T be used by workers because that means that they would have to either support a part of a government, or become part of it, the goal is to destroy it along with Capitalism.

[Janus]

Back to the original question. I think few members here are actually members of any political parties in the US. It's one thing to work with a party on an issue quite another to join it and become part of the system that we seek to destroy.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by RGacky3+February 06, 2007 04:47 am--> (RGacky3 @ February 06, 2007 04:47 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:02 am
Politics is about differing ideologies, not about power. Believing that everyone will be able to do away with there differing ideas, even amongst people of basically the same political ideology is utopian and just not possible. Aside from that, being apolitical does nothing but empower the ruling class. Politics can be used for the gain of the workers when used correctly.
Politics is'nt about different ideologies, well, unless those ideologies are about who's in power, who makes desicions, in an anarchist society, those types of ideologies don't really matter, because no one can enforce them on someone else.

websters defines politics "1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government"


No Government no politics. Politics CAN'T be used by workers because that means that they would have to either support a part of a government, or become part of it, the goal is to destroy it along with Capitalism. [/b]
that's a very limited definition of politics. Politics is very much about differing ideologies, for example liberals, realist, liberal internationalist, greens, and anti-imperialist, which both Marxist and anarchist adhere to, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Martin Blank]

My affiliation is obvious. But I wouldn't put our organization in the same category as other groups calling themselves "parties". We're not about running in elections or trying to gain positions. Our "party" is much like the one I quote in my signature.

BTW, John, how are you? Surviving the icebox up there?

Miles

[Enragé]

No, you're right. It's a shit-ton of failed revolutions throughout the entire 20th century and a flawed doctrine of would-be dictators.

did i say "marxism-leninism"? No, i specifically did not.

There has been only 1 leninist revolution.


Ask your nearest "leninst", smartass, and they'll confirm my statement. They want a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat. Oh, it'll "dissolve," don't worry

What?
Have you any clue of leninist theory?
Its a dictatorship of the proletariat, by the proletariat, not a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat (and thus exercised by something different that the collective proletariat).

And the dictatorship of the proletariat isnt a dictatorship in the sense of the word most people use it.
Its the dictatorship of a class, not one guy, or a party, but a class.

And if we're talking parties here
what on earth do you think the FAI was, and the Friends of Durruti? How does that differ from a party? hmm?
It doesnt, so we should all get over our petty differences, our semantics and start something serious instead of *****ing at eachother over nothing.