American liberals are so stupid...

[Cheung Mo]

They can't squre the fact that the most "leftist" Democrats in their country prefer Bush to Chavez with the fact that social liberalism is an ethically bankrupt and logically inconsistent ideology.

[Eleftherios]

You're right. In fact, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the liberal politicians are in any way less imperialistic than Bush and his supporters. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not even ruled out the option of military action when dealing with Iran.

[Tower of Bebel]

Social-democrats, nationalists, christian-democrats, liberal-democrats, etc. are all neoliberals. If Bush is neoliberal, then everyone of these factions will support him.

[RedAnarchist]

In America, like in Britain, there are two main politicalparties which are basically selling the same product under a different brand name and using slightly different ingredients. If the American people elect a Democrat next year, they may vote in a lesser evil, but it wont exactly mean much to either the working class or the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In other news, water is wet.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:07 pm
You're right. In fact, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the liberal politicians are in any way less imperialistic than Bush and his supporters. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not even ruled out the option of military action when dealing with Iran.
A politician is a politician. They will bash their opponents until they get their chance to make the very same mistakes they so fervently opposed. Hilary says, "If we do have to take offensive military action against Iran, it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effect and consequences will be global." A Democrat is simply a Republican re-packaged in attempt to be appear more socially aware. American politics... Sigh...


edit: Red_Anarchist kinda said the same thing... woops

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:07 pm
You're right. In fact, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the liberal politicians are in any way less imperialistic than Bush and his supporters. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not even ruled out the option of military action when dealing with Iran.
Obama is an imperialist fucker. He already said it would be better to have a war with Iran than allow it to become nuclearized, and suggested military incursions into Pakistan. Fuck him and Hillary; where the hell are the snipers anymore? It's like after Reagan, they gave up. tsk.

[MarxSchmarx]

Give me a freaking break. Bush and Co. and the Democratic clowns aren't the same.

Look at the judges they appoint. The American prison-industrial complex is built and maintained mostly by Republican appointed judges.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the US Democratic party. Their complicity is disgusting. They are horrible. But sadly, they really are the lesser of two evils.

Those of you saying there is no difference are callous in the extreme. Anybody who makes these claims about Hillary or Obama being the same as Bush doesn't understand the depth of the depravity and horror of the American Republican Party. Nor do they understand the dangers a Republican presidency poses to the U$A and the world.

Finally, if these people who say there is no difference btw. Republicans and Democrats had to live with the consequences of Republicans running the country, like being beaten by cops and spending your life in prison for smoking a joint, or if you lost your child in the Iraq war, you wouldn't think Obama was the same as Bush.

You guys just don't understand the magnitude of the threat Republican pose to humanity.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:49 am
Give me a freaking break. Bush and Co. and the Democratic clowns aren't the same.

Look at the judges they appoint. The American prison-industrial complex is built and maintained mostly by Republican appointed judges.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the US Democratic party. Their complicity is disgusting. They are horrible. But sadly, they really are the lesser of two evils.

Those of you saying there is no difference are callous in the extreme. Anybody who makes these claims about Hillary or Obama being the same as Bush doesn't understand the depth of the depravity and horror of the American Republican Party. Nor do they understand the dangers a Republican presidency poses to the U$A and the world.

Finally, if these people who say there is no difference btw. Republicans and Democrats had to live with the consequences of Republicans running the country, like being beaten by cops and spending your life in prison for smoking a joint, or if you lost your child in the Iraq war, you wouldn't think Obama was the same as Bush.

You guys just don't understand the magnitude of the threat Republican pose to humanity.
We're the ones calling for violent revolution to overthrow the capitalist system (them included) dumbass. It's you who's been blinded by Liberal "moral cause" to believe that the Democrats are actually any better. Where were your fucking liberals when the vote to invade Iraq was passed before congress? Oh yeah, they were right there voting in favour of it. If anything, the Democrats are the greater of the two evils, for they attempt to gain the support of the masses by pretending to be on their side, whereas atleast the Republicans are quite clear about their intentions.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:49 am
You guys just don't understand the magnitude of the threat Republican pose to humanity.
The republicans will try to take over the world.

The democrats will do the same. Clinton is responsible for about a million dead Iraqis courtesy of sanctions and bombing campaigns throughout the 90s. What, we are to dismiss this crime because "well, he didn't murder as many as the republicans"? Fuck that, I believe in humanity and freedom, and my vote will reflect that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Democrats are the greater of the two evils, for they attempt to gain the support of the masses by pretending to be on their side, whereas atleast the Republicans are quite clear about their intentions.

One of the central puzzles of American politics is why people so consistently vote Republican and against their self-interest. Republican electoral success is predicated on deception far worse than the Democrats'.


It's you who's been blinded by Liberal "moral cause" to believe that the Democrats are actually any better. Where were your fucking liberals when the vote to invade Iraq was passed before congress?

No. They went along with it b/c they were afraid of being painted by Republicans and Osama's gay lover. And the Republicans did this anyway, and the Democrats lost big in 2002. Being ineffective is not at all the same as being belligerent.


What, we are to dismiss this crime because "well, he didn't murder as many as the republicans"?

No one is saying that.

Clinton should still be held to account. Other posters assert there is no difference. The fact that Clinton had less destructive policies viz. Iraq proves otherwise.

The Democrats are spineless and react to Republican electoral strategy. But it's undeniable that when in power, they wreak relatively less havoc. Does that make them ideal? Does it excuse their behavior? Does that mean you should vote for them? No, no and no.

But it's plain silly to assert the Democrats believe in a messianic conviction in world domination. The Republican leadership, however, does.

And I don't know how many of you follow the US domestic situation. If you follow the logic presented here, then there is no difference to the average worker from Sweden and the average worker from the American ghetto.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, Bill Clinton signed the North American Trade Agreement, which probably claimed the lives of a few million people. Not only that, but he enacted the Iraq Liberation Act, which pressed for Iraq's recognition of their economic interests in the region. The sanctions he pushed through are said to have killed half a million children, is that not enough bodies to drop your insane notion that they are 'not as bad' as the Republicans? They also authorized the war in the first place, have pushed for the escalation of the presence of troops in the past few months, and have forced Iraq to privatize sections of the oil industry. The Democrat-controlled Congress has done far worse things than the Republican-controlled Congress has done.

Their policies are a reflection of the strategy taken by the ruling class under certain conditions; it is not individual politicians making decisions that are less deadlier than their predecessors, but nominated characters chosen by the bankers and executives that are hand-picked to represent them as an entire class.

But for your claims that Democrats are 'not interested in world domination', I would profoundly disagree. Just recently, Obama wrote an article called Renewing American Leadership, where he wrote that "the American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew," saying that "we must lead the world by deed and by example" and “must not rule out using military force” in pursuit of "our vital interests." When asked about the option of nuking Iran, Hilary Clinton said "we can't take anything off of the table", showing where her allegiances clearly lie. She was, after all, the nasty fucker that "urged him (her husband) to bomb (Yugoslavia)."

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, Bill Clinton signed the North American Trade Agreement, which probably claimed the lives of a few million people. Not only that, but he enacted the Iraq Liberation Act, which pressed for Iraq's recognition of their economic interests in the region. The sanctions he pushed through are said to have killed half a million children, is that not enough bodies to drop your insane notion that they are 'not as bad' as the Republicans? They also authorized the war in the first place, have pushed for the escalation of the presence of troops in the past few months, and have forced Iraq to privatize sections of the oil industry.

Yes, look at all those noble Republicans that stood up to these imperialist acts of aggression!

The Republicans have been united almost to a man on each and every one of those issues. At least there was SOME dissent among Democrats.


The Democrat-controlled Congress has done far worse things than the Republican-controlled Congress has done.


Like what, raising the minimum wage?

If you seriously believe what you're saying, this discussion is a waste of time.



Their policies are a reflection of the strategy taken by the ruling class under certain conditions; it is not individual politicians making decisions that are less deadlier than their predecessors, but nominated characters chosen by the bankers and executives that are hand-picked to represent them as an entire class.

I agree. In addition to the "bankers and executives", the Republicans consult the KKK and the American Taliban. The Democrats generally only the former, and occasionally a well-meaning academic like Robert Reich.



"we must lead the world by deed and by example" and “must not rule out using military force” in pursuit of "our vital interests." When asked about the option of nuking Iran, Hilary Clinton said "we can't take anything off of the table", showing where her allegiances clearly lie. She was, after all, the nasty fucker that "urged him (her husband) to bomb (Yugoslavia)."

Virtually every Republican would say all that and more, like "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Again, I'm not saying the Democrats are wonderful Communists. I'm just saying that people seriously underestimate just how horrible the Republicans are when they say things like the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:34 am
Well, Bill Clinton signed the North American Trade Agreement, which probably claimed the lives of a few million people. Not only that, but he enacted the Iraq Liberation Act, which pressed for Iraq's recognition of their economic interests in the region. The sanctions he pushed through are said to have killed half a million children, is that not enough bodies to drop your insane notion that they are 'not as bad' as the Republicans? They also authorized the war in the first place, have pushed for the escalation of the presence of troops in the past few months, and have forced Iraq to privatize sections of the oil industry. The Democrat-controlled Congress has done far worse things than the Republican-controlled Congress has done.

Their policies are a reflection of the strategy taken by the ruling class under certain conditions; it is not individual politicians making decisions that are less deadlier than their predecessors, but nominated characters chosen by the bankers and executives that are hand-picked to represent them as an entire class.

But for your claims that Democrats are 'not interested in world domination', I would profoundly disagree. Just recently, Obama wrote an article called Renewing American Leadership, where he wrote that "the American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew," saying that "we must lead the world by deed and by example" and “must not rule out using military force” in pursuit of "our vital interests." When asked about the option of nuking Iran, Hilary Clinton said "we can't take anything off of the table", showing where her allegiances clearly lie. She was, after all, the nasty fucker that "urged him (her husband) to bomb (Yugoslavia)."
The "left" DFL has also used the anti-union Taft-Hartley act more than the Republicans have. Both parties are essentially identical, differing on minor issues and having some minor tactical differences. They act more like two wings of one bourgeois party than two different parties.


Like what, raising the minimum wage?

To such a paltry extent that this raise has probably already been eaten up by inflation (major price increases, such as with gasoline and groceries, are not included in the official core inflation statistics, so inflation is always much higher than the statistics say!)? Just because they offer a crumb does not mean that you should get the fact that they are identical to the Republicans. Are you going to be bought off by getting a few more pennies (and after inflation, probably the same as, if not less, than before!) and support capitalism?

[Red Scare]

i live in america, and it disgusts me hw much people think the democrats are actually leftist, when people ask what my political beliefs are and i say extreme leftist, they scoff at me and say: "aren't the democrats liberal enough?" :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:24 pm
i live in america, and it disgusts me hw much people think the democrats are actually leftist, when people ask what my political beliefs are and i say extreme leftist, they scoff at me and say: "aren't the democrats liberal enough?" :angry: :angry: :angry:
To which you should probably answer "yes, they are liberals, that's the problem."

When talking to Americans, I try to avoid calling myself a leftist (preferring terms like "socialist" or "Marxist" instead) and, most importantly, I like to use the term "liberal" as an insult for capitalist politicians. This generally gets people interested, and they start asking questions like "What, you're a socialist and you hate liberals? How does that work? I thought socialists were just a more extreme version of liberals." And that is a great opportunity to explain that socialists do not support the welfare state and other things commonly associated with social democracy or "left" liberalism.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:37 am
One of the central puzzles of American politics is why people so consistently vote Republican and against their self-interest. Republican electoral success is predicated on deception far worse than the Democrats'.
The central puzzle of American politics is why millions of otherwise intelligent people turn off their smarts when they get into the voting booth and pull the Democratic lever.

Democrats want the same thing as the Republicans do, but they would like to do it over a longer period of time and offend less people. They have been since the New Deal one of the chief obstacles to establishing socialism.

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/resources.html

(Look for: The Democratic Party and the Politics of Lesser-Evilism)

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:37 am

What, we are to dismiss this crime because "well, he didn't murder as many as the republicans"?

No one is saying that.

Clinton should still be held to account. Other posters assert there is no difference. The fact that Clinton had less destructive policies viz. Iraq proves otherwise.

The Democrats are spineless and react to Republican electoral strategy. But it's undeniable that when in power, they wreak relatively less havoc. Does that make them ideal? Does it excuse their behavior? Does that mean you should vote for them? No, no and no.

But it's plain silly to assert the Democrats believe in a messianic conviction in world domination. The Republican leadership, however, does.

And I don't know how many of you follow the US domestic situation. If you follow the logic presented here, then there is no difference to the average worker from Sweden and the average worker from the American ghetto.
The democrats want to help the lower class, at least to some degree. They are the party's base. But they are more interested in money, and in maintaining global power.

The attempt to show more than a negligible dichotomy between the two parties shows that you are more interested in national concerns than international ones. the democrats are knowing participants to the murder of millions around the world, and they do little to stop it; often much to encourage it. The argument "clinton was less destructive towards Iraq" is a fancy way of saying "I'll support the guy who kills 1 million but not the one who kills two." It's all murder, all imperialist, and we need to fight it - all of it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx
One of the central puzzles of American politics is why people so consistently vote Republican and against their self-interest. Republican electoral success is predicated on deception far worse than the Democrats'.
Because neither of the two "mainstream" parties is willing to further the interests of the working class. The Democrats are not a social democratic party. Let me put it this way: In Europe, workers can choose between parties that offer them a few crumbs from the capitalists' table (social democrats and other assorted "moderate leftists") and reactionary parties that try to play to their fears while screwing them over. In the United States, crumbs are not available - the only choice is between a party that exploits you a lot and a party that exploits you a bit less. The Democrats simply do not offer enough progressive measures to be worth voting for.

Yes, yes, the Democrats are indeed the lesser evil. But there comes a point when even the lesser evil is too evil to tolerate. If the lesser evil is a social democratic party, then I can see the argument to be made for supporting them (I would never support them myself, but I would understand it if other comrades chose to do so). However, when the lesser evil is a bourgeois liberal party, forget it.

[Comrade Rage]

I would like to remind you that the current group in control of the Republican Party, the neocons, mainly came from Dumocrats.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con)

EDIT: I would also like to remind people of the fact that the Social Dumocrats have alinged with far-right movements to crush left and communist revolutions and movements.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Noske)

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:37 am
One of the central puzzles of American politics is why people so consistently vote Republican and against their self-interest. Republican electoral success is predicated on deception far worse than the Democrats'.


because people prefer an honest thief to a dishonest thief. at least the republicans are open about there objectives unlike the dems who pretend to b ewith the poor guy then fuck him over

[MarxSchmarx]

My only point was that to equate them to the Republicans on every level is to betray a deep misunderstanding about American politics - namely, the depth and depravity of Republican politicians and supporters. Although it seems it's falling on deaf ears, you can't equate Democrats cowardly complicity with just how atrocious Republicans are.


To such a paltry extent that this raise has probably already been eaten up by inflation (major price increases, such as with gasoline and groceries, are not included in the official core inflation statistics, so inflation is always much higher than the statistics say!)?

That was more than the Republicans did.


The attempt to show more than a negligible dichotomy between the two parties shows that you are more interested in national concerns than international ones.

What kind of a critique is that?! In any event, let me turn the tables. The fact that you insist that there is no substantive differences based solely on your perception of the two parties' approach to foreign affairs implies you are callous about the fate of 300 million people.

And good luck finding any serious pacifist within the Republican party. At least the Democrats have a vocal minority under this umbrella.


The argument "clinton was less destructive towards Iraq" is a fancy way of saying "I'll support the guy who kills 1 million but not the one who kills two."

For the gazillionth time it is NOT. First of all, Clinton is not the only Democrat. Second, it refutes the claim that there is absolutely no difference when it comes to Iraq between Democrats and Republcians.


I would like to remind you that the current group in control of the Republican Party, the neocons, mainly came from Dumocrats.

And that same article notes not a few from the Trotskyist movement. Should the 4th international be tried for its crimes against the Iraqi people? Why not go after the opportunism of Bolshevism?


Let me put it this way: In Europe, workers can choose between parties that offer them a few crumbs from the capitalists' table (social democrats and other assorted "moderate leftists") and reactionary parties that try to play to their fears while screwing them over. In the United States, crumbs are not available - the only choice is between a party that exploits you a lot and a party that exploits you a bit less.

Maybe on the Presidential and state-wide level they've ceased to be Social Democrats, but at the local level the Democrats routinely run candidates from the openly social democratic DSA and the effectively social democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus).

This actually reminds me - the best analogy for those of you who follow European politics more closely as is the support shown by many in the French left for Chirac against Le Pen. Or another example is the support by leftist Iranians for Khatami against the Ayatollahs. Once people put in the context of how dreadful the alternative is, we should be more measured in the insults we hurl at misguided "liberals".




because people prefer an honest thief to a dishonest thief. at least the republicans are open about there objectives unlike the dems who pretend to b ewith the poor guy then fuck him over

What do you base that on? I don't know a single serious analyst of American politics anywhere in the world that believes that.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:15 am

The attempt to show more than a negligible dichotomy between the two parties shows that you are more interested in national concerns than international ones.

What kind of a critique is that?! In any event, let me turn the tables. The fact that you insist that there is no substantive differences based solely on your perception of the two parties' approach to foreign affairs implies you are callous about the fate of 300 million people.

And good luck finding any serious pacifist within the Republican party. At least the Democrats have a vocal minority under this umbrella.
No, I'm not. I am an american, I take offense to you basically saying I hate my own people. I just won't vote for a party whose record has been marred by mass murder since the Korean War.

The point is that you are trying to draw some powerful distinction between the two parties. It's just not there. The Democratic party has a platform full of pro-worker and pro-environmental stances, but they have shown us time and time again that they are fully in the pockets of corporations, especially the "military-industrial complex" as Eisenhower would say.

Our country hasn't fought a respectable war since WWII, but we've been fighting one ever since.



The argument "clinton was less destructive towards Iraq" is a fancy way of saying "I'll support the guy who kills 1 million but not the one who kills two."

For the gazillionth time it is NOT. First of all, Clinton is not the only Democrat. Second, it refutes the claim that there is absolutely no difference when it comes to Iraq between Democrats and Republcians.
OK, how about Kennedy? not only did he try to assassinate the leaders of two other countries, but he advanced the vietnam war to the point where our troops were too committed to leave without showing defeat.

There have been a few democrats that have some decency. Wellstone comes to mind. But you have to face the fact that they are, as democrats, interestd in following the party and being bought, and I see no reason to concern myself with the petty differences they claim for themselves - let alone consider voting for those scumbags.

I'll have a hard time finding a pacifist in either party. Even if they claim to be one, I guarantee you 100% that the next president will not only continue our military spending and exports, but will also start wars and / or military incursions into soverign nations for the sole purpose of gaining capital income.

Hillary and Obama have both advanced buffoonish, antagonistic and xenophobic foriegn policy images. Edwards voted for the war. That's the democratic party right now. I may have a hard tim efinding a pacifist in either party, but I challenge you to present one well - respected pacifist in the Democratic party to give your point validity.

Face it, our leaders in both parties have been helping to murder people in Palestine for more than 60 years. If that isn't enough to turn you off, I don't know what could be.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:15 am
This actually reminds me - the best analogy for those of you who follow European politics more closely as is the support shown by many in the French left for Chirac against Le Pen. Or another example is the support by leftist Iranians for Khatami against the Ayatollahs. Once people put in the context of how dreadful the alternative is, we should be more measured in the insults we hurl at misguided "liberals".
Ok, let's follow your analogy with France. Would I vote for Chirac once in order to keep Le Pen out? Probably. But what if Chirac and Le Pen were the two frontrunners in every election, and Chirac asked for the support of the left over and over again under the justification that he's not as bad as Le Pen? That is, in fact, what the Democrats are doing.

There would come a point when I'd say "screw this, let's tell Chirac to go to hell and put all our efforts into creating a socialist party."

Or let's look at the UK in the early 20th century. One could easily make the argument that the Liberals were less bad than the Conservatives. Yet it was necessary to crush the Liberals utterly in order to lay the foundations for a solid socialist movement.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 29, 2007 10:55 pm
They can't squre the fact that the most "leftist" Democrats in their country prefer Bush to Chavez with the fact that social liberalism is an ethically bankrupt and logically inconsistent ideology.
Exactly! The biggest criticisms the liberals make of the Bush administration is that Bush is hurting America's ability to be a successful imperialist power for "human rights", or they make comments on Bush's "mistakes" claiming the democrats have to better ability to wage the "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact I recall Clinton's "human rights" presidency where all of his military aggressions were met with cheers and pride from the liberals. Remember how small the opposition was at that time? With the republicans in office, liberals are on the center, but on the left side. When democrats are in office they shift to the right and join their canservative flag wavers. Pathetic.

[omegaflare]

Allow me to explain the existence of the Democratic Party in the United States in abstract, if not theoretical, terms.


First of all, one has to recognize the influence that the state has in the United States, and the fact that the United States is still subject to the rules and limitations inherent in ANY state.

I'm going to assume that a lot, if not most, of you are familiar with Statal theory.


Once we have established that the U.S. is just like any other state, then it is at least plausible that the Working Class, no matter how blurry the line may be in the U.S., or how unconscious it may be of its status, is a genuine threat to the state. Therefore, the State, in its attempt to keep its monopoly on power, is going to offer "concessions" and the like, even if it means letting go of some of its power. Due to the fact that the the population does contain some moderate, unconscious element, then the state will be able to cede control of some aspects of life, etc in order to be able to keep power.

The United States has provided excellent proof for this phenomenon. The fact that we have these so-called "leftist" organizations or "working class" organizations that started, or grew dramatically in size and scope, during the Cold War proves just this. These organizations are "leftist" enough to sway the moderate elements and stop consciousness and revolutionary fervor, but ineffective enough to prevent just that.

The Democratic Party, the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, The Decline of the IWW, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and so forth-- these things are a result of the State's willingness to cede a small amount of power to attain a Utilitarian Monopoly on Power. As such, we continue to be in stagnation because of this endless power of the state, and the Working class does not see the alternatives due to the size and scope of the influence of the state in everyday affairs.