2008 U.S. Elections

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Socialist candidates 2004

The purpose of this thread is stir discussion on the upcoming elections and what position we as socialist are looking to take. Whether it be an individual perspective on a certain candidate or party backing or whether it be a collective position on what direction we seek to take now and in the future.

A couple things to mention, there has been an emergence of newly formed working class groups and organizations since the last elections in 2004. Many have grown more organized, powerful, and perhaps have already established themselves as a growing political force in their local areas.

The same is applied to RevLeft, we have been around for a while now and as the years passed on many of us have obtained a better understanding and grasp for socialism and the socialist revolution.

The political climate is volatile right now in this country with the war on working immigrant families, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, a falling economy and so on. Let’s address the groups, organizations, or individuals who are looking to solve the problems facing us through a socialist perspective.

With a pathetically low turn out rate at the ballots for those who already hold power, are we ready to endorse or back a socialist to present ourselves as a growing movement of revolutionaries across the country? Or in other words, how can we apply the electoral process as a partial tool to achieving 21 century socialism?



Here (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf) is a .PDF version of the 2004 US elections.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

[Ismail]

The main problem I see with full-scale involvement in US politics is that later on a Socialist party can easily turn into one mainly concerned with getting votes. What I mean by that is the party would basically begin to moderate its policies, and would actually begin to focus candidates not on their intelligence or debating ability, but rather on their speaking ability or their moderate image. This is accelerated much more when they actually get seats in a legislative chamber. Look at Bernie Sanders, the "Democratic Socialist" (read: social democrat trying to look pseudo-radical) turned into a "left-wing" politician akin to Feingold, Kucinich, Layton (NDP, Canada) and so on.

Eugene V. Debs for example, when running in the early 1900's didn't concern himself with votes but with how many people actually joined the party. This is what a party needs to focus on at all times.

in short, Socialist party begins radical, turns revisionist, and then abandons Socialism altogether. In a period of economic decline worldwide, there is opportunity for a revolutionary movement with strong, Socialist political parties. But economic decline won't last forever, or at least the capitalists will do all they possibly can to reverse it. We saw this with Eurocommunism in the 1960's and 70's.

"Eurocommunism" is Anti-Communism - 1980, by Enver Hoxha (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm)

[piet11111]

who gives a damn about elections ?

democracy under capitalism is the biggest lie of the entire system and even though its painfully obvious to everyone with half a brain that its just a distraction somehow a lot of socialists still get sucked into the hype.

the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
however i suspect that a lot of "leftists" that do participate enjoy the spotlight so much that they dont hesitate to abandon their ideology for their moment of glory.

[RGacky3]

The only worthwhile thing for someone to vote in, is local issues, such as funding for a local park, or things like that. I think its great that Voting is massivly down in the US, hopefully that means that energy might be channeled through direct action, hopefully is not replaced by hopeless apathy. In the US, the only thing I can see working is direct action, meaning strikes, boycotts, civil-disobedience, and the such. I'm not saying Elections never have a place, in some countries, the electoral system at least gives some hope, such as certain places in Latin America.

[Davie zepeda]

fuck these candiate's i say we make are own who for the people and will not betray are idea's for wealth it is time for us to to take power from within like they do in are revolutions we must cause panic this is a good time to take hold a form a socialist society when the government is debt and really bad leadership Any man should be able to run for president why should only it be the prestige is there any man who will stand up from the crowd and face capital hill and reform it!

it is best for men when they take counsel to be timorous ans imagine all possible calamities but when the time for action comes then to deal boldy

[Comrade Rage]

"If elections changed anything, they'd be illegal."

But that said, I will be voting for:
WHIPLASH-The Taco John's cowboy monkey.

In 2004 I wound up voting for Kerry, but I really wanted to vote for Rocky Rococo!

[Sam_b]

the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.

But don't elections raise our visibility, bring our message across to a wider diaspora, and give working people at the polls a chance to register their dissatisfaction at the state?

[Enragé]

But don't elections raise our visibility, bring our message across to a wider diaspora, and give working people at the polls a chance to register their dissatisfaction at the state?


That

And, more importantly, whether or not we "lend credibility" to the state and the socalled democracy its built upon, the state will have power over us. A good example of this is how the CNT pretty much fucked itself in the elections previous to that won by the popular front by campaigning for people not to vote. The result was that a vehemently reactionary government took power and a lot of CNT people wound up in jail.
Later, the CNT realised its mistake and in the next elections told people to vote for some popular front party, thus putting the popular front in power and paving the way for revolution. Its quite ironic the rest of the anarchist movement hasnt learnt from this, especially since the spanish civil war/revolution is for them the same the october revolution is for leninists. THE anarchist revolution came about simply because the CNT let go of abstentionism! ;)

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:38 am
who gives a damn about elections ?


well, in the US, less then half the voting population

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:11 am

But don't elections raise our visibility, bring our message across to a wider diaspora, and give working people at the polls a chance to register their dissatisfaction at the state?


That

And, more importantly, whether or not we "lend credibility" to the state and the socalled democracy its built upon, the state will have power over us. A good example of this is how the CNT pretty much fucked itself in the elections previous to that won by the popular front by campaigning for people not to vote. The result was that a vehemently reactionary government took power and a lot of CNT people wound up in jail.
Later, the CNT realised its mistake and in the next elections told people to vote for some popular front party, thus putting the popular front in power and paving the way for revolution. Its quite ironic the rest of the anarchist movement hasnt learnt from this, especially since the spanish civil war/revolution is for them the same the october revolution is for leninists. THE anarchist revolution came about simply because the CNT let go of abstentionism! ;)
And interestingly enough it was that same bourgeois state that the CNT was apart of that crushed the revolution.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:20 am

the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.

But don't elections raise our visibility, bring our message across to a wider diaspora, and give working people at the polls a chance to register their dissatisfaction at the state?
The problem with this is that not only does it give legitimacy to the bourgeois state, but it helps to pacify the working class with the promise of reform. The problem is that the bourgeois state is just that, a state that serves the bourgeoisie's class interests, not those of the proletariat.

[davidasearles]

ComradeR wrote:

The problem with this is that not only does it give legitimacy to the bourgeois state, but it helps to pacify the working class with the promise of reform. The problem is that the bourgeois state is just that, a state that serves the bourgeoisie's class interests, not those of the proletariat.

Dave S. writes:

Voting for outright revolutionaries gives legitimacy to the bourgeois state but not contesting open elections does not give legitimacy to the bourgeois state? Think again. Every worker who does not politically oppose capitalism at the ballot box where that option is available is counted as vote in favor of capitalism whether you go to the polls or not.

"pacify the working class with the promise of reform"? Then become a candidate that does not promise reform.

"The problem is that the bourgeois state is just that, a state that serves the bourgeoisie's class interests, not those of the proletariat"

Then let us work on eliminating the political support that the working class currently lends to the state. Let us put revolution on the ballot to the extent that we are able to.

As your signature states: Fate is simply a future that you didn't try to change.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+October 27, 2007 04:21 am--> (Pawn Power @ October 27, 2007 04:21 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 10:38 am
who gives a damn about elections ?


well, in the US, less then half the voting population [/b]
Actually, last time I checked, it was only about 30%, and most of those voted for Bush, which means the smart ones already stopped voting.

[davidasearles]

piet11111 asked:

who gives a damn about elections ?

Pawn Power answered:

well, in the US, less then half the voting population

L2 also answered:

last time I checked, it was only about 30%

Dave S. comments:

Then it looks like fertile ground to run as a revolutionary. Develop a message that addresses the class struggle.

[ComradeR]

Then let us work on eliminating the political support that the working class currently lends to the state. Let us put revolution on the ballot to the extent that we are able to.
The problem is that in the US the system is designed to prevent that very thing from happening. It is set so that only way you can run (and be heard much less win) is to get the support of the ruling elite. Third parties are banned from most election debates, and must clear near impossible hurdle's just to get on the ballet and they have to do this in each state. The bourgeoisie control the media so unless you have their backing you wont be able to get your message out. This situation is very similar in the rest of the "first world" as well.

[davidasearles]

Dave S.:

let us work on eliminating the political support that the working class currently lends to the (bourgeois) state. Let us put revolution on the ballot to the extent that we are able to.

ComradeR:

The problem is that in the US the system is designed to prevent that very thing from happening.

Dave S.:

"The U.S. system" is used too much as an excuse. It's not the "system" its your family members and your neighbors - they are currently in favor of the continuation of bourgois dominance. And sadly many who are class conscouis thremselves tend to hide thrir light under a bushel when it comes to electoral politics - "oh the system is against us!" thereby acceding to bourgeois political dominance.

I THINK that 99% of the left could agree on the premises expressed in the proposed amendment - that would be out strength then - also it is a message that doesn't need a whole lot of explaining to it. We don't have to explain the materialist conception of history or even the labor theory of value. This is pretty much the IWW's one big union and the SLP's socialist industrial union all wrapped in one and ready to go, and it's a message that can carry across all mannetr of leftist organizations. Dare we think that it could be an idea that a significant part of the left could actually unite behind?

again I apologize for the spelling. My spell checker for some reason is gone.

[ComradeR]

"The U.S. system" is used too much as an excuse. It's not the "system" its your family members and your neighbors - they are currently in favor of the continuation of bourgois dominance. And sadly many who are class conscouis thremselves tend to hide thrir light under a bushel when it comes to electoral politics - "oh the system is against us!" thereby acceding to bourgeois political dominance.
Apparently you know nothing of how the bourgeois democracy in this country works, and you seem to have missed the rest of my post in which I gave a brief overview of it. Not to mention that the popular vote is worthless in bourgeois democracy, it is merely there to give legitimacy to the bourgeois state. They (the bourgeoisie) control both the election outcome and the media, it is virtually impossible to run, be heard, and win in a bourgeois election unless you are bourgeoisie and/or backed by one of the two bourgeois parties. Don't believe me? look at the way it works, look how leftist (even though they were reformists the point still stands) candidates have attempted to run in the past and they were virtually unheard of.

[LSD]

Let me tell you what will happn in 2008. A socialist candidate will run, he'll get on the ballot in a couple of states, he'll get a few thousand votes, and he'll make absolutely no impact.

Not because the "system" won't allow it; the "system", in theory anyway, should allow anyone to vote for anyone or anything. But because the people who vote aren't the ones who want revolution.

That's not "bad", mind you, that's inevitable. Revolutionary change and bourgeois politics are fundamentally antithetical, those who are drawn to the former usually can't help bu be repulsed by the latter. Even absent defined ideologies, the kind of people that are drawn to our message are not the kind of people that vote. They're the kind of people that realize that bourgeois elections don't do anything.

Revolutionaries can get elected to office, but when they do so it is as a product of a prior revolutionary movement; and its usually in countries where voting is a rare privilege, and not an established pleasantry as it is in America and most of the West.

There's no great change to be had from the capitalists' ballot box.

[davidasearles]

LSD wrote:

Not because the "system" won't allow it; the "system", in theory anyway, should allow anyone to vote for anyone or anything. But because the people who vote aren't the ones who want revolution.


dave writes:

Put an issue before the ones who don't vote, or the ones who currently vote against their interests that they will vote for.

LSD wrote:

Let me tell you what will happen in 2008. A socialist candidate will run, he'll get on the ballot in a couple of states, he'll get a few thousand votes, and he'll make absolutely no impact.

dave writes:

That would be a candidate for president if he or she got on the ballot in a few states. But the president is not in the process for amending the constitution. And yes the effect of such a candidacy would be right down there at about absolute zero. A socialist running for president without a socialist congress essentially says of the candidate that he or she is totally ignorant of the US political process and assumes that the voters are totally ignorant as well.

My proposal is that as many candidates who are able run for US Congressional seats to push the idea of the amendment proposal. We should not represent that we, if elected, could better run the bourgeois state than the current crop of incumbents. We should state that we are running to put the economic solution of the class struggle in front of the workers. The candidate should state that if elected the candidates primary responsibility would be to put the amendment proposal on the floor of the house, and if the amendment is defeated that the candiate will spend the rest if his or her term stumping the country agitating for popular support of the amendment for the next congress to attempt it again.

LSD wrote:

There's no great change to be had from the capitalists' ballot box.

dave writes:

such statements are counter productive. No one is suggesting that simply by voting for candidates who espouse revolution that any great change (or any change) shall ensue. That does not mean that the electoral process cannot be used to put forth a political demand for the abolition of bourgeois ownership of the means of production and distribution.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:38 am
who gives a damn about elections ?

democracy under capitalism is the biggest lie of the entire system and even though its painfully obvious to everyone with half a brain that its just a distraction somehow a lot of socialists still get sucked into the hype.

the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
however i suspect that a lot of "leftists" that do participate enjoy the spotlight so much that they dont hesitate to abandon their ideology for their moment of glory.
I have never voted and I never intend to, simply because elections are pointless and the "leftists" who participate end up advocating in bourgeois interest since they'd rather have one moment of fame than actually attempt to fight against capitalism. Voting doesn't change anything, if it did it wouldn't be allowed.

"Democracy" in capitalist society is indeed a lie-- it's bourgeois democracy.

Therefore, voting won't make a difference.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 pm
the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

Do you think the American left is really so important?

Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 29, 2007 09:19 am--> (Luís Henrique @ October 29, 2007 09:19 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 pm
the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

Do you think the American left is really so important?

Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

Luís Henrique [/b]
I think the point being made is that instead of working with the electoral system, capitalism needs to be fought outside of the polls with significant force.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+October 29, 2007 02:21 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ October 29, 2007 02:21 pm)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 29, 2007 09:19 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 pm
the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

Do you think the American left is really so important?

Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

Luís Henrique
I think the point being made is that instead of working with the electoral system, capitalism needs to be fought outside of the polls with significant force. [/b]
And how do you do that in a country where the majority of the population believes the electoral system is fine and good?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 29, 2007 10:25 am--> (Luís Henrique @ October 29, 2007 10:25 am)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 02:21 pm

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 29, 2007 09:19 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 pm
the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

Do you think the American left is really so important?

Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

Luís Henrique
I think the point being made is that instead of working with the electoral system, capitalism needs to be fought outside of the polls with significant force.
And how do you do that in a country where the majority of the population believes the electoral system is fine and good?

Luís Henrique [/b]
there needs to be a vanguard to bring about class consciousness so that the bourgeois state can be overthrown and a worker's state can be formed.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29, 2007 04:45 pm
there needs to be a vanguard to bring about class consciousness so that the bourgeois state can be overthrown and a worker's state can be formed.
And where is this vanguard going to come from?

Luís Henrique

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda proclaims:

there needs to be a vanguard to bring about class consciousness so that the bourgeois state can be overthrown and a worker's state can be formed.

dave answers:

Nadezhda, I just don't agree to things simple because someone proclaims it. Never have and never will. Needs to be a vanguard, my Aunt Tillie! Why, because you say so?

A vanguard to bring about class consciousness? How is it that the bourgeoisie can be so class conscious without a vanguard but the workers apparently, according to you, need one?

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 29, 2007 02:19 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 29, 2007 02:19 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 pm
the left should refuse to lend credibility by not participating in this circus.
Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

Do you think the American left is really so important?

Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

Luís Henrique [/b]

Do you really think that the participation of the left lends any credibility to it?

has the promise "vote for us and we will make a difference" ever not been uttered by the "left" that participates in these fake elections ?
if those party's say they can make a difference they are essentially saying that the capitalist democracy functions as advertised.


Do you think the American left is really so important?

someone has to tell the truth.


Do you think the left not participating in "this circus" will make it a nanoounce less credible?

yes aslong as they manage to tell the poeple why they refuse to participate in the lies.

[davidasearles]

piet wrote:

has the promise "vote for us and we will make a difference" ever not been uttered by the "left" that participates in these fake elections ?
if those party's say they can make a difference they are essentially saying that the capitalist democracy functions as advertised.

dave s. writes:

In the current situation those who say vote for us and we will make a difference I would say would be disqualified from being considered "left" in the first place.

But Piet you have not considered the ramifications of the amendment proposal.

# 1. It appears that you might agree that the legality of private ownership of the means of production and distribution ought to be abolished.

# 2. It also appears that you might agree that a massive political consensus would have to develop before the present legality can seriously be challenged.

Shouldn't the left make non-reformist political demands upon the bourgeois state?

[Labor Shall Rule]

They could make non-reformist demands, but considering that our electoral system disenfranchises voters that would press against the interests of the ruling class, and that the media portrays the winner over their news stations and papers anyway, it would be virtually impossible to push for some sort of 'radical' program.

David, you commonly use involvement in parliamentarian bodies as the only means to an end, but that simply will not be the case. The Bolsheviks involved themselves in the Duma elections, though however unfair or corrupt they might of been, but were faced with harassment; their officers were burnt to the ground, their agitators were shot. The party had to use armed resistance, and other tools to continue pressing their demands, which filled in the void for 'legally' abolishing private ownership.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:11 am
has the promise "vote for us and we will make a difference" ever not been uttered by the "left" that participates in these fake elections ?
if those party's say they can make a difference they are essentially saying that the capitalist democracy functions as advertised.
How about participating in the elections without saying "we will make a difference"? What about participating exactly to show that the limits imposed by the bourgeois State make it impossible to make a difference?


someone has to tell the truth.

And do we know the truth, so that we can tell it? See, this is an inextricably vanguardist position...



yes aslong as they manage to tell the poeple why they refuse to participate in the lies.

But it rather seems that they aren't able to do that, isn't it? So perhaps we should consider the hypothesis that not participating in the elections is also a way to legitimate them?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 30, 2007 10:50 am
They could make non-reformist demands, but considering that our electoral system disenfranchises voters that would press against the interests of the ruling class, and that the media portrays the winner over their news stations and papers anyway, it would be virtually impossible to push for some sort of 'radical' program.
So, if it is difficult, we shouldn't even try?

Why are we talking about revolution, then?


David, you commonly use involvement in parliamentarian bodies as the only means to an end, but that simply will not be the case. The Bolsheviks involved themselves in the Duma elections, though however unfair or corrupt they might of been, but were faced with harassment; their officers were burnt to the ground, their agitators were shot. The party had to use armed resistance, and other tools to continue pressing their demands, which filled in the void for 'legally' abolishing private ownership.

Because they poised a serious threat to the Czarist State. The American left is no threat against anyone, and seems to make a point of becoming increasingly inoffencive.

Luís Henrique

[ComradeR]

A revolution through the ballot box in a country like the US would require not only a leftist candidate getting elected to office, it would require that enough leftists be elected in order to make a majority in the congress and senate in the most powerful imperial nation in the world. This is truly impossible, largely in part due to the labor aristocracy and to things like the way the education system is set up, the fact that the bourgeoisie completely control the media, hurdles that are in place to help prevent third parties from having any chance, and the heavy amount of bourgeois propaganda the US working class is subjected to. We can and in all reality should run candidates to try and get our message out and attempt to show what a farce bourgeois democracy is but getting elected is impossible.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:38 pm
Nadezhda proclaims:

there needs to be a vanguard to bring about class consciousness so that the bourgeois state can be overthrown and a worker's state can be formed.

dave answers:

Nadezhda, I just don't agree to things simple because someone proclaims it. Never have and never will. Needs to be a vanguard, my Aunt Tillie! Why, because you say so?

A vanguard to bring about class consciousness? How is it that the bourgeoisie can be so class conscious without a vanguard but the workers apparently, according to you, need one?

In regard to your first remark--
It seems to be that you have little understanding for why revolutionary movement is necessary in the first place and why there is any need for eliminating the bourgeois state-- therefore I suggest you gain an understanding for that before you attempt to argue against revolutionary movement, the vanguard, seizure of state power and the such.

Secondly--
You seem to be implying that the working-class has the ability to make an impact through elections and therefore not only is the forming of class-consciousness unnecessary, but so is the organization of a vanguard and the violent overthrow of the state apparatus controlled by the bourgeoisie-- that in itself represents your misunderstanding for not only the conditions which are existent and therefore prevent the proletariat from making such an impact through the electoral system-- but that these conditions cause them to be subordinate to the ruling class and the bourgeois state which has been set up to serve in the ruling class's interest. Therefore, it seems to be fair to say that not only is it true that the proletariat cannot gain power through elections, but it is also true that: 1.) there is necessity for revolutionary movement ; 2.) this revolutionary movement must be properly organized to succeed-- a logical conclusion based on historical situations; and 3.) therefore-- the bourgeois state must be overthrown by violent means and the ruling class (bourgeoisie) eliminated so that it cannot seek to regain power of the state apparatus).


A revolution through the ballot box in a country like the US would require not only a leftist candidate getting elected to office, it would require that enough leftists be elected in order to make a majority in the congress and senate in the most powerful imperial nation in the world. This is truly impossible, largely in part due to the labor aristocracy and to things like the way the education system is set up, the fact that the bourgeoisie completely control the media, hurdles that are in place to help prevent third parties from having any chance, and the heavy amount of bourgeois propaganda the US working class is subjected to. We can and in all reality should run candidates to try and get our message out and attempt to show what a farce bourgeois democracy is but getting elected is impossible.
Yes, the conditions existent under bourgeois democracy prevent a "revolution through the polls" from being by any means possible.

[fredbergen]

I like bourgeois elections because they unfailingly show us which "socialists" are really opportunist pop-frontists. Electoral "left" blocs are propaganda blocs, where opportunists compromise on their program with each other and with bourgeois politicians to seek electoral success.

[davidasearles]

see repost next

[davidasearles]

LSR:

(The left) could make non-reformist demands, but considering that our electoral system disenfranchises voters that would press against the interests of the ruling class, and that the media portrays the winner over their news stations and papers anyway, it would be virtually impossible to push for some sort of 'radical' program.

Dave S.

Oh please. You just throw out any negative that you can come upwith and that just proves why the left shouldn't even bother trying. Why don't you re-think it and try again. Is that what you joined the movement for, to give up so easily, and to encourage others to give up so easily?

[davidasearles]

LH quotes someone who apparently is referring to ms (DS):

"David, you commonly use involvement in parliamentarian bodies as the only means to an end"

Dave S. responds:

Show just one specific example of where I have done this.

[davidasearles]

dave wrote to CN:

Nadezhda, I just don't agree to things simple because someone proclaims it. Never have and never will. Needs to be a vanguard, my Aunt Tillie! Why, because you say so?

CN answers:

It seems to be that you have little understanding for why revolutionary movement is necessary in the first place and why there is any need for eliminating the bourgeois state--

dave s. answers:

Rather it seems that I do not agree with you and that you do not agree with me. Analysis by proclamation seems to be very saitifying to you becuase you do it so often and little else. I simply do not buy into it. As I say, never have and never will.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A socialist candidate could partition for reforms to improve the system [decentralize public goods, socialize education, democratize corporations], but he or she would have to insist that socialism can't be made possible from above.

[davidasearles]

CN writes to Dave about the amendment proposal:

You seem to be implying that the working-class has the ability to make an impact through elections

dave s. responds:

I am stating that the election process affords revolutionary candidates a forum from which a candiate may recieve public recognition not otherwise easliy available. I am stating that the election process provides a possible avenue by which workers can register their agreement (or disagreement) to the amanedment proposal. I am suggesting that becuase of these arguments and others that the elctoral process is ONE METHOD by which to publicly agitate for worker control of the means of production and distribution. I do happen to belive that it is the best method, but you may be able to suggest others just as good - but from your many posts I have not seen even one.

[davidasearles]

GC writes:

A socialist candidate could (petition) for reforms to improve the system [decentralize public goods, socialize education, democratize corporations], but he or she would have to insist that socialism can't be made possible from above.

Dave S. writes:

Yes some belive that petitioning for reforms is an effective method by which to raise class conscousness. In general I leave that to others so motivated. With the amendment proposal I am trying to focus on eliminating exploitation through private control of the means of production and distribution and to have recognized a legal right for the workers to democratically operate same for the workers.

[ComradeR]

With the amendment proposal I am trying to focus on eliminating exploitation through private control of the means of production and distribution and to have recognized a legal right for the workers to democratically operate same for the workers.
An amendment like that is impossible, like I said before it would require a leftist majority in both the congress and senate, and also as I stated before the bourgeoisie have everything in place to prevent something like this from happening. The workers have no real power in bourgeois democracy.

[davidasearles]

The old "it can't be done because it's impossible" routine. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Please tell me specifically what I am proposing that cannot be done.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:05 am
The old "it can't be done because it's impossible" routine. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Please tell me specifically what I am proposing that cannot be done.
You appear to be proposing that we can get a socialist amendment passed by running on a platform built on that amendment, you seem to be ignoring the fact that it would require a leftist majority getting elected into both the congress and senate even though the very nature of the bourgeois state ensures that this can't happen, especially in a nation like the US.

[Labor Shall Rule]

My point isn't that we shouldn't even 'try', but that participation in parliament only takes us so far, considering that it is controlled by the capitalists, and they don't sit on their asses while their private property is being abolished.

I would love to say, "lets just keep electing guys and making laws that will change everything," but the political situation will most likely change.

If history has proven anything, it is that progressive and workers' movements can only go so far. There has been coup d'etats, military covert actions, fascist uprisings, and so on. Most often, it has placed bourgeois democrats on the side of armed fascists, which would lead to a crucial point in the class struggle in which the working class must choose to appropriate the means of production and destroy the state, or continue to work within it, which would lead to certain defeat.

It is unmaterialist to recognize electoral democracy as a win-all tool for seizing power.

[davidasearles]

Dave S. writes:

Please tell me specifically what I am proposing that cannot be done.

CR answers:

You appear to be proposing that we can get a socialist amendment passed by running on a platform built on that amendment.

Dave S. writes:

Close but not quite.

I am suggesting that the the proposed amendment be used as a political demand. I make no representation whatsoever that we can get it passed. Ought we TRY to get is passed? Yes.

CR writes:

you seem to be ignoring the fact that it would require a leftist majority getting elected into both the congress and senate

Dave S. writes:

We don't need to elect a majority in either house to make the effort do we?

CR writes:

the very nature of the bourgeois state ensures that this can't happen

Dave S. writes:

My god you talk about the BOURGEOIS STATE as if it has a magical spell that protects it. Whhooooooo!!! Well I guess you're allowed, this is Halloween.

[davidasearles]

LSR wrote of the amendment proposal:

My point isn't that we shouldn't even 'try'

Dave S. writes:

Then you do favor giving it a try?

LSR wrote:

participation in parliament only takes us so far

Dave S. writes:

Mine is a proposal of very limited participation in congress unless and until the amendment passes. Until then (unless the revolution occurs before that) there will be private control of the means of production and distribution and the workers will still be slaves.

Also please read the amendment proposal closely. The amendment is to establish a legal right of the workers to organize in the industries to implement industrial democracy - but only the workers can actually implement industrial democracy, not the political state.

LSR wrote:

the working class must choose to appropriate the means of production and destroy the state

Dave S. writes:

Yes call it appropriation or claiming the right to alter the basis of society through the constitution. But "destoy the state"? That's just a bunch or romantic crap.

Lenin talked about it in Revolution and the State. the state as a special appartus is going to be surplanted by armed crowds that will, in his example, subdue people who accost women. Geez the state seemed to linger on after the revoution didn't it?

Who do you think should patrol the public highways against speeders and drunks? Armed crowds? Or won't we have such problems under socialism? I think that it is safe to say that in fact there shall be and should be a state after the revolution, but a state as the political expression of the people minus bourgeious control and minus even bourgeious existence .

[ComradeR]

I am suggesting that the the proposed amendment be used as a political demand. I make no representation whatsoever that we can get it passed. Ought we TRY to get is passed? Yes.
I don't disagree with the idea of using an election campaign in certain instances to try and help get our message out in addition to working in other ways of organizing our fellow workers. But we shouldn't have any delusions of grander of making a revolution through the ballot box, and getting an amendment passed which directly conflicts with the bourgeoisies interests like this is impossible in an imperial nation like the US. The only way we can make the DotP a reality is through revolution.

We don't need to elect a majority in either house to make the effort do we?
Of course not, we should use everything we have avalible to us to organize the proletariat. But we would need a majority in order to get an amendment like that passed.

My god you talk about the BOURGEOIS STATE as if it has a magical spell that protects it. Whhooooooo!!! Well I guess you're allowed, this is Halloween.
Please, strawmen like this serve no purpose other then to make yourself look like a fool.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by davidasearles
Rather it seems that I do not agree with you and that you do not agree with me. Analysis by proclamation seems to be very saitifying to you becuase you do it so often and little else. I simply do not buy into it. As I say, never have and never will.
You completely missed the point of my entire post. :huh:


CN writes to Dave about the amendment proposal:

You seem to be implying that the working-class has the ability to make an impact through elections

dave s. responds:

I am stating that the election process affords revolutionary candidates a forum from which a candiate may recieve public recognition not otherwise easliy available. I am stating that the election process provides a possible avenue by which workers can register their agreement (or disagreement) to the amanedment proposal. I am suggesting that becuase of these arguments and others that the elctoral process is ONE METHOD by which to publicly agitate for worker control of the means of production and distribution. I do happen to belive that it is the best method, but you may be able to suggest others just as good - but from your many posts I have not seen even one.
Your argument suggests not only a misunderstanding for the bourgeois state and its power-- but a misunderstanding for revolutionary theory, practice and movement in general.

I am arguing the the opposite of what you propose must be done--
and that is to organize an oppositional force to the bourgeois state for the purpose of overthrowing it and seizing power. I argue for this because I acknowledge the fact that what you are suggesting can only bring about "reform" if anything at all-- and that it is necessary to eliminate all the forces which bring exploitation and subordination about in the first place-- ex. the bourgeoisie's CONTROL of the STATE APPARATUS you can't possibly eliminate capitalism without removing the forces which give the ruling class its power. Therefore, overthrowing it through violent means IS necessary to attain such ends-- ex. the formation of the worker's state.


An amendment like that is impossible, like I said before it would require a leftist majority in both the congress and senate, and also as I stated before the bourgeoisie have everything in place to prevent something like this from happening. The workers have no real power in bourgeois democracy.
Exactly!


You appear to be proposing that we can get a socialist amendment passed by running on a platform built on that amendment, you seem to be ignoring the fact that it would require a leftist majority getting elected into both the congress and senate even though the very nature of the bourgeois state ensures that this can't happen, especially in a nation like the US.
^ The point I have been trying to address with the last few posts I have made.


My point isn't that we shouldn't even 'try', but that participation in parliament only takes us so far, considering that it is controlled by the capitalists, and they don't sit on their asses while their private property is being abolished.

I would love to say, "lets just keep electing guys and making laws that will change everything," but the political situation will most likely change.

If history has proven anything, it is that progressive and workers' movements can only go so far. There has been coup d'etats, military covert actions, fascist uprisings, and so on. Most often, it has placed bourgeois democrats on the side of armed fascists, which would lead to a crucial point in the class struggle in which the working class must choose to appropriate the means of production and destroy the state, or continue to work within it, which would lead to certain defeat.

It is unmaterialist to recognize electoral democracy as a win-all tool for seizing power.
Yes-- there is reason why significant FORCE must be used to eliminate the bourgeois state and why simply "reforming" capitalism cannot possibly lead to the attainment of the same result-- because you haven't eliminated the cause of the exploitation in the FIRST place.

davidasearles--
what you are arguing for has been proven to be impossible-- I suggest you read up on what is being argued for against your reformist ideas-- because what my fellow comrades and I are speaking of is proven through many years of revolutionary theory, practice and movement-- this is not something you can deny with a simple argument in regards to reforming capitalism electorally.

I find it quite pointless to attempt to explain my arguments (and the arguments of my fellow comrades) any further since you are completely ignorant to the point in the first place, therefore I refuse to waste any more of my time on this matter.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:30 pm
My god you talk about the BOURGEOIS STATE as if it has a magical spell that protects it. Whhooooooo!!! Well I guess you're allowed, this is Halloween.
No need for "spells" when one has the monopoly on coercive force in the form of a police force and an army.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 31, 2007 10:55 am--> (Jazzratt @ October 31, 2007 10:55 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 12:30 pm
My god you talk about the BOURGEOIS STATE as if it has a magical spell that protects it. Whhooooooo!!! Well I guess you're allowed, this is Halloween.
No need for "spells" when one has the monopoly on coercive force in the form of a police force and an army. [/b]
Exactly!

davidasearles--
your argument is based upon complete ignorance.

[davidasearles]

Jazzrat wrote and CN seconds the motion that:

No need for "spells" (to protect the state) when one has the monopoly on coercive force in the form of a police force and an army.

Dave writes:

Oh dear or dear, we must never say or do anything that would not be in the interests of those in "control" of the state aparatus!! Get under your blankies boys and girls!!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:27 am
Jazzrat wrote and CN seconds the motion that:

No need for "spells" (to protect the state) when one has the monopoly on coercive force in the form of a police force and an army.

Dave writes:

Oh dear or dear, we must never say or do anything that would not be in the interests of those in "control" of the state aparatus!! Get under your blankies boys and girls!!
get a reality check-- you act as though you live in some sort of fairy tale :rolleyes:

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:56 pm
LSR wrote of the amendment proposal:

My point isn't that we shouldn't even 'try'

Dave S. writes:

Then you do favor giving it a try?

LSR wrote:

participation in parliament only takes us so far

Dave S. writes:

Mine is a proposal of very limited participation in congress unless and until the amendment passes. Until then (unless the revolution occurs before that) there will be private control of the means of production and distribution and the workers will still be slaves.

Also please read the amendment proposal closely. The amendment is to establish a legal right of the workers to organize in the industries to implement industrial democracy - but only the workers can actually implement industrial democracy, not the political state.

LSR wrote:

the working class must choose to appropriate the means of production and destroy the state

Dave S. writes:

Yes call it appropriation or claiming the right to alter the basis of society through the constitution. But "destoy the state"? That's just a bunch or romantic crap.

Lenin talked about it in Revolution and the State. the state as a special appartus is going to be surplanted by armed crowds that will, in his example, subdue people who accost women. Geez the state seemed to linger on after the revoution didn't it?

Who do you think should patrol the public highways against speeders and drunks? Armed crowds? Or won't we have such problems under socialism? I think that it is safe to say that in fact there shall be and should be a state after the revolution, but a state as the political expression of the people minus bourgeious control and minus even bourgeious existence .
I am in favor of pressing our demands peacefully until we arrive at a moment in which the ruling class quits voting and starts shooting at us. Lenin said that this was a strategy of "caution, caution, caution."

To establish a 'legal right' to remove the holistic privileges of the capitalists would be a blasphemy, and there would most likely be a backlash. I am not one to make predictions, but if we were to accept the historical materialist view that the state is a photocopy of the economic forces that exist in society, then we would have to come to the conclusion that the bourgeois state would react to such an action.

As for this 'romantic crap,' the only one that is spewing anything of that sort is you. It is seen as inciting class warfare whenever a politician even mentions 'increased spending of health insurance,' 'the creation of public housing blocks,' 'increasing wages for teachers and school employees in the public sector,' and it brings forth the utmost hostility through attacks in the media and in the streets itself.

If their class' social position is attacked, they will react, and if they can't propagandize and deceive the public into legally reversing any negative changes, then they will use other means. If the lessons of 'state and revolution' has teached us anything in the past few decades, it is that this is an historical situation that has repeated itself again and again. As for 'who would patrol the highways,' it would be elected armed workers from the local area with the authority to pull others over. You do not need a bureaucracy to continue such functions.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 31, 2007 02:41 pm
I am in favor of pressing our demands peacefully until we arrive at a moment in which the ruling class quits voting and starts shooting at us. Lenin said that this was a strategy of "caution, caution, caution."
Yes, exactly.

I'm not arguing against the such, either. I am simply arguing that there comes a time when it becomes necessary to use violent force.


To establish a 'legal right' to remove the holistic privileges of the capitalists would be a blasphemy, and there would most likely be a backlash. I am not one to make predictions, but if we were to accept the historical materialist view that the state is a photocopy of the economic forces that exist in society, then we would have to come to the conclusion that the bourgeois state would react to such an action.
Yes, exactly why there is eventually need to use force against it-- it cannot be denied that the bourgeois state will at some point react to revolutionary movement-- it will seek to defend the interests of the ruling class which its power is dominated.


As for this 'romantic crap,' the only one that is spewing anything of that sort is you. It is seen as inciting class warfare whenever a politician even mentions 'increased spending of health insurance,' 'the creation of public housing blocks,' 'increasing wages for teachers and school employees in the public sector,' and it brings forth the utmost hostility through attacks in the media and in the streets itself.
Yes, creating the need for defense against counterrevolutionary movement.


If their class' social position is attacked, they will react, and if they can't propagandize and deceive the public into legally reversing any negative changes, then they will use other means. If the lessons of 'state and revolution' has teached us anything in the past few decades, it is that this is an historical situation that has repeated itself again and again. As for 'who would patrol the highways,' it would be elected armed workers from the local area with the authority to pull others over. You do not need a bureaucracy to continue such functions.
I agree with you up the last point-- when revolutionary movement is not organized properly and the same goes for armies-- you need organization-- proper organization-- otherwise it is impossible to eliminate all threats-- especially threats appearing from within your movement-- creating the necessity for a vanguard and also an army which is formed by the vanguard-- carefully selected-- so that it does not become a threat to your movement.

[davidasearles]

LSR:

I am in favor of pressing our demands peacefully until we arrive at a moment in which the ruling class quits voting and starts shooting at us.

CN:

I'm not arguing against the such, either. I am simply arguing that there comes a time when it becomes necessary to use violent force.

Dave writes:

Then you both agree that the constitutional means through the electoral process ought to be pursued, at least for the time being?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:27 pm
Jazzrat wrote and CN seconds the motion that:

No need for "spells" (to protect the state) when one has the monopoly on coercive force in the form of a police force and an army.
Do you have brain damage?



Dave writes:

Oh dear or dear, we must never say or do anything that would not be in the interests of those in "control" of the state aparatus!! Get under your blankies boys and girls!!

Clearly, you do [have brain damage]. If that is what you inferred from what I wrote I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Simply recognising that the bourgeois state could easily crush any nascent revolutionary movement within seconds thanks to its ready access to massive amounts of force does not imply that we should bow down to them fawningly. Given that you seem sceptical (to say the least) of armed/violent revolution I don't think you're in a position to paint us as fearful of the state and its protective mechanisms.

[davidasearles]

JR asked Dave Searles:

Do you have brain damage?

Dave answers:

As a matter of fact I do.

JR:

the bourgeois state could easily crush any nascent revolutionary movement within seconds thanks to its ready access to massive amounts of force

Dave S. answers:

And yet here we are in an open forum which anyone can read discussing how the workers cold move to take over the means of production and distribution.

JR:

does not imply that we should bow down to them fawningly.

Dave S. asks:

Is there some reason that you can't bring yourself to use your real name in this forum? Are you afraid that the bourgios state will crush your nascent little self with massive amounts of force, or is it that you are afraid that mommy and daddy will cut off your tuition? :-)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:58 pm
JR asked Dave Searles:

Do you have brain damage?

Dave answers:

As a matter of fact I do.
Explains a lot. Like how you can't fathom our quote function.


And yet here we are in an open forum which anyone can read discussing how the workers cold move to take over the means of production and distribution.

Yeah, that's all well and good but you try initiating some actual action, you'll soon leanr the realities when you're on a picket line or marching down the street surrounded by pigs.


Is there some reason that you can't bring yourself to use your real name in this forum?

I've noticed that there are a number of people, like yourself, who use their real names on this kind of forum. For the most part they're insufferable wankers and I therefore choose to act in a way that distances me from you and your ilk. Also fascist groups love trawling through this website looking for people's details, so I'm not about to make their jobs easier.


Are you afraid that the bourgios state will crush your nascent little self with massive amounts of force, or is it that you are afraid that mommy and daddy will cut off your tuition? :-)

The security culture passed you by didn't it, but then again your on the part of the left that thinks the capitalist shitrag (constitution) means anything to a real workers movement.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:32 pm
Then you both agree that the constitutional means through the electoral process ought to be pursued, at least for the time being?
No, I never argued for the use of the electoral system-- you are once again disregarding my entire argument which I explained in my post-- are you completely ignorant to this or do you just have very little mental capacities?? :blink:
I was simply arguing that revolution doesn't always require violence but that it becomes necessary at a certain point-- which you fail to realize-- I was not arguing in favor of the electoral system-- I was arguing against it-- in favor of revolutionary movement with OR without violent force.


Do you have brain damage?
I should ask the same question-- it as if you cannot understand and are not capable of such an understanding-- with the idiotic remarks you make and the ideas you represent-- leading me and my fellow comrades to conclude that you seem to have brain damage. :huh:

[davidasearles]

So then CN I take it that you are not in favor of utilizing the election process whatsoever to gauge worker support for your ideas. Does this mean that you haveno faith in your ability to convince workers to support your ideas (whatever in the world they may be)?

No wonder you talk about having to form an armed "vangaurd".

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:22 am
So then CN I take it that you are not in favor of utilizing the election process whatsoever to gauge worker support for your ideas. Does this mean that you haveno faith in your ability to convince workers to support your ideas (whatever in the world they may be)?

No wonder you talk about having to form an armed "vangaurd".
There is more than one way to show support for something than marking a piece of paper and throwing it in a box. In fact, voting is probably literally the least someone can do to support something.

[davidasearles]

Dave had writtento CN:

So then CN I take it that you are not in favor of utilizing the election process whatsoever to gauge worker support for your ideas. Does this mean that you haveno faith in your ability to convince workers to support your ideas (whatever in the world they may be)?

No wonder you talk about having to form an armed "vangaurd".

And then CS wrote:

There is more than one way to show support for something than marking a piece of paper and throwing it in a box. In fact, voting is probably literally the least someone can do to support something.

Dave S. replies:

Sure there is. But there is a certain element that must avoid the measure offered by the ballot box becuase they can't bear to believe that they have no support from the workers and never have any hope to garner worker support.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

So then CN I take it that you are not in favor of utilizing the election process whatsoever to gauge worker support for your ideas. Does this mean that you haveno faith in your ability to convince workers to support your ideas (whatever in the world they may be)?

No wonder you talk about having to form an armed "vangaurd".
It has nothing to do with that.

It is simply based upon my acknowledgement that nothing can be changed from within the bourgeois electoral system-- and that no class consciousness can be formed from the such.


There is more than one way to show support for something than marking a piece of paper and throwing it in a box. In fact, voting is probably literally the least someone can do to support something.
Exactly my point.


Dave had writtento CN:

So then CN I take it that you are not in favor of utilizing the election process whatsoever to gauge worker support for your ideas. Does this mean that you haveno faith in your ability to convince workers to support your ideas (whatever in the world they may be)?

No wonder you talk about having to form an armed "vangaurd".

And then CS wrote:

There is more than one way to show support for something than marking a piece of paper and throwing it in a box. In fact, voting is probably literally the least someone can do to support something.

Dave S. replies:

Sure there is. But there is a certain element that must avoid the measure offered by the ballot box becuase they can't bear to believe that they have no support from the workers and never have any hope to garner worker support.
That is absolute bullshit. You are so full of ignorance I can't even justify wasting my time responding to your pointless arguments.

Are you just too ignorant to acknowledge that it is impossible (and history proves this) to a.) create class consciousness through campaigning for elections and b.) to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally because you think revolutionary movement is "abandoning the political arena"?? :blink:

Get a grip on reality before trying to have a proper debate.

[piet11111]

just ignore davidasearles he is up to his neck in reformist bullshit and he is obviously comfortable being that way.

[ComradeR]

Davidasearles I have some questions for you, do you know what imperialism and the labor aristocracy is? The vanguard? The state and it's purpose? How about the nature of bourgeois democracy?
We cannot succeed in bringing about the DotP through the ballot box. While we can use limited participation in bourgeois democracy in certain instances, our real efforts must be in participating in working class struggles and getting our message out via papers and any other methods we can to spread class consciousness and organize our fellow workers. But as long as imperialism remains strong our movement in the imperial nations is going to remain a fringe one.

[davidasearles]

CR:

... we can use limited participation in bourgeois democracy in certain instances, our real efforts must be in participating in working class struggles and getting our message out via papers and any other methods we can to spread class consciousness and organize our fellow workers.

dave S.:

Which is all very arbitrary on your part to determine the parameters of. Essentially it goes, we have heretofore not attempted to put our goal forth before the workers as a political demand, therefore there must be something very suspect about that process.

That is if you had a specific goal that actually included worker democracy.

[davidasearles]

Dave S. writes:

Ah the excellence of analysis!! These are the people who are going to "spread class consciousness" to people who live by their labor.

Piet wrote:

just ignore davidasearles he is up to his neck in reformist bullshit and he is obviously comfortable being that way.

and CN wrote:

That is absolute bullshit. You are so full of ignorance I can't even justify wasting my time responding to your pointless arguments.

[davidasearles]

CN continues in her most excellent rant to Dave S.:

Are you just too ignorant to acknowledge that it is impossible (and history proves this) to a.) create class consciousness through campaigning for elections and b.) to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally because you think revolutionary movement is "abandoning the political arena"??

Dave S. writes:

a.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to create class consciousness through campaigning for elections"??

Apart from the word "create" for which I would substitute encourage or promote, I do believe that I must have missed that proof in my history lessons.

b.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally"??

I think that history shows that it is possible to attempt to reform capitalism electorally. That's something to be avoided isn't it? To try not to allow whatever your movement is to become derailed by attempting to reform capitalism electorally or through any means.

Of course you will scream to the high heavens that I am, but if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:52 pm
CN continues in her most excellent rant to Dave S.:

Are you just too ignorant to acknowledge that it is impossible (and history proves this) to a.) create class consciousness through campaigning for elections and b.) to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally because you think revolutionary movement is "abandoning the political arena"??

Dave S. writes:

a.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to create class consciousness through campaigning for elections"??

Apart from the word "create" for which I would substitute encourage or promote, I do believe that I must have missed that proof in my history lessons.

b.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally"??

I think that history shows that it is possible to attempt to reform capitalism electorally. That's something to be avoided isn't it? To try not to allow whatever your movement is to become derailed by attempting to reform capitalism electorally or through any means.

Of course you will scream to the high heavens that I am, but if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.
Wasn't Hugo Chavez elected? I am not saying that he is the solution, but he shows that an electoral process can be used to reform capitalism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 05:12 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 05:12 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 09:52 pm
CN continues in her most excellent rant to Dave S.:

Are you just too ignorant to acknowledge that it is impossible (and history proves this) to a.) create class consciousness through campaigning for elections and b.) to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally because you think revolutionary movement is "abandoning the political arena"??

Dave S. writes:

a.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to create class consciousness through campaigning for elections"??

Apart from the word "create" for which I would substitute encourage or promote, I do believe that I must have missed that proof in my history lessons.

b.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally"??

I think that history shows that it is possible to attempt to reform capitalism electorally. That's something to be avoided isn't it? To try not to allow whatever your movement is to become derailed by attempting to reform capitalism electorally or through any means.

Of course you will scream to the high heavens that I am, but if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.
Wasn't Hugo Chavez elected? I am not saying that he is the solution, but he shows that an electoral process can be used to reform capitalism. [/b]
The point isn't to reform it-- the point is to ELIMINATE it!

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 01, 2007 05:36 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 01, 2007 05:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:12 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 09:52 pm
CN continues in her most excellent rant to Dave S.:

Are you just too ignorant to acknowledge that it is impossible (and history proves this) to a.) create class consciousness through campaigning for elections and b.) to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally because you think revolutionary movement is "abandoning the political arena"??

Dave S. writes:

a.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to create class consciousness through campaigning for elections"??

Apart from the word "create" for which I would substitute encourage or promote, I do believe that I must have missed that proof in my history lessons.

b.) "History proves" "that it is impossible to attempt to "reform" capitalism electorally"??

I think that history shows that it is possible to attempt to reform capitalism electorally. That's something to be avoided isn't it? To try not to allow whatever your movement is to become derailed by attempting to reform capitalism electorally or through any means.

Of course you will scream to the high heavens that I am, but if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.
Wasn't Hugo Chavez elected? I am not saying that he is the solution, but he shows that an electoral process can be used to reform capitalism.
The point isn't to reform it-- the point is to ELIMINATE it! [/b]
Reforming capitalism, and thus making it more palatable to the working class is counter-productive to our revolutionary goals, David Searles.

Look at the history of the labor movement of the 20th Century if you need any proof.

[lvleph]

I don't disagree.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:16 pm
I don't disagree.
I'm glad you said that.

Hugo Chavez is an obstacle to the US's imperialist practices towards Latin America, and that is counter-productive to capitalism--but his reforms to capitalism are not anti-capitalist. No reforms to capitalism can be.

It is actually his international policies that really set him apart.

[Pawn Power]

WASHINGTON - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Bush tells Dems war denial is dangerous (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AiKuuuu1u2_i5vU6srdUOyWs0NUE)

[ComradeR]

Which is all very arbitrary on your part to determine the parameters of. Essentially it goes, we have heretofore not attempted to put our goal forth before the workers as a political demand, therefore there must be something very suspect about that process.

That is if you had a specific goal that actually included worker democracy.
If you knew anything about class struggle, the state, the DotP or history itself you would not be saying this.
Leftists have attempted to create socialist revolution through the ballot box in the past, and they have always been crushed by the state. As long as the bourgeois state is intact the revolution will be crushed, therefor the state must be smashed and the DotP established which is something the electoral process cannot do, and history proves this. It is quite apparent that you do not know what the state and it's purpose is.

Of course you will scream to the high heavens that I am, but if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.
You are proposing an amendment to the US Constitution, i.e. reformism.

[davidasearles]

Comrade R puts forth the weak argument:

If you knew anything about class struggle, the state, the DotP or history itself you would not be saying this.

Dave writes:

This non-analysis could be used to give the appearance of addressing anyone's proposal: "If you knew anything about anything you wouldn't disagree agree with me!!"

Comrade R continues:

Leftists have attempted to create socialist revolution through the ballot box in the past

Dave S. writes:

Please give just one example in the US where the campaign was to specifically put forth the question of eliminating the legality of private ownership of the means of production and recognition of a legal right for the workers to democratically and collectively operate same. Just one example.

[davidasearles]

Dave wrote to Comrade N:

if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.

Comrade R steps in with the profound:

You are proposing an amendment to the US Constitution, i.e. REFORMISM

Dave replies:

You also assert the shallow notion that ANY proposal whatsoever to amend the US Constitution per se must be REFORMISM.

Also if you will go back through my many posts you will not find one instance where I have stated that the revolution MUST come about through the political demand asserted through the amenedment proposal.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:25 am
Dave wrote to Comrade N:

if you look at my proposal you might find that I am not attempting to reform capitalism through any method. You are conflating tactics and goal. You are confusing the fact that electoral politics has often been used to promote particular reforms of capitalism and therefore you come to believe that ALL use of electoral politics must be to promote reform of capitalism.

Comrade R steps in with the profound:

You are proposing an amendment to the US Constitution, i.e. REFORMISM

Dave replies:

You also assert the shallow notion that ANY proposal whatsoever to amend the US Constitution per se must be REFORMISM.

Also if you will go back through my many posts you will not find one instance where I have stated that the revolution MUST come about through the political demand asserted through the amenedment proposal.
the point I have been trying to make---> amending the constitution is reforming capitalism-- it does not raise class consciousness, it does not allow revolutionary movement to progress, it is of no value-- it is pointless, and it ultimately will not result in the elimination of the bourgeois state. Regardless of what you are proposing, what you are arguing for simply doesn't work-- it doesn't make any impact whatsoever.

Also, why do you think making proposals of that kind will make an impact when clearly the state power is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class and it won't even make a considerable impact? It is not only pointless but a waste of effort.

Why not throw out the reformist bullshit and focus on revolutionary movement instead-- considering that a.) class consciousness can then develop; which then makes for b.) revolutionary effort to be made against the bourgeois state-- since making no effort to eliminate the conditions existent under the bourgeois state in capitalist society defeats the purpose of movement against it in the first place-- but you have yet to acknowledge the relevance of these claims-- perhaps you need to have a better understanding for the necessity for eliminating the existing forces of exploitation before you argue for amendment proposals-- because it is relatively clear that what you suggest isn't going to make a significant impact and it is basically pointless-- it doesn't even succeed in creating awareness in regard to class consciousness.

History proves this claim and for you to dispute it and provide no evidence to back it up is pointless in itself.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

the point I have been trying to make---> amending the constitution is reforming capitalism

Dave writes:

Why becuase it seeks to utilize legal means?

Duh!!

Nadezhda:

it does not raise class consciousness

Dave writes:

The workers declaring ilegal private ownership of the means of production not a class conscious act? The workers declaring a legal right for them to democratically and colledtive take hold and opertate the means of prodution not a class conscious act?

I am beginning to belive that you are not at all in favor of helping to raise class consciousness at all.

Nadezhda:

it does not allow revolutionary movement to progress,

Dave writes:

In other words you supposedly have some other idea (which you have as yet to reveal to us) and this proposal conflicts with it. You'll get over it.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:24 pm
Nadezhda:

the point I have been trying to make---> amending the constitution is reforming capitalism

Dave writes:

Why becuase it seeks to utilize legal means?

Duh!!

Nadezhda:

it does not raise class consciousness

Dave writes:

The workers declaring ilegal private ownership of the means of production not a class conscious act? The workers declaring a legal right for them to democratically and colledtive take hold and opertate the means of prodution not a class conscious act?

I am beginning to belive that you are not at all in favor of helping to raise class consciousness at all.

Nadezhda:

it does not allow revolutionary movement to progress,

Dave writes:

In other words you supposedly have some other idea (which you have as yet to reveal to us) and this proposal conflicts with it. You'll get over it.
It's not about what it could accomplish, but what it cannot accomplish. I'm simply arguing that it is pointless because it cannot happen--> the bourgeois state prevents there from being any value in voting and the electoral system. It is evidently true-- if "amending" the constitution changed anything-- if anything could electorally be changed, for that matter-- voting itself would be illegal- because then it would threaten the bourgeois state and the ruling class isn't just going to allow that. It is impossible.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by ComradeR+October 27, 2007 07:55 am--> (ComradeR @ October 27, 2007 07:55 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 01:11 am

But don't elections raise our visibility, bring our message across to a wider diaspora, and give working people at the polls a chance to register their dissatisfaction at the state?


That

And, more importantly, whether or not we "lend credibility" to the state and the socalled democracy its built upon, the state will have power over us. A good example of this is how the CNT pretty much fucked itself in the elections previous to that won by the popular front by campaigning for people not to vote. The result was that a vehemently reactionary government took power and a lot of CNT people wound up in jail.
Later, the CNT realised its mistake and in the next elections told people to vote for some popular front party, thus putting the popular front in power and paving the way for revolution. Its quite ironic the rest of the anarchist movement hasnt learnt from this, especially since the spanish civil war/revolution is for them the same the october revolution is for leninists. THE anarchist revolution came about simply because the CNT let go of abstentionism! ;)
And interestingly enough it was that same bourgeois state that the CNT was apart of that crushed the revolution. [/b]
only because the CNT failed to "take power" when they could. The point is that participating in the elections actually made revolution possible.

[Killer Enigma]

The process of instituting a constitutional amendment in the United States is incredibly difficult. Besides the political hell such an amendment would undergo between Congress and the President, an amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or 38 states, in order to be added to the Constitution.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Exactly-- it's impossible.

davidasearles is just simply not willing to abandon his reformist arguments-- even when they are proven to be impossible and pointless, and he would much rather argue against revolutionary movement than come to the realization that what he is suggesting cannot be done.

[ComradeR]

Please give just one example in the US where the campaign was to specifically put forth the question of eliminating the legality of private ownership of the means of production and recognition of a legal right for the workers to democratically and collectively operate same. Just one example.
First I was talking about globally not just the US, and second the CPUSA ran candidates from 1924 to 1984.

You also assert the shallow notion that ANY proposal whatsoever to amend the US Constitution per se must be REFORMISM.
It is the attempt to take the bourgeois US Constitution and reform it, so yes it is reformism.

Also if you will go back through my many posts you will not find one instance where I have stated that the revolution MUST come about through the political demand asserted through the amenedment proposal.
Are you or are you not advocating the attempt to create a revolution through the electoral process via getting a socialist amendment passed?

Why becuase it seeks to utilize legal means?
Because it attempts to use the bourgeois state for proletarian interests. Completely ignoring the fact that the bourgeoisie don't just sit on their asses while their private property is seized by the workers.

The workers declaring ilegal private ownership of the means of production not a class conscious act? The workers declaring a legal right for them to democratically and colledtive take hold and opertate the means of prodution not a class conscious act?
Of course it's a class conscious act, but doing it through the electoral process leaves the bourgeois state intact, and if the state remains intact it will crush the revolution.

only because the CNT failed to "take power" when they could. The point is that participating in the elections actually made revolution possible.
It was because the CNT refused to smash the bourgeois state and instead became part of it.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda #1

It's not about what it could accomplish, but what it cannot accomplish. I'm simply arguing that it is pointless because it cannot happen

Nadezhda #2

the point I have been trying to make---> amending the constitution is reforming capitalism

dave writes:

What else, it will destroy the ozone layer?

[davidasearles]

CR wrote:

Leftists have attempted to create socialist revolution through the ballot box in the past

Dave S. then asked CR:

Please give just one example in the US where the campaign was to specifically put forth the question of eliminating the legality of private ownership of the means of production and recognition of a legal right for the workers to democratically and collectively operate same. Just one example.

CR backpedals:

First I was talking about globally not just the US, and second the CPUSA ran candidates from 1924 to 1984.

Dave asks:

Did CPUSA specifically put forth the question of eliminating the legality of private ownership of the means of production and recognition of a legal right for the workers to democratically and collectively operate same? Can you come up with a platform statement of CPUSA to that effect?

Or even outside of the USA, can you come up with a single example where the campaign specifically put forth the question of eliminating the legality of private ownership of the means of production and recognition of a legal right for the workers to democratically and collectively operate same?

You were the one who accused me of not knowing anything about history. But one of the first rules of history is to not assert that which you cannot prove. You were the one who claimed history as foundation for your opposition to the amendment proposal but then when you are asked for specifics you come up dry.

[davidasearles]

CR states with profound wisdom:

It is the attempt to take the bourgeois US Constitution and reform it, so yes it is reformism.

Dave writes:

So if the workers simply declared that private ownership of the means of production illegal and proclaimed a legal right of the workers to collectively own and democratically operate same, that wouldn't be reformism. But if the workers did the same thing by amending the US constitution that would be reformism.

Oh I see. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:20 am
Nadezhda #1

It's not about what it could accomplish, but what it cannot accomplish. I'm simply arguing that it is pointless because it cannot happen

Nadezhda #2

the point I have been trying to make---> amending the constitution is reforming capitalism

dave writes:

What else, it will destroy the ozone layer?
You fail to see the point of my argument, once again.

Not going to waste my time on this anymore.

[davidasearles]

Dave wrote:

The workers declaring ilegal private ownership of the means of production not a class conscious act? The workers declaring a legal right for them to democratically and colledtive take hold and opertate the means of prodution not a class conscious act?

CR answered:

Of course it's a class conscious act, but doing it through the electoral process leaves the bourgeois state intact, and if the state remains intact it will crush the revolution.

Dave replies:

"doing it through the electoral process leaves the bourgeois state intact, and if the state remains intact it will crush the revolution"

The bourgeoisie is able to dominate the state becuase of exploitation of labor. Once labor asserts its right to eliminate private ownership of the means of production and asserts its right to collectively own and democratically operate same the bourgeoisie shall no longer be the bourgeoisie, and the state shall no longer be a bourgeois state. Whether the workers do this within the electoral process or not, the result is the same.

"the state will crush the revolution" so let's give them an excuse to do just that by stating in advance that we want to alter the legality of ownership of the means of production but we don't want to do it through the legally recognized means for doing same. Not only are you just begging the state to step an and through your asses in jail (except for those of you who are being paid by the state to assert illegality to the unsuspecting to entrap them) but you are also turning off right at the beginning workers who might be convinced to support worker ownership of the means of production but will turn against the idea if the only method proposed is illegal.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda writes:

Not going to waste my time on this anymore.

Dave writes:

Yes, perhaps you could give your arguments a little more thought before so boldly issuing proclamations for which there are bases except your most vivid imagination.

[davidasearles]

CR writes:

Completely ignoring the fact that the bourgeoisie don't just sit on their asses while their private property is seized by the workers.

Dave writes:

They WILL sit on their asses if the workers don't utilize the electoral process?

that's not very logical is it?

[davidasearles]

CR:

It was because the CNT refused to smash the bourgeois state and instead became part of it.

Dave:

Or perhaps it was that the CNT did not eliminate the bourgeois relationship to the means of production. duh!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:10 am
Nadezhda writes:

Not going to waste my time on this anymore.

Dave writes:

Yes, perhaps you could give your arguments a little more thought before so boldly issuing proclamations for which there are bases except your most vivid imagination.
No, I am saying that it is utterly pointless for me to waste my time with someone (as yourself) who displays complete ignorance to not only my arguments, but the arguments of my fellow comrades and revolutionary theory, movement, practice in general regardless of my arguments.

So as a result of that, I conclude that there are much better arguments to spend my time on-- and much better topics to respond to-- than your posts which clearly represent your lack of understanding for the necessity in regard to revolutionary movement in the first place. That is why I am not wasting my time anymore on this-- there are many more things I would rather respond to than something as pointless as this.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

complete ignorance to not only my arguments, but the arguments of my fellow comrades and revolutionary theory, movement, practice in general

Dave:

I guess you told me. I will miss your comments.

But while you are gone maybe you could think about this:

Suppose that a person wanted to push the idea that private ownership of the means of production ought to be illegal and that the workers ought to have the right to democratically and collectively own an operate the means of production.

That person could go around to various work places and address as many workers as possible, could stand on a street corner handing out leaflreys to that effect, speak at union meeting if invited, save up money to buy radio ads, particiapte in internet discussions, etc.

These would be alright, but once the person proposed to make those issues a part of a political campaign to alter the constituion of the United States to reflect those advocated ideas - then apparently that is no good - its reformism - its impossible - yadda yadda.

[Killer Enigma]

Did no one ever teach you to use the quote button?

[davidasearles]

K.E. wrote (apparently to Dave S.):

Did no one ever teach you to use the quote button?

Dave S. writes:

Actually some one did teach me to use the quote button many years ago. Actually I learned of two quote buttons. The one that I most employ, as in this post, is the semi colon such as K.E. wrote:

The semi colon can be used to announce that which follows is a statement or information from some source.

I also use what are called quotation marks. I am sure that you have seen them. In case you may have seen them but didn't know what they were I will use them with what you had previously written.

K.E. wrote, "Did no one ever teach you to use the quote button?"

Dave answers, "Yes."

Dave continues:

Thank you for asking.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Its a tactic, rather than an actual measure for us to create socialism. I would guess that the ruling class would of already reacted if we tried to pass that amendment, and they would of responded negatively earlier after our election to some sort of parliament. So, I don't cast out such a tactic, but to say that it will provide a 'legal' road to socialism is utopian and unmaterialistic, and it ignores what might happen if we engage in parliament as we gain electoral victories.

[davidasearles]

Thank you for your comments LSR. You are one of the few who has actually taken a look at the proposal and come up with thoughtful concerns. Let me see if I can address what you have written.

"Its a tactic, rather than an actual measure for us to create socialism. I would guess that the ruling class would of already reacted if we tried to pass that amendment, and they would of responded negatively earlier after our election to some sort of parliament. So, I don't cast out such a tactic, but to say that it will provide a 'legal' road to socialism is Utopian and unmaterialistic, and it ignores what might happen if we engage in parliament as we gain electoral victories. "

It is a tactic. Me running for the US Congress (if my own material conditions allow)
and proposing that the US Constitution be ameneded as below is a tactic.

In the perhaps small chance that I am elected in 2008 and the proposed amendment is placed on the floor of the house of representatives - no that won't create socialsm.

if I do make a decent showing verses time labor money put into the project, perhaps that will encourage others to make such runs. That will advance the movement somewhat - but whether that ultimately leads to the creation of socialism, who knows?

I am pretty sure that it will be an effective measure to promote class consciousness among workers so I will give it a shot, and i encourage others to give it a thought about trying it as well.

"(The ruling class) would (have) responded negatively earlier after our election to some sort of parliament..."

Who knows what any one's reaction will be. There are a whole lot of timorous comrades who are afraid that ANY effective action by the workers will certainly bring on a negative reaction by the ruling class SO THEY SIT ON THEIR ASSES CHEWING THEIR FINGERNAILS WARNING ANYONE AND EVERYONE TO NOT EVEN TRY TO BUILD POPULAR SUPPORT FOR AN ACTION THAT ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN PULL OFF.

"to say that it will provide a 'legal' road to socialism is utopian"

Dave answers:

Obviously i do not put a whole lot of worrying into how others might characterize my ideas. You think that to say that it provides a legal means to bring about socialsm is utopian? So that's what you believe. I doubt that we share the same definition of utopian so I'm not going to let that bother me. But in fact what I propose is precisely legal. The US Constitution provides for its amendment. The US Constitution can and has been used in the past to fundamentally alter legality such as the 13th amendment. The constitution itself as an expression of the people in fact establishes legality. So yes I without the least bit ideological hesitation express the opinion that the amendment proposal does lay out a legal avenue by which to establish socialsm in the US.

" unmaterialistic, and it ignores what might happen if we engage in parliament as we gain electoral victories."

The fact is that the amendment process already exists as legal avenue to establish socialsm (or at least to start the process by addressing the laws by which the means of production are privately owned and the workers kept form collective and democratic control and ownership).

"it ignores what might happen if we engage in parliament as we gain electoral victories. "


Dave writes: Will we be in a better position if we don't try to organize the workers politically around these questions?

I don't think so. If others have considered this and honestly come to a differnt conclusion of course I have to respect that, but that in no way will alter the course that I think that I should take. My main purpose here is to introduce these ideas to others who might consider a similar course of action.

Again thank you for your response.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by davidasearles+November 04, 2007 12:00 am--> (davidasearles @ November 04, 2007 12:00 am)I guess you told me. I will miss your comments.

But while you are gone maybe you could think about this:

Suppose that a person wanted to push the idea that private ownership of the means of production ought to be illegal and that the workers ought to have the right to democratically and collectively own an operate the means of production.

That person could go around to various work places and address as many workers as possible, could stand on a street corner handing out leaflreys to that effect, speak at union meeting if invited, save up money to buy radio ads, particiapte in internet discussions, etc.

These would be alright, but once the person proposed to make those issues a part of a political campaign to alter the constituion of the United States to reflect those advocated ideas - then apparently that is no good - its reformism - its impossible - yadda yadda.[/b]
What you fail to realize is that the conditions existent under the bourgeois state make this impossible-- it is not whether I or other comrades favor it or not, it is that the conditions prevent it from happening in the first place, regardless. You simply disregard that the working-class is subordinate to the ruling class through bourgeois state which uses its coercive power to exploit the working-class and prevent them from having sustainable power to impact the actions of the state so the ruling class's power cannot be threatened and can therefore be sustained. These are conditions existent in capitalist society through the existence of the bourgeois state. These conditions can't simply be eliminated through attempts to reform a constitution existent (especially seeing that the working-class has no means of impacting this-- as the bourgeois state determines this to fit the interests of its own class (bourgeoisie).) This is not something that can be done- it is not possible for the reasons of the conditions I stated above. Denying that only adds to the level of the ignorance which you have represented in regard to your argument.

Furthermore, a subordinate class cannot possibly by any means increase their power and with the conditions existent causing them to be subordinate to the ruling class it can not possibly be said for the working-class, being subordinate to the bourgeoisie and their "state" which rules in their interest(s)-- to have the ability to impact its constitution without first eliminating the existent state.

That in itself is relevant by all means-- it is fact, not opinion or assumption-- which you propose-- it is relevant fact.

Before making arguments against this, I suggest you come to the realization that subordination is a force which cannot be eliminated within the means of existing conditions.

I will refer to the definition appearing in the dictionary-- since you by all means deny this.


dictionary's definition of subordinate

subordinate
adj.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

n.

One that is subordinate.
tr.v., -nat·ed, -nat·ing, -nates.

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.
2. To make subservient; subdue.

Therfore, I am concluding this:

1.) Since the ruling class (bourgeoisie) controls the state apparatus and uses it to serve in their interest(s) through the use of its coercive power;
2.) and this coercive means is used to exploit the class(es) subject to its authority so that it serves in the interest of the ruling class;
3.) therefore causing the subordination of the working class to the ruling class through not only the creation of the exploitive conditions inherent in capitalist society but by preventing the working class from impacting all in relation to state power through the control of the state apparatus by the ruling class.

Therefore, it is true that--> (see below)

The proletariat is subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the use of the coercive power of the state apparatus by the bourgeois ruling class.

Therefore, my argument in regards to subordination meets the criteria for classification of "subordination" and "subordinate force"

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that reforming the constitution while the bourgeois state is still in existence is impossible and that the only way to eliminate the exploitive force(s) existent in capitalist society is to eliminate the bourgeois state and the exploitive conditions which have come into existence through the ruling class's control of the state apparatus by the organization of revolutionary movement against it and the use of violent force not only for the purpose of seizure of the state power but to eliminate the existence of the ruling class and all threats it could cause to the formation of a worker's state. In this regard, I would also argue for the organization of a centralized authority (a vanguard) for the purpose of effectively eliminating the such threats as it helps prevent the development of significant threats within the revolutionary movement as it has the ability to eliminate them as they develop with the existence of centralized power-- therefore, allowing for a worker's state to develop and serve in the interests of the entire proletariat and for that state to be secured.

By all means, this is what is necessary to be done to eliminate the conditions existent under the bourgeois state and within capitalist society. Therefore, I am concluding that the subordination of the working class to the ruling class cannot be eliminated by other means since the conditions causing it must first be eliminated for the subordination to cease to exist. Secondly, in order to eliminate the conditions causing the subordination in the first place, the state ruling in the interests of the ruling class must be eliminated.

Therefore, my conclusion is simply that subordinate force cannot be overcome without first eliminating the conditions causing it-- since subordination does not allow for the subordinate class to have an impact on the state apparatus by any means since it is controlled by the ruling class.

[Enragé]

It was because the CNT refused to smash the bourgeois state and instead became part of it.

Well yes, more or less. The CNT refused to smash the bourgeois state and take power, and as a consequence (after about a year) could do nothing else but join the bourgeois.

[mikelepore]

If all amendments are bad because they are reformism, perhaps we should give up our freedom to speak and write, because it was the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established it. Also, we'd have to get rid of the restrictions on police that require them to obtain search warrants before breaking into the house, according to the 4th amendment. And how about bringing back slavery, since it was the 13th amendment that abolished it. Or is the claim that amendments already adopted in the past are good, while amendments suggested for the future are bad?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:35 pm
If all amendments are bad because they are reformism, perhaps we should give up our freedom to speak and write, because it was the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established it. Also, we'd have to get rid of the restrictions on police that require them to obtain search warrants before breaking into the house, according to the 4th amendment. And how about bringing back slavery, since it was the 13th amendment that abolished it. Or is the claim that amendments already adopted in the past are good, while amendments suggested for the future are bad?
You are disregarding the entire point of my argument.

First of all- the constitution in the United States is bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

It is very little regarded- and the "rights" it gives are only given to few.

Freedom of speech, press and shit of the such is irrelevant when the media is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class and all that it broadcasts are lies which the bourgeois state tells to secure its own fucking interests-- and yes the 13th amendment is abolishing "slavery" in regards to white men holding slaves on plantations and the such-- what about subordination? It seems the bourgeois ruling class doesn't really give a shit about freedom and that's why they are the only ones who can speak in such regard to it. It's fucking bullshit if you ask me. By the way-- do you honestly think the police and prisons actually benefit society? Do you realize that prisons are based upon racial and class discriminations? Do you realize that the justice system in the U.S. discriminates against african americans in regard to imprisonment? Do you realize the police only exist for the purpose of securing the interests of the bourgeois state and its ruling class? Honestly, it seems you don't have a clue.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda writes to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Dave S. writes:

Very well thought out and well presented arguments Nadezhda.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:13 pm
Nadezhda writes to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Dave S. writes:

Very well thought out and well presented arguments Nadezhda.
I see my rather lengthy post was completely disregarded, once again :rolleyes:

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda wrote to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Dave S. wrote in return:

Very well thought out and well presented arguments Nadezhda.

Nadezhda answered:

I see my rather lengthy post was completely disregarded, once again

Dave replies:

Didn't I report the gist of it? I thought that the above fairly represented the whole of your declarations. Was there something more of substance that should have been shown?

Perhaps it was that your opinion was that workers in the US should not attempt to utilize their constitutional rights of of freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a redress of grievances?

Darned good strategy (if you were a spy working for the ruling class).

[S.O.I]

dennis kucinich 08!

(+ his wife is really hot)

[davidasearles]

S.O.I. wrote:

dennis kucinich 08! (+ his wife is really hot)

Dave S. writes:

As to #2. Couldn't you just videotape footage of his wife and get yourself a jar of Vaseline?

As to #1:

Does he openly support the concept of declaring illegal the private ownership of the means of production, etc.?

But I do agree that the political forum is a place for these types of discussions to take place so as to involve as much as the population as possible. (if that's what you intended.)

[S.O.I]

As to #2. Couldn't you just videotape footage of his wife and get yourself a jar of Vaseline?

yyeeah....


As to #1:

Does he openly support the concept of declaring illegal the private ownership of the means of production, etc.?

he's a democrat, not a revolutionary. he's a believer in peace. he believes things must be done the right way, even tho that way can take time. he is a progressive socialist.

and his wife is shit hot

http://www.dennis4president.com/images/sto..._shirek_web.jpg (http://www.dennis4president.com/images/stories/dennis_elizabeth_shirek_web.jpg)

she has a british accent...

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:39 am
Nadezhda wrote to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Dave S. wrote in return:

Very well thought out and well presented arguments Nadezhda.

Nadezhda answered:

I see my rather lengthy post was completely disregarded, once again

Dave replies:

Didn't I report the gist of it? I thought that the above fairly represented the whole of your declarations. Was there something more of substance that should have been shown?

Perhaps it was that your opinion was that workers in the US should not attempt to utilize their constitutional rights of of freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a redress of grievances?

Darned good strategy (if you were a spy working for the ruling class).
You're fucking full of ignorance. :rolleyes:

[mikelepore]

The U.S. Constitution was described as bullshit.

But sometimes there's something to be said for being real and available.

There are probably better ways to pump blood than the four-chamber heart that we have inside us. But those better ways are in our imagination. The one we already have is the one that exists. We have to use it.

We can think of better ways besides the Constitution to survey people about their choices in what kind of social institutions we should have and to implement their wishes. But those better ways are still in our imaginations. The Constitution is the one that exists. We have to use it.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 09:28 pm
and the "rights" it gives are only given to few.
Freedom of speech, press and shit of the such is irrelevant when the media is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class
[cut text]

Still, some governments in the world pass a greater number of laws to protect individual rights, or more effective ones, and some governments pass fewer of them, or less effective ones. So lets look at something statistical instead of theory. Consider, for example, the Berlin Wall. A couple hundred people were killed over the years because they ran through machine gun fire to climb over the Berlin Wall. How many of them we trying to go in one direction? One hundred percent of them. How many of them were trying to go in the other direction? Zero percent. Gee, from the data it appears that, even though a bourgeois ruling class may own the media and bribe the politicians, the human species still attaches great importance to having a political and legal structure that guarantees more individual rights.

But beside freedom of speech and assembly, what single political change would radiate the most powerful waves to shake up class-ruled society and challenge its quasi-stability? A political mandate, adopted at the highest levels, provincial or national or global, that the workers have the right to have and control the wealth and the means of production that their labor creates. Never mind the passage of it; merely the public discussion of the suggestion would generate intense repercussions throughout any segment of class-ruled society that it reaches.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 09:28 pm
By the way-- do you honestly think the police and prisons actually benefit society? Do you realize that prisons are based upon racial and class discriminations? Do you realize that the justice system in the U.S. discriminates against african americans in regard to imprisonment? Do you realize the police only exist for the purpose of securing the interests of the bourgeois state and its ruling class? Honestly, it seems you don't have a clue.
And all that is in response to my comment about the constitutional limitation that police who didn't get a search warrant aren't allowed to break down the door, my view that it's better that such a restriction be in place rather than not be in place.

Maybe this is a game to see who can think of the most irrelevant non sequitur.

You ought to see my recipe for bacala salad. Salted cod fish soaked in cold water for forty-eight hours, fried with cauliflower and black olives, and served at room temperature with linguine.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by mikelepore+November 05, 2007 11:39 am--> (mikelepore @ November 05, 2007 11:39 am)
Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 09:28 pm
By the way-- do you honestly think the police and prisons actually benefit society? Do you realize that prisons are based upon racial and class discriminations? Do you realize that the justice system in the U.S. discriminates against african americans in regard to imprisonment? Do you realize the police only exist for the purpose of securing the interests of the bourgeois state and its ruling class? Honestly, it seems you don't have a clue.
And all that is in response to my comment about the constitutional limitation that police who didn't get a search warrant aren't allowed to break down the door, my view that it's better that such a restriction be in place rather than not be in place.

Maybe this is a game to see who can think of the most irrelevant non sequitur.

You ought to see my recipe for bacala salad. Salted cod fish soaked in cold water for forty-eight hours, fried with cauliflower and black olives, and served at room temperature with linguine.[/b]
Limitation? :huh:

The police exist to serve in the interests of the bourgeois state and its ruling class. Its power is not limited when serving in the interests of the bourgeoisie- for anyone to argue that the american police force exists for any other purpose and benefits the working class at all is just dumb.

question--> do you honestly think that the police force is unbiased? :ph34r: you really got it wrong. not only do you have it wrong there but you also do in regard to the idea that they don't and can't invade privacy-- of all who participate in revolutionary movement (including me).

they tap the phone lines, they search homes without reason (it sure aint hard for them to get a warrent when it's in the interest of the fucking bourgeois state), they make note of revolutionary activities and arrest people on false pretenses (not to mention the "spying" on what websites are viewed etc to gather into about revolutionary activity so that they can ensure that their lovely bourgeois state isn't threatened in any way-- so don't pull the bullshit about there being "rights" because it isn't relevant.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda wrote to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Nadezhda wrote to Dave S.:

You're fucking full of ignorance.

Dave S. to Nadezda:

I just love it when you talk dirty.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda writes of consituional limitations on police:

Limitation?

Dave S. writes:

I'd love to be your lawyer. "Your honor Ms. Nadezhda waives all of her rights becuase she has instructed me to inform you that she has no rights."

Actually Nadezhda, all kidding aside, if there was anyone on these boards who I would nominate as most likely to be a spy, it would be you.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:29 pm
Nadezhda wrote to Mike L:

.....bullshit....fucking...shit...fucking bullshit...it seems you don't have a clue.

Nadezhda wrote to Dave S.:

You're fucking full of ignorance.

Dave S. to Nadezda:

I just love it when you talk dirty.
your attitude disgusts me. you're a fucking bourgeois reactionary.

btw, don't even try to make claims against the bourgeois state and capitalist society.

your arguments are just as ignorant to the conditions existent as are those participating and campaigning in regards to the bourgeois elections. capitalist vs. capitalist debate, bourgeois reactionaries existing to throw shit at members of their own class (the bourgeoisie).

they may attempt to make different claims and distinguish themself from the rest of the bourgeoisie but it really doesn't make a fucking difference. they are still bourgeois, and that is that. just as your arguments are reactionary in the same nature-- arguing to "reform" capitalism through somehow altering the constitution-- you aren't the first to argue for the such.

the point is, your arguments are merely a bourgeois reaction to the bourgeois state.

[davidasearles]

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich) is a democrat ...

Dave writes:

But does not support anyway bu which the workers can actually institute work place democracy as to operating the means of production for the workers as opposed to private owners

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich) is not a revolutionary...

Dave writes:

One doesn't have to be to support workplace democracy.

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich) is a believer in peace...

Dave writes:

A meaningless distinction...

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich) believes things must be done the right way...

Dave writes:

I really can't say that I know of a single individual who believes that things ought to be done the wrong way...

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich) is a progressive socialist.

Dave writes:

Again a meaningless distinction.

S.O.I. wrote:

(Kucinich's) wife is shit hot she has a British accent.

Dave writes:

Oh my word, Maggie Thatcher spoke with a British accent too! You probably creamed your jeans whenever she came on the news.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda writes to Dave S.:

your attitude disgusts me. you're a fucking bourgeois reactionary

Dave S. writes:

You are really making me breathe heavy now!!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:38 pm
Nadezhda writes of consituional limitations on police:

Limitation?

Dave S. writes:

I'd love to be your lawyer. "Your honor Ms. Nadezhda waives all of her rights becuase she has instructed me to inform you that she has no rights."

Actually Nadezhda, all kidding aside, if there was anyone on these boards who I would nominate as most likely to be a spy, it would be you.
A spy? :huh: That is the most idiotic remark I have heard from you as of yet.

Why would I be a spy? I am advocating for revolutionary movement to overthrow the bourgeois state by violent means (which by the way the bourgeois state does not advocate as it is not in their ruling class's interest) so how could I possibly be considered a "spy"? I am working against the bourgeois state, not along with it-- therefore why would they see me to be of value to their lovely state? They would rather exploit me through the means of production (considering I am a proletarian). I highly doubt the ruling class would see me along with anyone else advocating for revolutionary movement to eliminate the conditions existent under the bourgeois state by overthrowing it would prefer me as an aid to serve in their interest.

your remark in that regard is just completely absurd.


Nadezhda writes to Dave S.:

your attitude disgusts me. you're a fucking bourgeois reactionary

Dave S. writes:

You are really making me breathe heavy now!!
I have nothing more to say in regard to your bullshit.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 pm
question--> do you honestly think that the police force is unbiased? :ph34r: you really got it wrong. not only do you have it wrong there but you also do in regard to the idea that they don't and can't invade privacy-- of all who participate in revolutionary movement (including me).

You have a funny way of asking "questions", packing them with advance assumptions, but since it was a "question", I will answer it.

I don't know what you mean by unbiased. Like all people employed for pay, the police do whatever their job description is. Police oppress workers and protesters for the same reason that miners gather ore and farmworkers harvest corn: because their supervisor explained to them that it was their job. If the laws says the police have to fight the workers to defend the capitalist, they will. If the law says the police have to fight the capitalist to defend the workers, they will. They are mercenaries, and either way is all right with them, as long as they get paid. Which way it will be, whether the law will mandate capitalism or socialism, depends on whether the working class decides to vote for legislators who support capitalism or legislators who support socialism. The working class is asked to make this choice every November in the U.S. and, so far, the working class has always consistently voted for capitalism, which is a situation that, since I am a lifelong Marxist, I hope will change. Then, eventually, when a political mandate for socialism is adopted, the workers' workplace-based organizations, the industrial unions, the only force capable of implementing socialism, will have to take over the administrative role in every shop. At that time, a minority who support capitalism will probaby resort to acts of sedition and riot. The socialist political party will have control of the law enforcement agencies, and therefore the ability to incarcerate the capitalist rioters in defense of the socialist mandate. I consider this to be the only workable program for the adoption of socialism.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda writes to Dave S.:

your attitude disgusts me. you're a fucking bourgeois reactionary

Dave S. writes:

You are really making me breathe heavy now!!

Nadezhda writes:

I have nothing more to say in regard to your bullshit.

Dave S. writes:

You are just speechless, I know.

[long_live_the_revolution]

I have always wondered how many exacly votes(%) do smaller parties get(exept democrats and republicans) on US elections
(i know it is very little)

[davidasearles]

Mike writes:

If the law says the police have to fight the capitalist to defend the workers, they will. They are mercenaries, and either way is all right with them, as long as they get paid. Which way it will be, whether the law will mandate capitalism or socialism, depends on whether the working class decides to vote for legislators who support capitalism or legislators who support socialism.

Dave S. writes:

I am not sure of the above. I am not going to, nor do you, I presume, say that is the way that it must turn out. But I do know that we have to act as if the law will be followed. If it does fine, everyone is happy. If it doesn't there probably will be a long cruel civil war that even the comrades who on this forum who seem to glorify in the possibility of violence will soon come to regret.

[davidasearles]

lltr wrote:

I have always wondered how many exacly votes(%) do smaller parties get(exept democrats and republicans) on US elections
(i know it is very little)

Dave replies:

In most states minor party candiate votes are not officially tallied if they are write in so it is next to impossible in most cases to find out.

Here is the problem. Say the Democratic candidate gets 5 million votes and the Republican candidate gets 3 million votes. For write in candidates they are practically never counted unless the number of write ins could possibly swing the election one way or the other.

Even if the party is on the ballot, they are not interested in who got what among the minor parties, the are interested in certifying the winner. So it's problematic.

However I do not propose that we run candidates to give people an opportunity to cast a protest vote. We need to be out to have a straight forward program that the workers should support. (Whether they do or not is always the problem. But let that be on them and not us.)

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

Why would I be a spy? I am advocating for revolutionary movement to overthrow the bourgeois state by violent means (which by the way the bourgeois state does not advocate as it is not in their ruling class's interest) so how could I possibly be considered a "spy"? I am working against the bourgeois state, not along with it.

Dave writes:

Why indeed.

[Tatarin]

davidasearles, the only spy that should be suspected is you. This is at least the second time you point finger towards someone and say that he is a spy.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by mikelepore+November 05, 2007 03:38 pm--> (mikelepore @ November 05, 2007 03:38 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 pm
question--> do you honestly think that the police force is unbiased? :ph34r: you really got it wrong. not only do you have it wrong there but you also do in regard to the idea that they don't and can't invade privacy-- of all who participate in revolutionary movement (including me).

You have a funny way of asking "questions", packing them with advance assumptions, but since it was a "question", I will answer it.

I don't know what you mean by unbiased. Like all people employed for pay, the police do whatever their job description is. Police oppress workers and protesters for the same reason that miners gather ore and farmworkers harvest corn: because their supervisor explained to them that it was their job. If the laws says the police have to fight the workers to defend the capitalist, they will. If the law says the police have to fight the capitalist to defend the workers, they will. They are mercenaries, and either way is all right with them, as long as they get paid. Which way it will be, whether the law will mandate capitalism or socialism, depends on whether the working class decides to vote for legislators who support capitalism or legislators who support socialism. The working class is asked to make this choice every November in the U.S. and, so far, the working class has always consistently voted for capitalism, which is a situation that, since I am a lifelong Marxist, I hope will change. Then, eventually, when a political mandate for socialism is adopted, the workers' workplace-based organizations, the industrial unions, the only force capable of implementing socialism, will have to take over the administrative role in every shop. At that time, a minority who support capitalism will probaby resort to acts of sedition and riot. The socialist political party will have control of the law enforcement agencies, and therefore the ability to incarcerate the capitalist rioters in defense of the socialist mandate. I consider this to be the only workable program for the adoption of socialism.[/b]
Ah, another "lets reform capitalism electorally" argument.

ignorance :rolleyes:

so your excuse for the police force is that the working class can change it? :huh:

you haven't even read my last 10+ responses have you?


Nadezhda writes to Dave S.:

your attitude disgusts me. you're a fucking bourgeois reactionary

Dave S. writes:

You are really making me breathe heavy now!!

Nadezhda writes:

I have nothing more to say in regard to your bullshit.

Dave S. writes:

You are just speechless, I know.
I just don't see the point in arguing with ignorant bourgeois reactionaries any more. It is a waste of my time.


davidasearles, the only spy that should be suspected is you. This is at least the second time you point finger towards someone and say that he is a spy.
Exactly.

[coda]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 31, 2007 06:33 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 31, 2007 06:33 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:58 pm
JR asked Dave Searles:

Do you have brain damage?

Dave answers:

As a matter of fact I do.
Explains a lot. Like how you can't fathom our quote function.


[/b]
just testing :)

[davidasearles]

Tatarin wrote:

This is at least the second time you point finger towards someone and say that he is a spy.

Dave replies:

if you re-run the tape you will see that I did not say that Nadezhda was a spy.

But she sure does have the guilty response.

Tatarin wrote:

davidasearles, the only spy that should be suspected is you.

Dave replies:

really? The only? If you are comfortable with that thought I can live with it.

You think that I'm trying to get people arrested by trying to get them to participate in elections? That would be a good tactic - nothing so obvious as trying to get people arrested by advocating violence.

Nadezhda:

"I am advocating for revolutionary movement to overthrow the bourgeois state by violent means."

Dave continues:

I stand by what I wrote.

[mikelepore]

Dave Searles said,


am not going to, nor do you, I presume, say that is the way that it must turn out.

My brevity oversimplifies a complicated feedback loop between what we do and what we express. We (human beings) see ourselves expressing new ideas and we come to produce more such ideas. I describe socialists winning elections as the people's mandate to authorize the industrial union to implement socialism, but it is as much a reflection of the coming socialism, and a commentary on the coming socialism. An election is, as Engels often wrote, a thermometer. It's as much a symbol as a component. To make it clear that one will not consent or pretend to consent to oppression, a vote for change by a member of an oppressed class is the yelling of the word "no" while being raped. Every feedback loop has a gain factor. The feedback loops that sustain oppression must be diminished, while those related to throwing off oppression must be amplified. As with the traditions of popular culture, it will not always be easy to discern which things are causes and which are effects.

[Tatarin]

You think that I'm trying to get people arrested by trying to get them to participate in elections? That would be a good tactic - nothing so obvious as trying to get people arrested by advocating violence.

Then you have come to the wrong place. We do not say that you should go out and "be violent", but that violence is needed once the revolution begins. Sure, if the world would to be perfect, maybe the bourgeois would just surrender. But as this has never happened before, the chance of that is nonexistant.

And you did write:

Actually Nadezhda, all kidding aside, if there was anyone on these boards who I would nominate as most likely to be a spy, it would be you.

[davidasearles]

Dave S. wrote:

You think that I'm trying to get people arrested by trying to get them to participate in elections? That would be a good tactic - nothing so obvious as trying to get people arrested by advocating violence.


Tatarin writes to Dave S.

Then you have come to the wrong place. We do not say that you should go out and "be violent", but that violence is needed once the revolution begins.

Dave S. writes:

You think that putting in quotes "be violent" lessens your complicity in it? or are you simply trying to back pedal once some one has called you and yours on it?

I am in the wrong place? What's the name of this topic? 2008 elections? Apparently you and yours are against them even being held - that we should substitute violence for elections.

Tatarin notes of Dave S.:

you did write: "Actually Nadezhda, all kidding aside, if there was anyone on these boards who I would nominate as most likely to be a spy, it would be you."

Dave comments:

Yes and I stand by that.

[mikelepore]

I did get a good chuckle out of this post:


Why would I be a spy? I am advocating for revolutionary movement to overthrow the bourgeois state by violent means

Oh, I don't know... urging a lot of defenseless working class people, armed with ax handles and occasionally a few .22s, to enter into hot battle with government forces, who are armed with mortar, bazookas, flame-throwers, granades, heat-seeking rocket launchers, etc., so that the workers get totally massacred.... who would ever suspect a person who proposes that terrific idea?

[Tatarin]

You think that putting in quotes "be violent" lessens your complicity in it? or are you simply trying to back pedal once some one has called you and yours on it?

Violence can also mean many other things.


Apparently you and yours are against them even being held - that we should substitute violence for elections.

They can hold any elections they want. Countries like Sweden has had social-democracy for about 100 years, you would think reforms should have worked their magic by now. But what do you know, privatization and corporate control are what's in right now.

No one ever "voted in" capitalism, it was too established with the use of violence. But to use violence at this point in time would not be a good thing to do, like mikelepore said, we would have to face heavily armed forces, while not being many ourselves.

But violence will simply be needed when the people demand change for the better. This has always been the case in history.


Oh, I don't know... urging a lot of defenseless working class people, armed with ax handles and occasionally a few .22s, ...

This scenario will come one way or another if people want change. As to how the conflict istelf will look like is another question. This only urges people to speed up the revolution before the rulers have the means to put down any massive uprising they can.


... to enter into hot battle with government forces, who are armed with mortar, bazookas, flame-throwers, granades, heat-seeking rocket launchers, etc., so that the workers get totally massacred....

Sure, but I don't think they will walk right into the troops en' masse. If anything, the communications network is a prime target, there may even be people working on the inside. The Chechens in Russia, the Palistinians - they are one of many other groups standing up in the face of a powerful enemy. While their conflict aren't about complete annihilation, or their enemies not bent on conquering them in all ways imaginable, it at least proves that they can and have aquired weapons to put up a relative good resistance.


... who would every suspect a person who proposes that terrific idea?

Actually, most people here are aware that the revolution will be violent, like it or not.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:42 am
that the revolution will be violent, like it or not.
Yes, and if the workers seize the means of production with a political mandate, the revolution will be as peaceful as possible, with incidental violence, and if the workers seize the means of production without a political mandate, the revolution will be as violent as possible.

[davidasearles]

Dave S. wrote to Tataran:


You think that putting in quotes "be violent" lessens your complicity in it? or are you simply trying to back pedal once some one has called you and yours on it?

Tataran spinelessly replies:

Violence can also mean many other things.

Tatarn again back pedalling:

They can hold any elections they want. Countries like Sweden has had social-democracy for about 100 years, you would think reforms should have worked their magic by now. But what do you know, privatization and corporate control are what's in right now.

Dave answers:

Social democracy may or may not include workers collectively and democratially owning and operating the means of production. Of course privatizaton and corporate control are in right now. it is a bourgeois controlled society nonetheless.

Tatarin:

No one ever "voted in" capitalism.

Dave replies:

And I guess this tid bit is offered as PROOF that it cannot be voted out. Sorry there is little logic there.

Mike L.:

... to enter into hot battle with government forces, who are armed with mortar, bazookas, flame-throwers, granades, heat-seeking rocket launchers, etc., so that the workers get totally massacred....

Tatarin:

Sure, but I don't think they will walk right into the troops en' masse. If anything, the communications network is a prime target, there may even be people working on the inside. The Chechens in Russia, the Palistinians - they are one of many other groups standing up in the face of a powerful enemy. While their conflict aren't about complete annihilation, or their enemies not bent on conquering them in all ways imaginable, it at least proves that they can and have aquired weapons to put up a relative good resistance.

Dave:

And you recommed this course in the USA where there is resort to elections? Don't you have the slightest inkling that the Palestinians and Chechens would rather resolve their respective conflicts by elections?

Spineless little pukes standing on the sidelines exhorting others to engage in glorious violence.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin wrote:

If anything, the communications network is a prime target...

Dave S. writes:

You stupid ... How much more specific do you have to be in order make us all acessories? Is that your game?

Do you actually understand that real life is not a video game?

[Tatarin]

Yes, and if the workers seize the means of production with a political mandate, the revolution will be as peaceful as possible, with incidental violence, and if the workers seize the means of production without a political mandate, the revolution will be as violent as possible.

Again, if capitalism allow this. Even if the proposition/s get 25% of all votes of the nation, the media will increase their anti-progressive campaign as never seen before. They may even start calling you terrorists.

And what if Congress rejects this amendment? Even with a majority behind it? Too bad?


Social democracy may or may not include workers collectively and democratially owning and operating the means of production. Of course privatizaton and corporate control are in right now. it is a bourgeois controlled society nonetheless.

What my point was was that social democracy is reform. It is supposed to combine the best of capitalism in order to get a peaceful transition to socialism. You said it yourself: it is a bourgeois controlled system.


And I guess this tid bit is offered as PROOF that it cannot be voted out. Sorry there is little logic there.

Again, you think they will just let you take what they have? All their wealth, all what they control? In the heart of capitalism? You would have a better chance of convincing Saudi Arabia that Islam is not for real than writing out capitalism.


Don't you have the slightest inkling that the Palestinians and Chechens would rather resolve their respective conflicts by elections?

Of course they would. But their goals happens to be in the way of their enemies. Do you think Russia would ever just let them take their territory? Do you think Israel will ever stop constructing Israeli houses on Palestinian territory?


Spineless little pukes standing on the sidelines exhorting others to engage in glorious violence.

Yes, screw Marx. What an idiot...


You stupid ... How much more specific do you have to be in order make us all acessories? Is that your game?

Pleace quote where I say we should go out and use violence today, or the coming weeks, or months, or in 2008 when you will have your elections. As I said before, when the people is ready, violence will be used because the bourgeois will not let go of everything they own.

Does that mean that we like violence? Or are violent through our beliefs in communism? No. Just like the Chechens and Palestinians aren't violent through their beliefs.

I say again, many people on this board are aware that violence is to be used when the revolution is to begin. If you think I am the only one, then you are wrong.

So I'm sorry to say, the one playing games are you.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin wrote:

What my point was that social democracy is reform.

Dave S. writes - i

t's a very very loose term. Agreed, today as practiced it practically always means reform. But 100 years ago a person dedicated to the objective of the abolition of wage slavery and capitalism could be considered a social democrat. For example see Harry Quelch

http://marxists.org/archive/quelch/1907/03...iamentarism.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/quelch/1907/03/parliamentarism.htm)

Also in another forum on these boards cornetjoyce wrote:

How easily one forgets that the glorious bolsheviks and evil mensheviks were factions of the Russian Social Democratic Party, and that Marx's party was the German SPD.

Dave S. continues:

And your logic is a bit off Tatarin. Your implication is that the amendment proposal is social democratic so then because social democrats today are mostly reformists ergo the amendment proposal must be reformist. That's like saying that all presidents of the US have been white men therefore all white men must be presidents or at least ex-presidents of the U.S.


Mike Lepore wrote:

if the workers seize the means of production with a political mandate, the revolution will be as peaceful as possible, with incidental violence, and if the workers seize the means of production without a political mandate, the revolution will be as violent as possible.

And Tatarin wrote:

Again, if capitalism allow this.

Dave writes to Tatarin:

You are not being clear as to what you are referring to "if capitalism allows this" - the workers seizing power with a political mandate, or the workers seizing power without a political mandate.

Tatarin writes:

And what if Congress rejects this amendment? Even with a majority behind it?

Dave writes:

What would happen today if congress ignored the will of the people on a fundamental question? They would be voted out and more responsive representatives elected. This is one reason that the proposal is in black and white and that running "socialist" candidates is not being suggested. We would not be asking the candidates to implement socialism for us, only that the specific terms of the amendment be adopted into the constitution.

But I don't worry about that too much. If that was our biggest "what if" I wouldn't feel so bad. To me the biggest "what if" that we have to face is what if the working class fails to ever reject class ruled society and implement its own ownership andcontrol of the means of production.

That possible scenario suggests at least to me that our biggest challenge is convincing the working class that it should in fact reject class ruled society and that we should not further drive them into the arms of plutocracy for protection by our appeals to violence.

Tatarin writes to Dave S.:

Again, you think (capitalists, apparently) will just let you take what they have? All their wealth, all what they control? In the heart of capitalism?

Dave S. writes:

You will notice that I did not propose as a tactic that we take their wealth. Capitalism depends upon the legality of private ownership of the means of production and the legality of prohibition of the workers from operating the means of production democratically and collectively.

As a tactic I propose that we make those current legalities issues in working class political campaigns for seats of congress, to propose adopting a constitutional amendment that specifically and directly addresses those current legalities.

Thank you for writing.

[Tatarin]

How easily one forgets that the glorious bolsheviks and evil mensheviks were factions of the Russian Social Democratic Party, and that Marx's party was the German SPD.

I can't place much weight on what party they were members of. At first we had only one communism, but out of that came stalinism, maoism, trotskyism, leninism and so on. Mao also based his thinking on Lenin, but his little experiment became his own creation later on.


And your logic is a bit off Tatarin. Your implication is that the amendment proposal is social democratic so then because social democrats today are mostly reformists ergo the amendment proposal must be reformist.

Not quite. My meaning was that social democracy as it is holds many reforms in it's ideological basis, not only one or two different lines from the right-wing party/ies.


You are not being clear as to what you are referring to "if capitalism allows this" - the workers seizing power with a political mandate, or the workers seizing power without a political mandate.

I mean that if the bourgeois will allow workers to have a political mandate. I doubt they will, despite the majority of the people supporting it. Ask yourself, why would Rupert Murdoch give up his media empire? He would not.


What would happen today if congress ignored the will of the people on a fundamental question? They would be voted out and more responsive representatives elected.

That would be true, if the system wasn't as corrupted as it is. I just don't think they will sit while you/r organization let you go that far (i.e. convincing people that the amendment would benefit them).


You will notice that I did not propose as a tactic that we take their wealth. Capitalism depends upon the legality of private ownership of the means of production and the legality of prohibition of the workers from operating the means of production democratically and collectively.

Capitalism rather controls the legality of private ownership.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin:

Capitalism rather controls the legality of private ownership.

Dave:

As long as the workers allow it.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin:

I just don't think they will sit while you/r organization let you go that far (i.e. convincing people that the amendment would benefit them).

Dave:

Perhaps not. But anything they do only calls attention to the issues suggested by the proposal.

Also, My suggested model would not be an organization pushing the amendment proposal but as many diverse groups and individuals as possible picking up on the idea.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

What claims to you base that on?

"because the workers allow it" ?? :huh:

on what basis do you justify that remark?

what about the conditions existent? do you truly see that as being deniable?

it is quite evident that subordination is not a choice- it is not something which the subordinate class(es) allows or chooses to "allow" for that matter. the such subordination is not consented to. therefore it cannot be said that the bourgeois state exists because the workers "allow" it to.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

what about the conditions existent? do you truly see that as being deniable?


Dave asks:

Anyway you could clarify your question? I do not know to which this refers.

Thank you.

David Searles

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:53 pm
Nadezhda:

what about the conditions existent? do you truly see that as being deniable?


Dave asks:

Anyway you could clarify your question? I do not know to which this refers.

Thank you.

David Searles
Are you denying that the working class is subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the ruling class's control of the state apparatus?

If so, based on what?

If you have anything relevant to bring into this, I would like to hear it- otherwise, if you don't and you'd rather just throw around claims without any factual/logical basis for the argument that you are making, well, then debating this any further is pointless in any regard.

I seems to be quite relevant for me to bring into this that if what you are suggesting was possible it would have happened already- and therefore, it isn't because the workers allow themselves to be subordinate to the ruling class, it is because they don't have a choice. Subordination is not chosen, it exists because of certain conditions existent (the bourgeois state (state apparatus controlled by the bourgeois ruling class), therefore the ruling class also easily has absolute control of the means of production, and the state is ultimately serving in the interest of those who control the modes of production (and ultimately the state apparatus is used as a tool so that the bourgeois ruling class has absolute control over not only the modes of production but that all laws existent and the police force, etc) so that all together will serve to protect the private interests of the bourgeois ruling class). So ultimately, it cannot be said that the workers "allow" it, because they don't- it is simply subordination through coercion, that cannot possibly be disregarded, especially given that the bourgeois state takes all action to ensure that the bourgeois ruling class's interests are secured-- it is not serving in the workers' interests, and the workers could not make an impact on that, because they are excluded from the state enterprise-- i.e. make notice when i say "bourgeois democracy".

Hopefully I made that clear enough and you will have no difficulty responding on a purely logical/factual basis instead of by making statements which you don't intend to justify.

[PigmerikanMao]

Comrade Chairman Cookie Is Not Pleased!
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o14/comrade_xan/cookie.jpg

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 03:26 am
it cannot be said that the workers "allow" it, because they don't- it is simply subordination through coercion
Your view is quite the opposite of how I think the system is maintained. I believe the coercion is almost entirely mental. While young people's brain connections are forming, they get told all of the myths hundreds of thousands of times: that capitalism generously rewards conscientious workers, that the lazy workers only hurt themselves, that capitalism is the essence of freedom, that capitalism never generates any social problems, problems are either inevitable or come from human nature being evil, the cure to our problems is hard work and religious devotion, etc., etc. Having had our circuits programmed in that way, now we are allowed to vote on what social rules we would like to have, by means of voting for the legislators who will have the power to rewrite society's rules. To think unlike one's upbringing is very rare, and therefore most people would consider voting only for legislators who will retain capitalism's rules. That mind-control feedback loop tends to keep things as they are for centuries. The task of a socialist is to find new ways to make that feedback loop go unstable.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda asks Dave S.:

Are you denying that the working class is subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the ruling class's control of the state apparatus?

Dave answers:

Many moons ago I worked as a cook in a state prison. I worked alongside several dozen inmates preparing meals for the prison population of over 2000. It would often occur to me that I was spending most of my waking hours locked up in prison and while there my conditions were exactly the same as the inmates. It struck me as ironic that the inmates had to be captured, put in hand cuffs, delivered to the prison in a bus with bars on it and then locked in and forcibly detained - but that all the prison had to do to get me to spend a significant number of my waking hours locked behind bars was to wave a paycheck under my nose.

So I would say that the working class is mainly subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the wages system.

Through the ballot box do the workers currently not support worker control of the means of production because they are afraid of the state, or do they not support worker control of the means of production becuase they have not for the most part reached that conclusion?

I believe that it is the latter.

Nadezhda, are you afraid of expressing through the ballot box support for worker control of the means of production becuase of possible state retaliation? I would doubt that you are, and I doubt that you know of anyone who is either.

I do believe that you are simply afraid that you would not be effective in trying to convince workers of what we see as the necessity of worker control. You fear failure so you go sour grapes on the idea of trying to do the very thing most likely to be effective and you attempt to dissuade from others doing what you yourself are fearful of. (And then you try to hide your fear by stupid appeals to violence.)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:26 am

Dave answers:

Many moons ago I worked as a cook in a state prison. I worked alongside several dozen inmates preparing meals for the prison population of over 2000. It would often occur to me that I was spending most of my waking hours locked up in prison and while there my conditions were exactly the same as the inmates. It struck me as ironic that the inmates had to be captured, put in hand cuffs, delivered to the prison in a bus with bars on it and then locked in and forcibly detained - but that all the prison had to do to get me to spend a significant number of my waking hours locked behind bars was to wave a paycheck under my nose.

So I would say that the working class is mainly subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the wages system.
I don't agrue against that, but again, you are denying the role of the police force under the bourgeois state. It doesn't exist to serve in the workers' interests, it exists to serve in the interests of the ruling class and secure their such interests- it is not only "subordination through the wage system" it is subordination through coercive force which the ruling class ultimately controls with the existence of the bourgeois state and therefore, its control of the police force.


Through the ballot box do the workers currently not support worker control of the means of production becuase they are afraid of the state, or do they not support worker control of the means of production becuase they have not for the most part reached that conclusion?

I belive that it is the latter.

Nadezhda, are you afraid of expressing through the ballot box support for worker control of the means of produiction? I would doubt that you are, and I doubt that you know of anyone who is either.

I do believe that you are simply afraid that you would not be effective in trying to convince workers of what we see as the necessity of worker control. You fear failure so you go sour grapes on the idea of trying to do the very thing most likely to be effective and you attempt to dissuade from others doing what you yourself are fearful of. (And then you try to hide your fear by stupid appeals to violence.)
Fear of failure? :huh:

The reason I don't think participating electorally changes anything is because it doesn't. It can't; the state apparatus is not serving the interests of the working class, it is serving the interests of the bourgeois ruling class.

You deny the conditions existent which makes what you suggest impossible. If it were possible I wouldn't argue against it- I am simply acknowledging the fact that a subordinate class is subordinate because of the existence of coercive force- which binds them to their position- which cannot be eliminated without the use of force against it. Coercive force cannot be eliminated when the means of its existence are not eliminated. What you are suggesting would not eliminate it, it wouldn't even be an attempt- and if so, it would be unsuccessful, because the workers' interests aren't represented on the ballot anyway- they can't be under a bourgeois state which doesn't seek to serve in the interests of the proletariat- the ruling class ultimately has control.

What you are suggesting is that the conception of a ruling class and a subordinate class is false, and that in itself proves my point in regard to that you have no understanding for marxism and the formation of classes distinct from each other, and along with that you have no understanding for class relations and the conditions existent which cause the such relations and therefore subordination.


Your view is quite the opposite of how I think the system is maintained. I believe the coercion is almost entirely mental. While young people's brain connections are forming, they get told all of the myths hundreds of thousands of times: that capitalism generously rewards conscientious workers, that the lazy workers only hurt themselves, that capitalism is the essence of freedom, that capitalism never generates any social problems, problems are either inevitable or come from human nature being evil, the cure to our problems is hard work and religious devotion, etc., etc. Having had our circuits programmed in that way, now we are allowed to vote on what social rules we would like to have, by means of voting for the legislators who will have the power to rewrite society's rules. To think unlike one's upbringing is very rare, and therefore most people would consider voting only for legislators who will retain capitalism's rules. That mind-control feedback loop tends to keep things as they are for centuries. The task of a socialist is to find new ways to make that feedback loop go unstable.
I don't deny that- I don't disregard that at all, but you are simply denying that the bourgeois state has any control over worker's movement, progess, etc. which it is clear if you look at the reason the police force exists in the first place that coercion takes a much more significant form and cannot so easily be overcome when the workers no longer "allow" it-- it is not that simple, nothing can possibly occur in that regard under the repressive state. The bourgeois state exists for the purpose of securing the ruling class's interest- if it didn't than there wouldn't be laws existent for that reason only and a police force to enforce them.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

you are denying the role of the police force under the bourgeois state....

it is not only "subordination (of the working class by the bougisie) through the wage system" it is subordination through coercive force...

Dave writes:

Are you actually telling me that you believe that the workers do not choose to assert a political mandate at the ballot box in favor of worker collective ownership and control of the means of production because they are afraid of what the police might do?

There is no way that I could be convinced that you actually belive that.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Dave writes:

Are you actually telling me that you believe that the workers do not choose to assert a political mandate at the ballot box in favor of worker collective ownership and control of the means of production because they are afraid of what the police might do?

There is no way that I could be convinced that you actually belive that.
No, I simply stated that what you are suggesting is impossible. It has nothing to do with fear- nothing at all. It simply has to do with that they are subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the existence of the bourgeois state apparatus and the police force the such state apparatus controls- therefore, they do not have the ability to change it electorally, because they are not represented by the state apparatus; the bourgeois state apparatus doesn't exist to serve in the interests of the proletariat- it exists for the purpose of securing the interests of the bourgeoisie. A ruling class isn't a ruling class without the existence of subordination of another class to it (i.e. the proletariat-- the working class). Your claim that I am "fearful" of the police force and the bourgeois state, etc. is quite idiotic, and you claim I am a spy :huh: your arguments suits that association quite well, actually, as you seem to deny- and quite ineffectively, I would say.

The point is not in regard to "fear", it is in regard to that what you suggest is merely impossible because the conditions existent prevent it.

The only way to eliminate the conditions which proletarians live under is to eliminate the coercive force binding them to the such conditions; i.e.- the bourgeois state apparatus, the police force which it ultimately commands to serve the interests of the ruling class and exploit the subordinate class (proletariat) by all means of serving that interest-- this can be through control of the modes of production, but it can also be through the implementation of law to secure the ruling class's control of these modes of production which is ultimately enforced by the police force in existence under the bourgeois state apparatus. This is subordination through the use of coercive force, regardless of how it manifests itself, regardless of the label you choose to place upon it in regard to name- that is ultimately what it is. Whether or not you consider it relevant- it is not simply to be amounted to "fear"- it is a condition existent in capitalist society until the bourgeois state. The conditions can't be eliminated without eliminating the forces which cause them to exist in the first place.

Don't eliminate the effects, eliminate the cause- otherwise there is no point, it won't change anything. This also applies to reforming capitalism, as reforming it does not seek to eliminate the forces bringing it into existence in the first place. That is why what you suggest cannot be done.

Try coming up with better arguments next time if you want to attempt at a decent debate.

[davidasearles]

Dave writes to Nadezhda:

Are you actually telling me that you believe that the workers do not choose to assert a political mandate at the ballot box in favor of worker collective ownership and control of the means of production because they are afraid of what the police might do?

There is no way that I could be convinced that you actually belive that.

Nadezhda:

It simply has to do with that they are subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the existence of the bourgeois state apparatus and the police force the such state apparatus controls- therefore, they do not have the ability to change it electorally, because they are not represented by the state apparatus;

Dave writes:

But leftist parties get on the ballot al of the time. In Vermont all that is needed is 500 signatures in the whole state and your on. Clearly the "state apapratus" must have let the back door open. Where leftist parties can get on the ballot why don't workers flock to them? Becuase of some cok and bull story about "state apapratus" or isn't it becuase the left has heretofore failed to do any kind of a good job convincing the workers to support them?

[Tatarin]

But leftist parties get on the ballot al of the time. In Vermont all that is needed is 500 signatures in the whole state and your on.

But that must also mean that those 500 people must know what they are doing. Convincing people is one of the hardest things to do, even if it shows them logical solutions. As long as the bourgeois system is not disturbed by leftist parties, options like these will always be there.

And again, the media also plays a big role in this. The Left has nothing compared to Murdoch's media empire to spread it's message.

Adding to that, the action itself must be significant. In other words, the action must be pressed day after day, not each 4 years. That means many people aware of the action, not just supporting a party and who could sooner or later turn their backs on it.


Clearly the "state apapratus" must have let the back door open.

This can be applied to everything. As stronger progressive movements are not posing as threats to the ruling system, they don't have anyting to worry about. That is why they are upset with Chavez and Castro - not only are they standing up against the ruling system, they can very well function as beacons for the rest of the world with the message that another system is possible.

Nixon even tried to connect terrorism with a global "communist conspiracy" during the cold war to blame away the demonstrators as enemies. Police do it every time there is a demonstration, even infiltrate it to show how "violent this group is" (thus propagating the idea that you shouldn't join this group, it is dangerous).

As progressive movements get more support, more will be done to them - intimidation, blackmail etc. If there are huge "problems" with voting in the US only the last 6 years - and this only with two almost identical political parties - it takes little imagination to picture what would happen with a leftist party (even a reformist one).

Michael Parenti also makes a good point in where he talks about leftist movements throughout history, i.e. how they are described in US history books. One can apparently not find much on the Socialist Party, who apparently got around one million votes back in the early 20th century.

[davidasearles]

Dave wrote:

But leftist parties get on the ballot all of the time. In Vermont all that is needed is 500 signatures in the whole state and your on.

Tatarin responds:

But that must also mean that those 500 people must know what they are doing. As long as the bourgeois system is not disturbed by leftist parties, options like these will always be there.

Dave replies:

The 500 know what they are doing? Yes they are signing a petition to allow the leftist party to be on the ballot. It doesn't even mean that they agree to support the party or even vote for it.

Tatarin response continued:

Convincing people is one of the hardest things to do, even if it shows them logical solutions.

Dave:

One kind of "convincing people" is sales. My father used to be a sales person. Insurance, concrete blocks, water softeners, hearing aids, home delivery of soda, etc. etc. In sales you look at your own behaviour for the most part becuase that's the behaviour that you can control. You figure out what action that you can logically take that will most likely result in convincing people to part with their money for your product. And then you set up a system for yourself that most insures that you follow the behaviours that you think are logical that would result in actual sales. Of course you have to make adjustments here and there but the basic principle is always the same. Sales very seldom magically appear. They are the result of a lot of work.

By in large leftists have ignored this very basic idea as to the groundwork that has to be done to convince people of their ideas. Oh well. Every day is a new opportunity for your to adjust your behavior to try to be a little more effective than you were yesterday. But effectiveness is not measured in theory it is measured in people actually convinced. And for our "product" that's not always an easy thing to gauge.

Tatarin respose continued:

As long as the bourgeois system is not disturbed by leftist parties, options like these will always be there.

Dave replies:

Then as long as this option is open, that is what we should do, or am I missing something here?

[Tatarin]

The 500 know what they are doing? Yes they are signing a petition to allow the leftist party to be on the ballot. It doesn't even mean that they agree to support the party or even vote for it.

That is what I mean. What is the point of having your party on the ballot if not even 500 people will vote for it, or even aware of communism?


Then as long as this option is open, that is what we should do, or am I missing something here?

I do not oppose voting as it is, I am trying to say that they will close it when the movement is threatening them, and that the movement should be aware of this and ready to not back down until the next elections, but to push for change even if that means continuing outside the "official" electoral process.

[davidasearles]

Dave wrote:

But leftist parties get on the ballot all of the time. In Vermont all that is needed is 500 signatures in the whole state and your on.

Tatarin responded:

But that must also mean that those 500 people must know what they are doing.

Dave wrote:

The 500 know what they are doing? Yes they are signing a petition to allow the leftist party to be on the ballot. It doesn't even mean that they agree to support the party or even vote for it.

Tatarin writes:

What is the point of having your party on the ballot if not even 500 people will vote for it, or even aware of communism?

Dave writes:

There was a little slippage in the facts Tatarin. The 500 individuals are just people apparoached on the street at random and asked to sign the petition. Typically the question that is asked of them is "would you sign this petition to givre so and so party the right to be on the ballot." It would be very surprizing if any of them with such short exposure would actually vote for the party. Also typically I do not give out literature when engaged in this becuase a lot will read the literatuer and come back and say take my name off of that petition. I don't want to support that.

But the basic question, why run a political campaign when in the past the left has not gotten a lot of votes? Two things. One, elections for the US House are held every two years, we are not bound by past elections; two, in the next election cycle you try to come up with a better mousetrap. This year we have the amednement proposal. We never had that before.

[davidasearles]

Tatarin:

I do not oppose voting as it is, I am trying to say that they will close it when the movement is threatening them, and that the movement should be aware of this and ready to not back down until the next elections, but to push for change even if that means continuing outside the "official" electoral process.

Dave:

I have no idea what THEY will or won't do. But for the most part I agree with you.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:45 pm
Dave writes:

But leftist parties get on the ballot al of the time. In Vermont all that is needed is 500 signatures in the whole state and your on. Clearly the "state apapratus" must have let the back door open. Where leftist parties can get on the ballot why don't workers flock to them? Becuase of some cok and bull story about "state apapratus" or isn't it becuase the left has heretofore failed to do any kind of a good job convincing the workers to support them?
I wouldn't vote any day. Want to know why?

It doesn't change anything. It does not allow revolutionary movement to progress, ultimately all it does is give a false idea that something is actually changing, when it is just more bourgeois bullshit (and reformist parties are ultimately the same in that regard as they are not making effort against capitalism and ultimately have the same bourgeois interests as the rest of the existent parties).

Actually, it has the same characteristic of religion under the bourgeois state.

Why do you think Marx refered to it as the "opium of the people"?

It is a means of repressing the working class and giving them a false sense that the conditions that they live under will eventually diminish, and it ultimately causes proletarians to become blind sleep.

The bourgeois ruling class loves that.

Go ahead try to "attain communism" electorally. No one is stopping you, but you will fail, terribly.

[davidasearles]

Nadehda:

I wouldn't vote any day. Want to know why?

Dave:

Because you are "advocating for revolutionary movement to overthrow the bourgeois state by violent means" despite the availability of the electoral process?

"Elections are like religion" and why do we think that "Marx referred to religon as the opium of the people"

You have the strangest logic or the shortest commandd of history Nadezhda.

You cite Marx for the prosepect that elections are like the opium of the people? Why then didn't Marx say that himself instead of what he actually did say?

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. Karl Marx March 1850

"The worker must someday conquer political supremacy in order to establish the new organisation of labour. He must abolish the old policy preserving the old institutions, or he will fare as did the early Christians, who despised and neglected to do so and hence never saw their kingdom realized in this world.
"But we do not assert that the attainment of this end requires identical means.
"We know that one has to take into consideration the institutions, mores, and traditions of the different countries and we do not deny that there are countries like England and America and if I am familiar with your institutin, Holland, where labour may attain its ends by peaceful means." Karl Marx September 1872 As translated from Algemeen Handeisbiad by the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 06:15 pm
if you look at the reason the police force exists in the first place
I have concluded recently that the theory of the state that we Marxists have proposed for the past 150 years is a lot of garbage, and I include myself in the commission of the error. I see now that "the reason the police force exists in the first place" is because human animals always form social structure to attain some stability and mutual protection, and, without the coercive laws and police, there would be nothing to truncate the tail end of the normal distribution of human behavior. If people ever try to have a society without the laws and the police, it will last for five minutes, then, as soon as somebody beats his wife, or somebody rapes somebody's daughter, the society would promptly see that they need to bring back the whole caboodle - the laws, the courts, the police and the jails. The forms may change, for example, they may someday use stun rayguns instead of bullets and clubs, but the function is the same. Human behavior is always a bell-shaped probability distribution, and one maverick tail of the curve has to be clipped continuously. The ancient Mesopotamians and Etruscans didn't know that this is what they were doing, and couldn't express it that way, but they sensed correctly that they needed to do it. The fact that the state immediately came under the influence of ruling classes, became used to enslave producers to protect the luxury of idlers and despots, and has remained that way for five thousand years, doesn't change the original need or function.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

You have the strangest logic or the shortest commandd of history Nadezhda.
It seems you enjoy throwing out valid arguments made by comrades here, taking certain phrases out of context, making absurd remarks in regard to a small part of the argument made- while disregarding everything of meaning, of logical substance, and then of course accusing them of making statements without validity and having a lack of understanding for history itself. It seems, however, that it is your arguments which lack substance, considering you have yet to give explanation for your arguments and disregard most of historical context.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda:

It seems (blah blah blah). It seems (blah blah blah).

Dave asks:

You don't give your name so I have to ask:

Did we ever have a significant relationship? :lol:


Originally posted by THE RAVEN+--> (THE RAVEN)
Originally posted by [email protected]

Dave Searles
You have the strangest logic or the shortest command of history Nadezhda.
It seems you enjoy throwing out valid arguments made by comrades here, taking certain phrases out of context, making absurd remarks in regard to a small part of the argument made- while disregarding everything of meaning, of logical substance, and then of course accusing them of making statements without validity and having a lack of understanding for history itself. It seems, however, that it is your arguments which lack substance, considering you have yet to give explanation for your arguments and disregard most of historical context.[/b]

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:47 am
Dave asks:

You don't give your name so I have to ask:

Did we ever have a significant relationship?
No, I don't take on relationships with bourgeois reactionaries who claim to advocate revolution. Actually, for the mostpart, I find ignorance to be a rather disgusting quality as it often comes hand in hand with blind patriotism, the act of voting, along with that, claiming to advocate revolution when it is rather clear that what is truly being advocated is for proletarians to vote for reactionary bourgeois parties as a means of benefiting the bourgeois state, do you see? Ultimately, claiming to be in favor of revolutionary movement through the electoral system and arguing that "revolution will occur through the ballot box" is simply the act of attempting to convince proletarians to remain in shackles and follow blindly under the flag, participate in the act of voting to create a class of blind sleep- so that it cannot possibly threaten bourgeois power.

Arguments of the such nature are counterrevolutionary by all means, and I am not attracted to counterrevolutionaries, and counterrevolutionary ignorance is a rather unattractive quality.

I am quite certain, however, that if you read posts here other than for the purpose of starting threads for your reactionary movement, you would know my name.

[davidasearles]

Nadezdha wrote:

It seems (blah blah blah). It seems (blah blah blah).

and Dave then asked Nadezdha:

You don't give your name so I have to ask:

Did we ever have a significant relationship?

And Nadezdha replied:

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano%201.jpg

No, I don't take on relationships with bourgeois reactionaries who claim to advocate revolution. Actually, for the mostpart, I find ignorance to be a rather disgusting quality

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano%204.jpg

as it often comes hand in hand with blind patriotism, the act of voting, along with that, claiming to advocate revolution when it is rather clear that what is truly being advocated is for proletarians to vote for reactionary bourgeois parties as a means of benefiting the bourgeois state, do you see?

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano6.jpg

Ultimately, claiming to be in favor of revolutionary movement through the electoral system and arguing that "revolution will occur through the ballot box" is simply the act of attempting to convince proletarians to remain in shackles and follow blindly under the flag, participate in the act of voting to create a class of blind sleep- so that it cannot possibly threaten bourgeois power.

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano.jpg

I am quite certain, however, that if you read posts here other than for the purpose of starting threads for your reactionary movement, you would know my name.

Dave meekly asks:

Mount Saint Helena?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:02 am
Nadezdha wrote:

It seems (blah blah blah). It seems (blah blah blah).

and Dave then asked Nadezdha:

You don't give your name so I have to ask:

Did we ever have a significant relationship?

And Nadezdha replied:

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano%201.jpg

No, I don't take on relationships with bourgeois reactionaries who claim to advocate revolution. Actually, for the mostpart, I find ignorance to be a rather disgusting quality

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano%204.jpg

as it often comes hand in hand with blind patriotism, the act of voting, along with that, claiming to advocate revolution when it is rather clear that what is truly being advocated is for proletarians to vote for reactionary bourgeois parties as a means of benefiting the bourgeois state, do you see?

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano6.jpg

Ultimately, claiming to be in favor of revolutionary movement through the electoral system and arguing that "revolution will occur through the ballot box" is simply the act of attempting to convince proletarians to remain in shackles and follow blindly under the flag, participate in the act of voting to create a class of blind sleep- so that it cannot possibly threaten bourgeois power.

http://www.bhargavaz.net/rashi/volcano.jpg

I am quite certain, however, that if you read posts here other than for the purpose of starting threads for your reactionary movement, you would know my name.

Dave meekly asks:

Mount Saint Helena?
I don't see the relevance aside from self-entertainment (which you seem to enjoy) :lol:

[davidasearles]

To Nadezdha:

Of course you don't. ;)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:30 pm
To Nadezdha:

Of course you don't. ;)
This reminds me of you. Ignorance. :rolleyes:
http://www.serendipity.li/bush/fubush.jpg

[davidasearles]

A man (and his ilk) that you (and your ilk) give power to by appealing to violence when there is resort to the open political process.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:04 am
A man (and his ilk) that you (and your ilk) give power to by appealing to violence when there is resort to the open political process.
You have very little understanding for "political process" under the bourgeois state.

[davidasearles]

I do understand that it is a forum to introduce the idea of worker control of the means of production.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:02 pm
I do understand that it is a forum to introduce the idea of worker control of the means of production.
The problem is you not only have a lack of understanding in regards to the relevance of the arguments made by comrades and why revolutionary movement is necessary in the first place, but you also are completely ignorant to it in all regards and do not wish to further your understanding. Therefore, it is utterly pointless to debate with you, as you have nothing relevant to bring up and only bullshit statements to throw around and as your ignorance prevents you from making relevant arguments.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would gladly vote for a declared socialist candidate if his priorities were something along the lines of progressive change.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:46 pm
I would gladly vote for a declared socialist candidate if his priorities were something along the lines of progressive change.
Do you realize elections occuring under a bourgeois state are not democratic elections and are ultimately controlled by the bourgeois state apparatus?

[davidasearles]

C. Nadezda:

Do you realize elections occurring under a bourgeois state are not democratic elections and are ultimately controlled by the bourgeois state apparatus?

D. Searles:

Unfortunately elections under the bourgeois state ARE democratic to the extent that the results reflect the fact that bourgeois parties almost universally garner the support of the demos.

One tactic certainly would be to give the demos a choice by running working class candidates who actually support the workers collectively and democratically owning and operating the means of production.

K. Marx:

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:20 am
D. Searles:

Unfortunately elections under the bourgeois state ARE democratic to the extent that the results reflect the fact that bourgeois parties almost universally garner the support of the demos.
That does not mean it serves in the interest of the "demos", which it certainly does it.

Did you ever think to question why?

Bourgeois democracy is only democratic in the sense that it will only promote activity which benefits its ruling class (the bourgeoisie), which ultimately controls the activities of the bourgeois state. To say that the ruling class does not impact elections is absurd. It would not "allow" any activity that doesn't serve in its interest(s), it is not a state of "majority rule" it is a state of bourgeois rule.


One tactic certainly would be to give the demos a choice by running working class candidates who actually support the workers collectively and democratically owning and operating the means of production.
What you are suggesting is not possible, because the bourgeois state does not want to serve in the interests of the working-class. It wants to serve in its own interest(s), which is what is ultimately does, especially in America.

The bourgeois state exists to protect private property, if this wasn't true than it wouldn't favor laws which only benefit those who own private property, those who have means of having private property. Laws that protect bourgeois estates do not serve in the interest of the working class, because proletarians don't own such estates, they don't even own the commodities they produce.

Ultimately, the only benefit of these laws exist for the bourgeois ruling class, and the state apparatus serves to protect their interest. That is why it is not democratic, and that is also why democractic elections are not possible.

They can't "alter" the ownership of the means of production electorally, they can't do that through the ballot box.

The existence of the state apparatus which protects the bourgeois ruling class's interest(s) prevents this from happening, because the state is not serving the interest of the working-class, it is serving the interests of the bourgeois class, therefore it is not democratic and will not take any action or allow any action, for that matter, that seeks to cause difficulties in regards to securing their own interest(s).

The workers don't have control of the state apparatus, they are excluded from it, so they can't possibly "alter" the "modes of production". They can't eliminate class distinction because its existence is dependent on their exclusion from the state apparatus, from state power.


K. Marx:

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
Don't bother quoting Marx out of context, either.

[dty06]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 25, 2007 06:20 pm
"If elections changed anything, they'd be illegal."

But that said, I will be voting for:
WHIPLASH-The Taco John's cowboy monkey.

In 2004 I wound up voting for Kerry, but I really wanted to vote for Rocky Rococo!
I've decided that I'll be voting for The Hamburglar in 2008. Why? Because at least he admits to being a thief.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda to Dave S.:

What you are suggesting is not possible....

Dave S. to Nadezhda:

Please tell me one specific thing that I am suggesting that is impossible. And when you are indentifying that one specific thing please quote where I have suggested it.

thank you.

K. Marx:

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:03 pm
Nadezhda to Dave S.:

What you are suggesting is not possible....

Dave S. to Nadezhda:

Please tell me one specific thing that I am suggesting that is impossible. And when you are indentifying that one specific thing please quote where I have suggested it.

thank you.

K. Marx:

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
Once again, you ignore my entire post.

There is no need for me to continue wasting my time arguing in regards to this.

Take your reactionary bourgeois bullshit elsewhere.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18, 2007 06:26 pm
They can't "alter" the ownership of the means of production electorally, they can't do that through the ballot box.


Such a comment implies that socialism should be kept illegal even while establishing it. Either every worker must then go through life being continuously in danger of being imprisoned at any time for the crime of doing what socialist planning has arranged to be done, or the socialists must have previously assassinated all the police officers.

This problem with the anti-election viewpoint has been pointed out many times, but the elephant in the living room just gets ignored.

[davidasearles]

Nadezhda to Dave S.:

What you are suggesting is not possible....

Dave S. to Nadezhda:

Please tell me one specific thing that I am suggesting that is impossible. And when you are indentifying that one specific thing please quote where I have suggested it.

thank you.

K. Marx:

"...Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

Nadezhda wimps out:

There is no need for me to continue wasting my time arguing in regards to this.