Is it all a lost cause?

[Donut Master]

I feel like all of this... all of what we leftists are fighting for, is a lost cause. In the US, especially, although every country sucks in one way or another.

Reform on a large scale is impossible, because the electoral system is fucked over to the point where your vote is literally worthless unless you are a Democrat or a Republican - two parties which almost mirror each other's views. The system is extremely unfair to third parties, especially on the national level, and money essentially wins elections. The system has been polluted by capitalism to the point where our "democracy" is little more than a sharade... and we're too blind to notice!

Revolution? Not going to happen. The right conditions simply don't exist. There is not enough support from the masses at all. A middle-class "cusion" exists, so that class conciousness among the general population is mostly nonexistant. Yet the elite are extremely powerful... America's ignorance of it's own situation works to their advantage. The corporate media, particularly Fox, have brainwashed people to the point where any dissenting opinions are washed out. In the rare instance that dissent does get publicity, it's immidiately shouted out by belligerent "patriotism" and cries of "those un-american bastards!" It's either made most Americans willing pawns of the system , or completely apathetic about politics in general. Either way, we lose. We do not currently have support for any kind of large-scale revolutionary action, nor are we likely to gain it in the near future, and until then... we are utterly powerless.

And when we protest, when we speak our voice, it falls on deaf ears. No one listens. No one cares. No one hears us except those few who already support us.


I'm losing hope, or maybe I've already lost it. It's futile, it's a losing battle. I can't even read the news anymore without gouging my eyes out in frustration, and I find it increasingly difficult to think about politics and still keep my sanity. This is all so depressing... I should just flee to Canada when I get the chance....

[Pete]

Yes come to Canada. Yahoo for Canada.

Sarcasm yes.

You think America is bad, take away the secret police, and put in separtists, take away the authoritarian measures and put in the party whip.... *sigh* it is still al iberal democracy, not much better.

[The Muckraker]

I understand your frustration, and sometimes I suffer from it myself. Here's the question, though:

Do we need to change everything right now?

In a philosphical sense, I suppose the answer is yes, but I'm not much interested in academic discussions. What I'm interested in aiding the working class, and many in that class are hostile to the ideas of socialism, so, I think, that's where we start.

Yes, you're right, the Democrats aren't very good, are they? However, would John Ashcroft be the AG if Bush wasn't selected? Would we have invaded Iraq? Would the Patriot Act have gone through? Would there be a push to end overtime pay? Would there be yet another massive tax cut for the rich on the table? I think the answer to all of those is no, so, while the Democrats don't offer much, they are still better than the Republicans.

Yes, I said better. For, while Democrats aren't going to change the system, I believe that there would be less genuine human suffering if Gore, and I do not like Gore, was president right now.

And if all of this isn't about reducing real human suffering, then I don't know what it's about.

The Muckraker

(Edited by The Muckraker at 12:25 am on May 4, 2003)


(Edited by The Muckraker at 12:27 am on May 4, 2003)

[Zombie]

This should definitely be moved to Practice or something.

Pete, from what I see, in Canada, at least in Quebec, you are allowed to voice your opinion without fear of reprisal. In newspapers, on tv or on the radio, a lot of people are expressing discontent against the federal and provincial government like there was no tomorrow. They don't fear the authority as much as Americans do, I guess...

But then again, I'm only new here and have not much knowledge of your past and those 'separatists' you seem to dread so much... I'm just saying what I see and read everyday.

.A.

[Dhul Fiqar]

#Moderation Mode

This thread screams "Theory" at me, probably because of the issues such as "will revolution ever be possible" and etc.



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=799)

[redstar2000]

Yes, it is one of the oldest theoretical questions of our movement.

Do we merely wish to "reduce human suffering", as Muckraker suggests, or is there more?

Because if reducing human suffering is all that matters, then the best immediate course of action is charity--e.g., feed the homeless, etc. In politics, you would try to find the "most humane" capitalist and vote for him, even work to elect him. That might present some practical problems...just how exactly do you tell which of these bloodsucking barbarians is the "most humane"?

If you believe that the purpose of our revolution is the liberation of the working class from wage-slavery, then no matter how discouraging things look now, you stay the course. You fight for what you really want even if you lose. No one can predict the future except in one sense: you will never get what you really want if you don't fight for it.

If you settle for shit, that becomes the most you can ever hope for.

As to specifics, DM, I know you were in Italy recently (lucky bastard!) and my advice would be to return as soon as you can, learn the language fluently, become a citizen, and engage in class struggle there. The future is far brighter in any of the western European countries than it is or can be in the heartland of the Empire.

Things will not really improve here for us until U.S. imperialism suffers some staggering defeats...and who can say how long that will take? Maybe a few years, maybe a few decades, maybe not until the end of this century.

But in the meantime, there is much useful work to be done elsewhere. Find some and do it.

:cool:

[Donut Master]

Because if reducing human suffering is all that matters, then the best immediate course of action is charity--e.g., feed the homeless, etc. In politics, you would try to find the "most humane" capitalist and vote for him, even work to elect him. That might present some practical problems...just how exactly do you tell which of these bloodsucking barbarians is the "most humane"?

If you believe that the purpose of our revolution is the liberation of the working class from wage-slavery, then no matter how discouraging things look now, you stay the course. You fight for what you really want even if you lose. No one can predict the future except in one sense: you will never get what you really want if you don't fight for it.

If you settle for shit, that becomes the most you can ever hope for.

I agree. I already donate the charities, in fact I work for a charity group, but there's so much more that needs to be done. And I'm simply not going to settle for shit. Sure, the Democrats may be slightly "better" than the Republicans, but they're not my first choice. They're not even my second. The only reason they would even be on the list is because of their single virtue: they're not Republicans. Thus, if I vote Democrat, it's not really a choice, is it? I'm being forced!

Italy does look promising... I do think I want to move somewhere after I finish college, and Italy's definitely on the list.

[Sensitive]

Don't be pessimistic. No one wants to join a movement that is crowded with pessimists. We will win.

Also, personally, I've noticed that I feel a lot better now that I no longer watch the Evening Propaganda with Dan Reactionary on CBS. Just totally avoid the U$ propaganda press.

All left movements were hurt by the fall of the Soviet Union, but we are beginning to recover. You just have to be patient. Go read some Marx, Engels or Lenin.

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000 asks:

Do we merely wish to "reduce human suffering", as Muckraker suggests, or is there more?

I'm not sure that human suffering should be dismissed so easily. There's nothing "merely" about it, especially to those who suffer.

Cutting right to the chase, this all goes to the lack of pragmatism that I see on the Left. Yes, there's more. I never denied that, and I don't think you will find anything in my post that would make anyone think I did. In fact, I suggested that a good place to start would be convincing the working class that socialism is the best choice.

That being said, the immediate choice may be choosing the lesser of two evils. Would you rather be hit with a stone or crushed with a boulder? Some would insist on ideological purity and choose the boulder, but I find that a foolish choice in both the short term and the long.

It's this very ideological purity that has created the alphabet soup of Leftist organizations and parties, packs of people splintering away, sometimes for good reasons, often for poor one, sometimes for ego. The Religious Right, through a lot of hard work and grassroots efforts, effectively took control of the Republican Party in the Eighties. The Left chooses to start one party after another, many with the exact same goals, none very effective.

I say think long term, work for long term change, but do not ignore the short term situation. Bush is appointing radical conservative judges who will have a very long term effect on civil rights and corporate power. This is, clearly, not a good thing. I'd rather work for change and not have liberties destroyed than work for change while being crushed by a boulder. That makes sense to me.

No, we should never forget the ultimate goal of a classless society, but ignoring the reality of the world doesn't aid us, it hinders us.

The Muckraker

[redstar2000]

"Would you rather be hit with a stone or crushed with a boulder?"

Muckraker, I think if you look honestly at the history of mainstream American politics since 1940 or so, the drift towards fascism under both parties has been pretty consistent. The war in Vietnam wasn't started by Republicans. The Aid-to-Dependent-Children program wasn't abolished by Republicans. The initial war plans for U.S. invasion of an unspecified Middle Eastern country were not the products of Republicans...it was that "good ole boy" and celebrity-humanitarian Jimmy Carter who authorized "war games" for U.S. forces in Egypt back in the 1970s.

Other examples could be cited, many of them. What you are really arguing is that there's a "choice" between boulders. Pragmatism does have its limitations.

Then, Muckraker, there is the actual experience of people and groups who follow the course you advocate. Without exception, they become corrupted by their political work into supporting the capitalist system. They cease to think "long term" altogether. The most outstanding example of this is the Communist Party USA itself...but there are many, many others.

Your dismay with sectarianism in the left is understandable, Muckraker, but it may be something that is "part of the package".

Leftists are not very good "followers"...that even includes Leninists and Stalinists. The very process of becoming a leftist involves a good deal of "thinking for oneself"...and, once formed, that's not an easy habit to break. If we're in a group and we think something is fucked up, first we try to change that, and if we don't succeed, we simply move on to another group or create a new one.

The Leninists have spent three-quarters of a century trying to "discipline" us...with less success than ever. If you want something to be optimistic about, realize that we are becoming more rebellious rather than less.

If there is to be a kind of revolutionary "unity" on the left, I think it will take the form of a large "umbrella" federation with a huge reliance on local initiative. The best idea would be theoretical unity on revolutionary principles with practical work left to local initiative according to local conditions but in general compliance with those revolutionary principles.

And it wouldn't really be very "unified"...because those "revolutionary principles" would be subject to constant internal and even external struggle.

This is all very "messy", to be sure, but I frankly don't see any other way that will work. Trying to treat lefties as if they were "soldiers" that could be moved around on a "political map" just hasn't worked...and has alienated the hell out of people in the process.

I don't mean to discourage you in your chosen path, Muckraker. If you want to try your fortunes in the Democratic Party, by all means, go ahead.

But realize and accept the consequences; after a while, you won't be any kind of leftist at all.

:cool:

[The Muckraker]

But realize and accept the consequences; after a while, you won't be any kind of leftist at all.

Well, my crystal ball is on the blink, so I'm at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to predicting the future, especially the future of individuals. Too many unforseen circumstances to even bother with it, I say.

Yes, the Democratic Party is deeply flawed. This isn't news. They've done some terrible things. Again, not news. However, it's silly to think that there is no difference between the two parties at all when very clearly there is. Even Clinton, and he doesn't even qualify as being on the left of the Democratic Party, stands in stark contrast to Bush. A cursory glance at their ecnomic policies proves this without any doubt. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, Bush cut them. Major distinction right there. In areas of foreign policy the two tend to be similar, but I still don't believe that the US would be occupying Iraq right now if the winner of the election was sitting in the White House, do you? Reproductive rights wouldn't be being rolled back, nor would environmental standards. The international treaties that Bush unilaterally broke would still be in place. These aren't sexy issues, but they are important ones and should not be forgotten.

In another post, I cited these figures. During the Reagan years, 77,000 people were lifted out of poverty. During the Clinton years, 8.2 million people escaped poverty. During Bush's one term, 6.5 million were pushed into poverty. There's another difference, a real, material difference.

Now, perhaps the goal for some is simply to win, and the hell with people suffering in poverty in the richest nation in the world. That's the kind of thinking I see far too often on the Left, and it's proven to be ineffective time and again.

Though you speak of Leninists trying to instill dicsipline, I speak of people with common goals accepting that compromise is part of life.

Though some may prefer to ask the question, "Does it help the cause?" I prefer to ask, "Does it help the people we are trying to liberate?" If the cause isn't about people, then it's worthless in my opinion. The book says workers of the world, not ideologically pure leftists of the world. When the working class is forgotten, then socialism becomes meaningless, and there's no way around the fact that Democrats hurt the working class less than Republicans. I really don't see how ignoring that helps anything, but it's clear how it hurts people.

[Donut Master]

You two both have very good points. I wonder if there is a way to compromise between these two strategies?

[El Barbudo]

CrazyPete, dont fuck with quebec's separatists.

Quebec is the greatest and the richest place in Canada.

Canadians laugh of us, we the fucking frogs, but they dont want us to separate cause WE are the Canada.

Fucking Canadians, they are pro-war and they got fuck with SARS...

Vive le Québec Libre!

[redstar2000]

"I speak of people...accepting that compromise is part of life."

Hold on tight to that one, Muckraker, it will serve you far better than anything I could say.

No, DM, I don't think any compromise between Muckraker's views and mine is possible; he is a reformist and I am a revolutionary.

Somewhere along the way, I decided not to accept that "compromise is a part of life." So I quit doing it. Now I don't even miss it any more. :cheesy:

:cool:

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000 is wrong, actually. I'm not a reformist, and I defy anyone to show where in my posts I said I was.

Reformism isn't what I was talking about at all. Rather, my argument is that we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces.

In the Newswire forum, CiaranB posted a piece about Republicans attacking the 40 hour work week with a bill that would allow for unpaid overtime. That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The Democrats aren't going to bring about socialism, this is true, but at the same time they wouldn't be introducing a bill to destroy the hard won rights of the labor movement.

And you know what? It isn't the Democrats' job to create socialism. As I've stated twice, I think the best place to start is with the working class itself. In the meantime, however, I'd like to be paid time and a half for overtime, thanks.

That's not reformism. That's just common sense.

The Muckraker

[redstar2000]

Muckraker, the word "reformism" is not just a term of abuse to be thrown at anyone one happens to disagree with.

It has a specific political meaning...it refers to the parliamentary road to "socialism".

Your perspective of doing political work within the Democratic Party clearly falls within that part of the political spectrum. Whether you "like" the word or not, you are a reformist.

As to "starting with the working class", why not start with the ones who don't vote at all? I would guess that their estimate of capitalist politics -- "they're all a bunch of crooked bastards" -- is rather closer to our views than those who still have "faith" in the system.

As it happens, most workers in America today work compulsory unpaid over-time; it's made pretty clear that if you want to keep your job, you'd better be willing to "do what it takes". So the legislation that you mentioned doesn't really mean all that much.

Reformism usually doesn't.

:cool:

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000,

I've read a number of your posts and it's clear your not dim, so I have to believe that you're intentionally misconstruing what I've written, though I'm at a loss as to why.

The specific suggestion I gave in my initial post was to work directly with the working class to convince them that socialism is the best way to go. Somehow, in your posts that's become working within the Democratic Party. Clearly that's not at all what I wrote. You are attributing to me things I've not said, perhaps because you've a need to place my in a compartment you understand, regardless of whether or not I fit there.

As I said, it's clear you're not stupid, but your suggestion that this new legislation doesn't matter is just plain silly. A few years back as I recall, Taco Bell was sued for making workers work unpaid overtime. Because the law was on the books there was redress in the legal system. Your whole argument seems to be that because the law is sometimes broken it doesn't matter if it's there or not. Having worked overtime myself and gotten paid the time and a half, I appreciate that the law exists. Call me crazy, but I want to be paid for my work. Would I be correct in concluding you care more about the success of your personal idea than how much the working class is being screwed? That's the impression I'm getting.

Regardless, I believe your assumption that most hourly workers don't get overtime is wrong, though the Republican bill would allow employers to "reclassify" workers to avoid paying them for their labor. It's rather obvious that you don't care about that, but I do, and I would hope that most people who are on the Left would.

Now, you can read my posts for what they say, without a prejudicial eye, or you can continue to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of what I've actually written and contribute to me ideas and motives that have no foundation in reality. The choice is yours.

The Muckraker

[hazard]

dm:

although I understand and agree with the premise behind your avatar, I find it slightly offensive.

yes, I am one of these ultra sensitive types, but the use of a swastika in any shape or form cannot help but stir up disturbing thoughts and images. please consider reverting your avatar to the nerdy looking geek guy, whoever he may be.

[redstar2000]

It's always possible that I've misunderstood your posts, Muckraker, or anyone's. Indeed, on several occasions I've had to choke down a generous serving of crow for a major league misunderstanding.

Is that really the situation here?

Well, you tell me. Do you or do you not want people to vote for the Democratic Party? Do you or do you not think that supporting the Democrats will make "a real difference"? Do you or do you not think the Democratic Party is, in some sense, "the party of the working class" or can somehow be made to become that?

Should communists concern themselves at all with the passing scene of bourgeois politics and manufactured personalities?

I'm certainly willing to order up another serving of crow...but only if I've earned it.

:cool:

PS: As for trying to portray me as a "cold-hearted ideologue indifferent to human suffering", that's not nice.

There are those who are most concerned with winning a particular battle in the class struggle...and those who want to win the class war. There's a difference in the way we look at things...and the time horizons we deal with. Neither viewpoint is "more humane" or "less humane" than the other.

[The Muckraker]

It strikes me that I've already answered the questions you ask in my other posts. I feel that I've been very clear and don't understand the confusion my posts seem to have caused. However, I'll go through it again.

First and foremost it needs to be understood that there are genuine differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. I've given specific policies and instances previously that leave no doubt about this. While the Democrats, as I've already stated, are not going to bring about socialism, it's self-defeating to mischaracterize our opposition, making us only look weak and desperate, constructing straw men rather than dealing with the reality of the situation.

By the same token, I think that we can all agree that the Bush administration has been an unmitigated failure far worse than anything we could have expected. Bush even went so far as to invoke Taft-Hartley, which is extremely anti-worker. Labor has suffered more under Bush than under Clinton. Environmental laws have been rolled back under Bush. Corporate rights have been expanded under Bush. Civil liberties have been destroyed under Bush. Unemployment has gone up under Bush, pushing more children into poverty.

I don't think that these things can be ignored.

If you can show me how to bring about socialism before the next election cycle, sign me up. I'm on board. If you can't, though, please explain how not voting is going to help anything. The only party that can defeat the Republicans is the Democrats, and that's a fact. Explain to me how it's better to cut taxes for the rich and eliminate vitally needed social programs, which is what Bush is doing, than to vote for a Democrat, because that's what this is about. It's not about reformism at all, it's about being presented with two distinct choices and making a decision.

As I wrote in another post, maintaining the hard won rights of the labor movement can hardly be considered reforming anything, it's simply not losing ground.

Until a mass socialist movement is built in the US, and I'm all for that, I don't understand the logic that demands completely ignoring the world in which we live. I really don't.

I don't understand how anyone could think it better for Republicans to destroy Medicaid than for Democrats to save it, or how it's better for Republicans to privatize Social Security than to vote Democratic. That's what I meant by not cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Do I support the Democratic Party? No, I don't. I don't send it money and I don't work for its candidates. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize its differences with the Republican Party.

You've avoided, throughout this exchange, addressing any of the points I've made. For example, the point about having redress to the courts because a law is on the books.

I have explained, repeatedly, why I believe it's foolish to ignore the real world in which we live and the effects that various laws have on us. Nowhere, however, have you given a practical alternative. So now I'm asking you to explain to me precisely how ignoring what happens in DC helps anything. Explain exactly how another Bush term won't be worse than just about any Democrat, and give specific policies. Explain how socialism demands that we ignore the real world, because so far that's all I've seen here.

The facts are quite clear: we have a choice between exactly two parties, one of which is much worse than the other. Explain how ignoring that helps socialism, or anyone for that matter.

Perhaps, if and when Bush wins another term, he'll get to appoint a few Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Thomas who will overturn Roe v. Wade, push tort reform, expand corporate rights even more, restrict our rights to protest, our rights of free speech, our rights to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. These are all very real possibilities. Explain why that doesn't matter. If anything, it would make it more difficult for socialist organizations to function.

You ask if communists should concern themselves at all with bourgeios politics. Hell yes we should, for all the reasons I've given and more. I take no satisfaction in watching things get worse and worse for real people and then saying "I told you so." If a Democrat pushed through a prescription drug plan so the elderly don't have to choose between food and medication, we can still say it doesn't address the core issue of healthcare-for-profit, and we'd be right in doing so. At the same time, a lot of people would be suffering less.

Explain to me what's wrong with that.

[redstar2000]

Actually, Muckraker, it really wasn't necessary to explain the reasons behind your views at such length...at least not to me. I have heard them before.

I think your views are essentially reformist...even though you hedge them around with all sorts of qualifications.

I'm glad to learn that you don't actually work for Democratic Party candidates or send them money...though it would actually be more consistent with your views if you did.

I'm likewise glad to learn that you don't think that work in the Democratic Party has anything to do with socialism.

I do think you suffer from an unjustified faith in bourgeois legality; that laws and courts can be used in the interests of the working class. On rare occasions, it sometimes "looks" that way, I'll concede, but in fact the only real guarantee of workers' rights is and has always been militant class struggle.

You wish me to suggest a "practical alternative" to the perspective you support? That's it! Militant class struggle, in the streets and in the workplaces, is the only way that working people ever get or keep anything.

I know, that's hard. But if you pull it off, then you really have something.

Otherwise, I think Ralph Nader had it right: "The only difference between Bush and Gore is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when a corporate CEO enters the room."

Guess I get to pass on the crow this time. :cheesy:

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:05 pm on May 7, 2003)

[Donut Master]

"The only difference between Bush and Gore is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when a corporate CEO enters the room."

*laughs* did Nader really say that?

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000,

Once again, you've failed to even make an effort to respond to my post, and you still misrepresent what I've written. Though you protest the length of my post, you don't seem to have comprehended it at all, in any way whatsoever.

Not answered is why you prefer the working class to suffer more when there is an alternative. Not answered is why you ignore the real differences on domestic issues between the Democrats and Republicans, which, as I said, only makes people look foolish and desperate, as if they are unable to deal with reality, and real it is, as the examples I've given demonstrate.

I wrote:

If a Democrat pushed through a prescription drug plan so the elderly don't have to choose between food and medication, we can still say it doesn't address the core issue of healthcare-for-profit, and we'd be right in doing so. At the same time, a lot of people would be suffering less.

Explain to me what's wrong with that.

That was completely unanswered.

At this stage it's clear you'd rather not understand what I'm saying, though I can only guess at the reasons. It's unfortunate, really, because I'm betting we agree on many things.

I also can't help but notice you simply throw an idea around, militant class struggle, but offer no suggestions as to what that even means. DeLeon was right, of course, if the workers take to the streets the State will bring its massive resources against them. As I said, I'm all for building a mass socialist organization. That's precisely what you deem "reformism." It can't be the electoral process for I've already stated that I don't believe that reformism can work.

Somehow, you just don't seem to care about the suffering of real people.

So you can continue to lie about my position. Anyone interested can read my posts for the truth of the matter. I'm not really interested in getting into an "I'm more Leftist than thou" argument with you, that's nothing but foolish vanity, so I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else to take the bait.

[redstar2000]

Yes, DM, Nader said it to Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine in the spring of 2000.

Nader (and for that matter, Lapham as well) is no Marxist, but I do have a grudging respect for him...in his own way, he does give the ruling class a good deal of hell. That can't hurt and maybe even helps a little.

Muckraker, you say that I am "foolish, desperate, unable to deal with reality, and don't seem to care for the suffering of real people."

You left out "arrogant bastard". :cheesy:

Your reference to DeLeon, though, is curious. "DeLeon was right, of course, if the workers take to the streets, the State will bring its massive resources against them."

Yes, that is the initial response of the bourgeois state apparatus to proletarian insurrection. Now, what happens if this massive effort at repression fails? What happens if the attempt to repress a significant portion of the working class simply provokes an uprising of nearly all of the working class?

It's called proletarian revolution, Muckraker. You may have heard of it. :cheesy:

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 1:24 am on May 7, 2003)

[UniversalExports]

I am from the United States. I believe that if the Communist movement secretly backs a secretly Communist presidential candidate in the Democratic Party the movement can go far. If we get a Dark Horse candidate and get a whole lot of unknowing followers we can put one of us in office. He will have to be the man who says everything people want to here, he does not have to keep the promises. We'll have to get High schoolers in on it so they can train in politics and develop skills...get more and more involved and sooner or later be appointed to certain offices. If we get enough (eventually) into the Senate then we can make a difference. Hopefully another Cold War will break out.

Another Idea is (basically we have to give up the chance of a large 3rd party movement because we are just putting Republicans into power) and we are still regarded as bad people so we should pretend to side with the Republicans. This will cause mor republicans to Vote Democratic. They used the same style of tactic with the NRA and Johnson/Kennedy.

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000 wrote:

Muckraker, you say that I am "foolish, desperate, unable to deal with reality, and don't seem to care for the suffering of real people."

See? That's what I mean. You're completely misrepresenting what I actually wrote. Are you secretly Ari Fleischer?

Here's what I actaully wrote:

Not answered is why you ignore the real differences on domestic issues between the Democrats and Republicans, which, as I said, only makes people look foolish and desperate, as if they are unable to deal with reality, and real it is, as the examples I've given demonstrate.

See the difference?

When arguing against someone, whether it be me, a Republican, a Democrat or a Green, it's important that you actually answer what was said rather than what you hope was said, what you would prefer was said. Otherwise, you're just attacking straw men.

In a country in which much of the working class votes Republican, I think it's very safe to say that we are nowhere near a proletarian revolution. That doesn't mean that what happens between now and then doesn't matter.

Again, I ask you, if a Democrat pushed through a prescription drug plan so elderly citizens don't have to choose between food and medicine, how is that a bad thing? You seem to prefer that no action be taken, that people continue to suffer needlessly. That position is untenable, and really bad politics as well. As I said before, the Left can still criticize the action and argue against the for-profit system, but in the meantime there would be less suffering. Why your not for less suffering is truly beyond me, and nothing you've written justifies that stance in the slightest.

[redstar2000]

Muckraker, I am too poor to afford prescription drugs unless they give them away...which they are not going to do whether the Democrats pass their fucking plan or not.

So, I frankly don't give a shit! :angry:

"I think it's very safe to say that we are nowhere near a proletarian revolution." Wow! Guess we can agree on that one!

"That doesn't mean what happens between now and then doesn't matter."

What, in general? What are you talking about?

If you are speaking of convincing people that proletarian revolution is what is needed, that matters a lot. Not that revolutions occur simply from intellectual conviction, but the more people that understand what is needed, the better our chances of winning when it finally erupts.

If you are speaking about mucking about in the sty of bourgeois politics, I think that's a total waste of time and energy.

Of course, you're going to do what you want to do...all I can do is try to talk people out of such foolishness, but I can't stop them. And maybe I wouldn't even if I could; often experience is a better teacher than any argument.

:cool:

[The Muckraker]

Redstar2000 wrote:

So, I frankly don't give a shit!

That's the real issue here, isn't it? You don't care how much people suffer, only how things affect you, as your example shows. You didn't even bother trying to explain how it would be a bad thing for senior citizens not to have to choose between medicine and food but instead summed it all up by saying you don't give a shit. How charming.

Tell me, why did you become a socialist anyway? Most socialists I know care deeply about the suffering of humanity.

Later in your post you say, "If you are speaking about mucking about in the sty of bourgeois politics, I think that's a total waste of time and energy."

Of course it would appear that way to you. You just said that you "don't give a shit" about other people, only yourself. More enlightened people, however, understand that bourgeios politics affects how people live every single day. Everything from the price of gas to access to family planning is affected by politics. As I've said all along, I don't see how ignoring the real world helps anything at all, and you've not bothered to even attempt an explanation. I guess that's something else you "don't give a shit" about.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that anything that doesn't push your agenda is a waste of time. Tell it to the people whose unemployment insurance ran out.

If you are speaking of convincing people that proletarian revolution is what is needed, that matters a lot.

At least there's something on which we agree. It's too bad that you think that doing such work has to automatically exclude everything else.

From everything you've said it's very tempting to conclude that you see the world in black and white whereas I see shades of gray. You say you can't afford prescription drugs. Not too many years ago, Sen. Kennedy was pushing for a single-payer health plan, kind of like Canada's. Yep, at least semi-socialized medicine. At the time, that was also the plan favored in opinion polls. Kennedy couldn't get any support for it on the Hill, and the corporate media was downright hostile to the idea. Maybe if that plan had passed, and it's only be people speaking up that such things ever get done, you'd be able to get prescription medicine when you need it.

But, as you made clear, anything outside of your narrow agenda is "foolishness." I suggest that the real foolishness is not having a nuanced view of the world but only seeing it in the starkest of terms.

But then, you undoubtedly "don't give a shit" about that, either.

[redstar2000]

"Why did you become a socialist, anyway? Most socialists I know care deeply about the suffering of humanity."

I became and remain a communist because I wished to be free of the capitalist ruling class and its institution of wage-slavery.

Selfish bastard, ain't I?

:cool:

[Felicia]

Quote: from Zombie on 2:34 am on May 4, 2003
This should definitely be moved to Practice or something.

Pete, from what I see, in Canada, at least in Quebec, you are allowed to voice your opinion without fear of reprisal. In newspapers, on tv or on the radio, a lot of people are expressing discontent against the federal and provincial government like there was no tomorrow. They don't fear the authority as much as Americans do, I guess...

But then again, I'm only new here and have not much knowledge of your past and those 'separatists' you seem to dread so much... I'm just saying what I see and read everyday.

.A.

well ofcourse :biggrin:
It's Quebec! It's the separatists....... ofcourse they'll be against the canadian "government" ;)

[UniversalExports]

Simple solution: socialized medicine. Brits got it, french got it. We need it.

[Edelweiss]

I would like to add some words by Rosa here, which haven't lost any of it's relevance during more than 100 years, and it also shows that socialists were discussing this issue from the beginning of the movement, I think her words are a bit like a compromise of both of your views:

----
Rosa Luxemburg
Reform or Revolution, 1900
Introduction

At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.

It is in Eduard Bernstein's theory, presented in his articles on "Problems of Socialism," Neue Zeit of 1897-98, and in his book Die Voraussetzungen des Socialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie [1] that we find, for the first time, the opposition of the two factors of the labour movement. His theory tends to counsel us to renounce the social transformation, the final goal of Social-Democracy and, inversely, to make of social reforms, the means of the class struggle, its aim. Bernstein himself has very clearly and characteristically formulated this viewpoint when he wrote: "The Final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing; the movement is everything."

But since the final goal of socialism constitutes the only decisive factor distinguishing the Social-Democratic movement from bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois radicalism, the only factor transforming the entire labour movement from a vain effort to repair the capitalist order into a class struggle against this order, for the suppression of this order–the question: "Reform or Revolution?" as it is posed by Bernstein, equals for the Social-Democracy the question: "To be or not to be?" In the controversy with Bernstein and his followers, everybody in the Party ought to understand clearly it is not a question of this or that method of struggle, or the use of this or that set of tactics, but of the very existence of the Social-Democratic movement.

Upon a casual consideration of Bernstein’s theory, this may appear like an exaggeration. Does he not continually mention the Social-Democracy and its aims? Does he not repeat again and again, in very explicit language, that he too strives toward the final goal of socialism, but in another way? Does he not stress particularly that he fully approves of the present practice of the Social-Democracy?

That is all true, to be sure. It is also true that every new movement, when it first elaborates its theory and policy, begins by finding support in the preceding movement, though it may be in direct contradiction with the latter. It begins by suiting itself to the forms found at hand and by speaking the language spoken hereto. In time the new grain breaks through the old husk. The new movement finds its forms and its own language.

To expect an opposition against scientific socialism at its very beginning, to express itself clearly, fully and to the last consequence on the subject of its real content: to expect it to deny openly and bluntly the theoretic basis of the Social-Democracy–would amount to underrating the power of scientific socialism. Today he who wants to pass as a socialist, and at the same time declare war on Marxian doctrine, the most stupendous product of the human mind in the century, must begin with involuntary esteem for Marx. He must begin by acknowledging himself to be his disciple, by seeking in Marx’s own teachings the points of support for an attack on the latter, while he represents this attack as a further development of Marxian doctrine. On this account, we must, unconcerned by its outer forms, pick out the sheathed kernel of Bernstein’s theory. This is a matter of urgent necessity for the broad layers of the industrial proletariat in our Party.

No coarser insult, no baser aspersion, can be thrown against the workers than the remarks: "Theocratic controversies are only for academicians." Some time ago Lassalle said: "Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all obstacles to culture." The entire strength of the modern labour movement rests on theoretic knowledge.

But doubly important is this knowledge for the workers in the present case, because it is precisely they and their influence in the movement that are in the balance here. It is their skin that is being brought to market. The opportunist theory in the Party, the theory formulated by Bernstein, is nothing else than an unconscious attempt to assure predominance to the petty-bourgeois elements that have entered our Party, to change the policy and aims of our Party in their direction. The question of reform or revolution, of the final goal and the movement, is basically, in another form, but the question of the petty-bourgeois or proletarian character of the labour movement.

It is, therefore, in the interest of the proletarian mass of the Party to become acquainted, actively and in detail, with the present theoretic knowledge remains the privilege of a handful of "academicians" in the Party, the latter will face the danger of going astray. Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught. The movement will then find itself on sure and firm ground. "Quantity will do it"
---
Complete text: http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/w...f-rev/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/works/1900/ref-rev/index.htm)

[vox]

Malte,

Good post, but nowhere have I challenged the theoretic basis of socialism, have I? If I have, please point to it, quote me doing so.

Indeed, I believe I've been clear that the change in the relations of production must ultimately come from a mass of workers themselves. I've never, and you know this from my past posts, stood for a "vanguard," nor do I speak or "reformism" now.

What is suggest is that it's better to have a mildly left government instead of a hard right government. Who here will argue with that?

Who here will say that it's better that more people are unemployed, even in a capitalist society?

Who here will say that it's better that children don't have enough food to eat?

Who here will say that it's better that people do without medicine?

I hope no one will say such terrible things, but that's the exact position Redstar has set for himself. The movement, it seems, it more important than the people for him. I think that's exactly backards. People must always come first. People before profit, yes, but also people before dogmatism.

So, in the end, I say that in the USA, where there is no chance of a third party being elected, it's better to vote Democrat than Republican. It won't bring about socialism, and I never, not EVER, said it would. Reformists think it could, but I do not. It will, though, reduce suffering, and what's wrong with that?

I keep asking that question, over and over, and no one seems to want to answer it.

What's wrong with reducing suffering?

It's not a cure, no. It's not the end, and I never said it was.

But it's still less suffering.

So, should we be for more human misery? Is that the "proper" socialist position?

I certainly hope it is not, and I do not believe it is.

Rather, I think that any reduction in misery is an inherently good thing. Don't you?

It's not at all about "reformism," and the strict, and very dogmatic, understanding of this issue in those terms is in itself counterproductive.

So we're left with either caring or not caring.

I care.

Redstar doesn't "give a shit."

And that is the difference.

vox

[Edelweiss]

vox,
I didn't wanted to accuse you of challenging the theoretic basis of socialism, my post was even mainly in defense of your position, reformist positions (and your position are somewhat reformist), aren't neccesarily reactionary, you can fight for social reforms in a capitalist sytem, and be a revolutionary at the same time, as Rosa perfectly pointed out in the above text.

[Valkyrie]

I think this is actually one of the better topics brought up about strategy in a long time. And what constitutes a certain action as being a reform and not a strategy. Everything that is not revolution, a complete overthrow, is plainly just that.. not a revolution. So, what do you do in the meantime? Nothing? Of course not, you continue on. So, in effect, anything that you DO do would constitute a strategy even if it's small and looks something like a reform. In the end anyway, any advances toward this side of socialism would be incorporated into the future socialist society anyway.
I don't see why it should matter if a concrete gain is won during Capitalism or if it's won post-Capitalism, if it's something that society can really use.

Even Fidel had to introduce dollars into his economy. It tainted the purity of the revolution, but.. he knew that concession had to be made. Does this now make him a reformist?

[Valkyrie]

I would just like to clarify my position from where I'm coming from.. which is anarchist. I do not believe in working with the government at best, I believe in abolishing it without doubts. However, the government is intact and entrenched.

Still, one anarchy tactic is doing community and street actions to alleviate present social conditions. Squatting for example is a big tactic for them to alleviate homelessness.

Nickademus once posted that in Canada there are legal routes where one can legally occupy or even take ownership of a vacant abandoned premises. If that law was passed in the US, it would have huge, HUGE ramifications on the plus side. Those towns of homeless people living underground in the NY City sewer system like rats would instead have shelter. And in Winter, 25,000 people are turned away from homeless shelters in NY per night. But squat an abandoned building now in NY City and you are bodily removed under court-order. I, who's against those types of Legal Positivist laws, would still support any law that would change the terms of use-property and I still remain an anarchist after having done so.





(Edited by Paris at 9:23 pm on May 23, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, I read the excerpt from Rosa Luxemburg's article and followed the link to read a couple of chapters...and I can't see the relevance in the context of this thread.

Luxemburg was arguing against a fully developed theory of opportunism, that of Bernstein. Neither of the parties to the dispute suggested that the working class should vote for bourgeois parties, much less that "socialists" or "anarchists" should do so.

Further, it should be understood that at that time it still appeared "reasonable" that the working class could rise to power by winning a majority in parliament in a bourgeois election. To not participate in electoral politics at that time would have been a mark of "unseriousness" or even "anarcho-terrorism".

Things have changed.

Even the issue of "reforms" in and of themselves is tangential to this thread; neither I nor anyone has expressed opposition to any reform per se. Indifference, yes; opposition, no.

The question in this thread is: does it make sense to "struggle" for "reforms" in modern capitalist society by voting for "left" capitalist parties?

I say no!

1. The two major parties in the United States are both right-wing parties and, if history is any guide, they will continue to move rightwards, as they have since 1940 or thereabouts.

2. The legal norms of capitalist elections are such that they become less and less responsive to progressive opinion as time goes on. After Florida, I think even the assumption that a capitalist election is "honest" is no longer justified.

3. At the same time, elections in capitalist society have become more and more a "spectacle" (as the Situationists put it back in the late 1960s)...a lavish and enormously expensive extravaganza meant for entertainment and distraction.

4. There is also the question of how much the outcome really means except to the candidates and their intimate supporters. One could well argue that bodies like the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Supreme Court have much more domestic clout than congress or the presidency...there does seem to be a trend towards having appointed administrative bodies "do the dirty work" while congress and the president "put on the show".

5. The imperial president still has the power to make war. But I submit the situation now is simply which imperialist war will be fought by the next administration. No matter which party is in the white house, war is on the agenda. Both parties are more or less agreed that "the Empire must grow"...but they can certainly disagree on which country is to become the next province.

How then are reforms even possible any longer under capitalism? They may not be!

But if they are, the only way I know how to get them is the hard way...massive struggles in workplaces and on the streets, involving millions of people who are really pissed off. Whenever that happens, even 'conservative" politicians suddenly discover that maybe a reform or two (or the appearance thereof) would be "a pretty good idea about now".

They may publicly reassure everyone that "communism is dead"...don't think for a second that they believe that privately. They are well aware of what happens to ruling classes that ignore serious discontent or try to rely solely on measures of repression.

In fact, it seems to me that at this point in history, the ruling class is far more class-conscious than we are. Their understanding of the material realities that underlie politcs is superior to ours as well.

When will we learn better?

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:12 pm on May 23, 2003)

[Edelweiss]

redstar, I think the article by Rosa Luxemburg has much relevance for this thread, because basicly this thread is about social reforms in capitalism vs. revolution. You say it doesn't make any sense to reform capitalism, you don't support reforms by the Democrats (which are currently the only force who are capable of doing any social reforms in the US, just like the German social democrats of 1900), nor you support any other third party or other organisation in the US to do social reforms. You want the revolution now, and discredit every socialist who is participating in the bourgois US party system as reformist. I'm from Germany, were we have (soon had!) a reformed capitalism, the conditions for the average workers are still much better than in the US, we wouldn't have that better conditions, if there wouldn't have been socialists who fought for that better conditions in the German parliaments.
As Rosa said, social reforms in capitalism are not the final goal, that is still the revolution, but an important mean of the class struggle, you can't just sit back and wait for the revolution to come, that will change nothing.

[redstar2000]

because basicly this thread is about social reforms in capitalism vs. revolution.

No it isn't, and I actually said so in my last post. If we want to talk about reforms "in the abstract" (outside of historical reality), that's one thing.

But Malte, you seem to be under the impression that the Democratic Party is in some way "like" the Social Democratic Party in your country. That is not even remotely true. The U.S. Democratic Party is to the right of the Christian Democrats in your country...by a wide margin!

I understand that it's hard for people who live in civilized countries to understand how reactionary the mainstream of American politics is...believe me, you have no idea how bad it really is.

You say it doesn't make any sense to reform capitalism...

No, actually, I didn't say that. I am more and more sceptical of the possibility as time goes by...but what I did say was that if there are to be reforms, it won't happen because "the Democrats won." The only way in modern capitalist society that the working class gets anything is by raising hell. And the more hell they raise, the more they get.

you don't support reforms by the Democrats (which are currently the only force who are capable of doing any social reforms in the US, just like the German social democrats of 1900)

The modern Democratic Party in the U.S. is nothing like the German Social Democracy of 1900...there is simply no comparison.

...nor you support any other third party or other organisation in the US to do social reforms.

Well, if you're speaking of the American Green Party (both factions), it does not seem to me that they have any reasonable chance of winning anything more substantial than a seat on the Berkeley City Council. I wouldn't look for a second edition of the "New Deal" from those folks. (It's hard to generalize from one country to another...but my guess is that American Greens--most of them anyway--would be in the right wing of your Green Party.)

...and discredit every socialist who is participating in the bourgois US party system as reformist.

Yes, exactly. That doesn't mean they're "evil" or "betrayers of the proletariat" or any thing like that; it just means they're wrong and all their efforts will accomplish nothing.

To the extent that they mislead people, it probably does delay the revolution...for maybe a few days. Not much in the long sweep of history, when you stop and think about it.

I'm from Germany, were we have (soon had!) a reformed capitalism, the conditions for the average workers are still much better than in the US, we wouldn't have that better conditions, if there wouldn't have been socialists who fought for that better conditions in the German parliaments.

That was then, Malte, this is now. Yes, there certainly was a time, particularly during the Weimar Republic, when Social Democracy could pass extensive reform legislation and actually get it implemented.

To a much lesser extent, that was also the case here in the first two terms of the Roosevelt administration (1932-1940).

Since then, with a blip or two here and there, it's been downhill all the way in the U.S....and, from what I've read, things don't look so good where you live either.

Without trying to put a "grand theoretical flourish" on the matter, it seems to me that the working class is under attack in every advanced capitalist country. To ask for "reforms" from the people that are attacking us simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As Rosa said, social reforms in capitalism are not the final goal, that is still the revolution, but an important mean of the class struggle...

Perhaps that was true in her time; I wasn't there.

But I have little confidence in the ability of present-day capitalist society to "institutionalize" any significant improvement in the lives of working people...or even keep the ones that already exist. It's that old Marxist "devil" at work: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time. They don't have as much "room" to make concessions (or reforms) as they used to.

That doesn't mean you still can't fight for reforms (at least if you pick your spots with sufficient care), but it does mean that such fights will, from now on, take place outside "the norms of bourgeois political life".

That is, if you expect to get anywhere.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:14 pm on May 23, 2003)

[Edelweiss]

redstar, I'm very aware that the US Democrats are in no way comparable to the German Social Democats, especially not to the ones of 1900!! I know the Democats basicly are big heap of shit. But on a much lower level, the Democats are the advocate of the trade unions and the workers in the dirty game of politics, just like the Social Democrats here, and unlike all the socialist sects around, they actually have power to really change things, so we have to arrange with them somehow.
Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna defend the US Democrats, I also don't wanna defend today's German Social Democrats, which also have become a bunch of reactionary assholes, Schröder is just planning the abolishment of the German welfare state, but I just think we shouldn't leave the political ground totally to the reaction, as socialists we should support the forces who at least are willing to defend the achievements within the "norms of bourgeois political life" that we already have, that's somehow very sad, but also very neccesary IMO. Beside to that, we have of course to get the protests on the streets, no question about that. But all protests on the streets won't do anything now, if we haven't allies in politics, I doubt that even rasing hell will change anything, if the government is led by poeple like Bush, no, he will only defend the interests of the US industry by all means, the reaction would be massive repression, and a big step forward to fascism.

[redstar2000]

But on a much lower level, the Democats are the advocate of the trade unions and the workers in the dirty game of politics, just like the Social Democrats here, and unlike all the socialist sects around, they actually have power to really change things, so we have to arrange with them somehow.

Since I can't read German and have no access to sources there, I will take your word for the the fact that the SPD "actually has power to really change things". But I ask you honestly, what is their practice? Are they changing things for the better or for the worse?

Here that is what we call a no-brainer: the Democrats under Clinton changed things dramatically for the worse...most notably with the abolition of the Aid-to-Dependent-Children Program. This was a program that paid unattached women with children to stay home and take care of their kids. Now these women have been added to the already depressed job market, forcing wages down further than they already were.

In other words, the Democratic Party here may have the abstract power to change things for the better...but in practice, they change things for the worse.

I won't even bother adding that nearly all of those "progressive" Democrats were and remain enthusiastic supporters of imperialist war...last month's and next month's too.

I just think we shouldn't leave the political ground totally to the reaction...

It's already their's...and here, at least, has been more or less since 1940 or, if you want to be generous, 1948.

Why things have turned out that way is a rather thorny question...my own suspicion is that capitalism "naturally" evolves into something very much like fascism as it ages; I don't mean with Hitlers and Mussolinis and Francos...those were specific to their time. I'm thinking more along the lines of a semi-formal aristocracy with ritual plebiscites held on a periodic basis to select ceremonial office-holders.

Like we have now, only more so.

But all protests on the streets won't do anything now, if we haven't allies in politics, I doubt that even rasing hell will change anything, if the government is led by poeple like Bush, no, he will only defend the interests of the US industry by all means, the reaction would be massive repression, and a big step forward to fascism.

Well, we really don't know that, do we? When the time comes when large numbers of working people are willing to raise hell...then we'll see. One possibility is certainly a vicious fascist repression...but the capitalist class is not stupid. They learned a lot in the 20th century and one of the things they learned is that too much repression too quickly applied can backfire.

Historically (at least here), when a significant portion of the working class has raised hell, the response of the ruling class has been to "step back", grant a reform or three, wait for things to quiet down a bit before resuming their attack on the working class.

In this sense, it doesn't matter if we "have" people in bourgeois politics...there will be both Republicans and Democrats who will be eager to portray themselves as "defenders of the little guy"...at least for a season or two.

The same holds true, I think, for defending historical gains of the class; if the working class is unwilling to defend those gains, a handful of socialists or communists is not going to make any difference...even if they were all in public office instead of just trying to elect the less reactionary politician to office. On those occasions where the class is willing to defend its historical position, the politicians generally back away, cool things down, wait for a better time to make their next move, etc. Something like this appears to be happening now in both France and Italy...the working class is losing ground, but they are bitterly contesting every meter.

It seems to me in a way that this whole ruckus about bourgeois electoral politics stems from an old assumption that people have been making for a century or more, that might be worded something like this: "what we lefties do is not real politics; real politics is what those rich guys do."

It often really does look that way, but appearances can be deceiving. The rapid spread of insurgent views across the internet has had more of an impact, in my opinion, than all of the bourgeois elections of the last six years put together. The sense of isolation and powerlessness that the bourgeoisie rely on to keep us in our place is beginning to look a little ragged around the edges. As technology gets cheaper and more available, the class itself will begin to learn once more the power of solidarity.

The rise of "smart mobs" somebody called it...people who know what's going on and why and very much want to do something about it now. What they will do, I will not venture to predict; but I'm willing to bet that it will have little or nothing to do with bourgeois parties and elections.

Why suck up to dinosaurs when you can play with mammals?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:36 am on May 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Just happened to find this excellent link first posted by Chitown Lady in the Politics forum on the Democratic Party in the U.S.

http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey05082003.html

:cool:

[Edelweiss]

I can see you point, and you are probaply right about the Democtats in the US, although I still strongly disagree with your total rejection of leftists taking part in bourgois politics. I mean overall the Democrats may be a bunch of reactionary fuckers, but I'm shure there are single persons in the party with power who have progressive views, who deserver support, I saw an interview with an US senator who strongly spoke against the war on Iraq for example. Same is here with the SPD and the Greens, overall the party is a hopeless case, Schröder and Fischer were one of the driving forces of the illegal war on Yugoslavia (as mentioned in the excellent article you linked), a war which could have been rejected with the same reasons than the war on Iraq, but hypocrates Schröder and Fischer prefer to play the brave anti-war heros for the public to got re-elected, and of course also because of own hegomonial interests. But also in the SPD and Greens there are politicians which I respect, and support, like the former minister of finance Oskar Lafontaine, who isn't a communist, but a tradtional Social Democrat who made progressive Keynsian politics when he was in power.
You know, the party system is different in Germany, we have represantive democracy, and so it is realistic for smaller socialist parties like the PDS (reform-communists, former GDR state party), to gain power via coalitions, and actually they are in the government of 3 German states. Of course socialist parties with power in capitalist countries are tending to be oppurtunist and reactionary, but still much better as if the conservatives would rule, it has direct influence on the conditions for the workers, minorities, and under-priviliged, so I don't know why I should reject it.

[redstar2000]

Yes, there are a small number of Democratic Party office holders (a few in the House of Representatives and perhaps one or two in the Senate) who are "far enough left" to fit very comfortably in the SDP. I think of them as "living fossils"...the last survivors of the "old Democratic Party of Roosevelt's era".

I expect them to disappear soon; they are "out of step" with modern imperial politics.

I hope you and others understand that anything that I might say about the situation in countries other than the U.S. should be thought of as tentative and suggestive rather than any kind of "authoritative judgment". If someone in Germany or France or Italy decides to vote for a capitalist political candidate, perhaps they would have reasons for that which I would agree with if I were there and knew the situation first hand.

We do have enough people on the board to give me a pretty good picture of things in the United Kingdom and Australia...and I think my conclusions about the U.S. would apply just as strongly in those countries.

But you know as well as I that we normally get only hints about what is really happening in faraway places where people speak languages that we don't understand. So I, at least, make my best guess...and then yield to the understanding of the folks who are actually there.

:cool: