When is it OK for revolutionaries to support bourgeois parties?

[TheRedRevolutionary]

Just to get a sense of how revolutionary this site is, how many of you would ever give support to bourgeois or petit bourgeois parties? And yes for the Trots out there this includes "critical support."

This includes:
Democratic Party (USA)
Labour Party (UK)
The pseudo-populist Latin Americans governments: Chavez, Morales, etc.
Green Party/Nader (US)

[jake williams]

I think the general answer is utilitarian, a combination of is it the best thing that can be done practically? and does it compromise our revolutionary work? And I think in most cases very passive support - such as voting in federal elections where there's no chance of supporting a functioning revolutionary party, especially if those parties don't bother with bourgeois elections, fits this well. It makes sense for American communists to vote for Obama unless they really believe that the harm done by 4 more years of Republicans will be made up for in revolutionary gains - and you can make this argument, but it's a disturbing argument. The point, however, on the first jot is that voting takes very little effort and commitment, and in narrow circumstances can make things less awful for the working class (or even the world). In terms of strategizing around the Canadian federal elections, I think it's worthwhile to support any non-Tory party, because Stephen Harper scares the shit out of me.

As far as Morales and Chavez go, I have a lot of love for both of them. Huge problems, sure, but you have to recognize that there's also an anti-imperialist context in those situations and that's very important too. We can go into that specific case if you'd like, but I think that deviates a bit from your main question, which is how do revolutionary leftists deal with their own domestic politics and elections.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

It makes sense for American communists to vote for Obama unless they really believe that the harm done by 4 more years of Republicans will be made up for in revolutionary gains - and you can make this argument, but it's a disturbing argument. The point, however, on the first jot is that voting takes very little effort and commitment, and in narrow circumstances can make things less awful for the working class (or even the world). In terms of strategizing around the Canadian federal elections, I think it's worthwhile to support any non-Tory party, because Stephen Harper scares the shit out of me.
.

Ha! Another reformist! Voting for the "lesser evil" capitalist is the classic centre-left reformist point of view. Obama is just another militaristic capitalist hardly any different than McCain. It's bad enough to support the Greens or Naders but Obama?!!? :laugh:

[La Comédie Noire]

It's never okay to support or tell people Bourgeoisie parties can do anything for them. It's lieing to them and insulting their intelligence.

[Colonello Buendia]

never. to support and vote in a liberal democracy is to accept that you have handed your power to the elected representative. I cannot see how this is good for any sort of revolution building. I can however understand how others would vote against a more right wing group. it is important that we don't hype up liberal governments by giving them legitimacy and thus the authority to vote on issues in parliament. if we do that we essentially give away our right to direct democracy.

[Mindtoaster]

Define "support". I put "yes, but it depends on the situation" because I would probably *vote* for Chavez or Morales as they are at the very least progressives and are doing alot of good for the working class of Venezuela/Bolivia. Even reactionary right-wing Americans will admit that. However would I "support" the politicians, as in fundraising, selling newspapers, constantly praising them. No, I don't get that excited over progressives. Though I think we should actually critically support them and praise them when they do something right.

I would never bother wasting my time voting on the Democrats or UK Labor. Democrats being moderate right and Labor being indistinguishable from the Torys.

[Trystan]

When it keeps the far-right out of government.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think it makes no sense to group Chávez and Evo with the Democratic Party. Chávez and Evo have very clearly taken measures against bourgeois and imperialist hegemony in Venezuela and Bolivia respectively. The Democratic Party would never under any circumstance do anything contrary to the interests of the American ruling class.

It's never acceptable* for a leftist to support neoliberal, imperialist, militarist, interventionist, murderers such as the Democratic Party. For all practical purposes, the Democratic Party is the exact same thing as the Republican Party. *Unless there's a an imminent danger of a literally fascist coup, no leftist ought to ever support Republicrats. It's sometimes okay to support "pseudo-populists" such as Evo and Chávez.

[spartan]

In local council elections I once voted for two independent candidates to stop the BNP and Tories (who both stood candidiates in my ward) from getting in, and you know what? It worked! Both the candidiates I voted for were elected but that wasn't a surprise as they are both good guys who care, and do alot for our community.

[Yehuda Stern]

The Marxist position is: no support to any bourgeois party, under any circumstances, not even under the false pretense of "fighting fascism." It is one thing to give military support to a bourgeois democratic government against a fascist uprising, and another to give political support to that government, which constitutes betrayal, however 'critical' it is.

[BraneMatter]

In the Manifesto, Section IV, it says only when they are acting in a revolutionary way, but it is always only a temporary alliance.

[revolution inaction]

Any one who supports any political party which seeks to be elected is not an anarchist

[Lenin's Law]

The Marxist position is: no support to any bourgeois party, under any circumstances, not even under the false pretense of "fighting fascism." It is one thing to give military support to a bourgeois democratic government against a fascist uprising, and another to give political support to that government, which constitutes betrayal, however 'critical' it is.

I would like to see more little more evidence to support this. Did Marx not support bourgeois parties at different points and time? Did not Lenin as well? What do you have to say about Marx' comment when negotiating with the liberal British trade unions that he was "mild in manner, bold in content?"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, but the original question should have been "When is it OK for revolutionaries to support PETIT-bourgeois parties?"

Support for big-bourgeois parties is a complete no-no:

What is opposed is the idea of the possibility that a proletarian party can during normal times regularly combine with a capitalist party for the purpose of maintaining a government or a governmental party, without being destroyed by the insuperable conflicts which must exist. The power of the state is everywhere an organ of class rule. The class antagonisms between the workers and the possessing class are so great that the proletariat can never share governmental power with any possessing class. The possessing class will always demand, and its interests will force it to demand, that the power of the state shall be used to hold the proletariat down. On the other hand the proletariat will always demand that any government in which their own party possesses power, shall use the power of the state to assist it in its battle against capital. Consequently every government based upon a coalition of capitalist and working class parties is foredoomed to disruption.

A proletarian party which shares power with a capitalist party in any government must share the blame for any acts of subjection of the working class. It thereby invites the hostility of its own supporters, and this in turn causes its capitalist allies to lose confidence and makes any progressive action impossible. No such arrangement can bring any strength to the working class.

(Karl Kautsky, The Road to Power)

[Yehuda Stern]

In the Manifesto, Section IV, it says only when they are acting in a revolutionary way, but it is always only a temporary alliance.




The Manifesto, unfortunately, was written before Marx and Engels had the opportunity to test that proposition in action and see that the bourgeoisie will always sacrifice its revolution to guard itself against the proletariat. In our age there is no question of the bourgeoisie acting in a "revolutionary way."


I would like to see more little more evidence to support this.

Both Lenin and Trotsky, even in situations where they gave military support to a bourgeois government, never gave any sort of political support to the ruling class. Good examples are Lenin's attitude to Kerensky fighting Kornilov, or Trotsky's attitude towards the Spanish popular front.


Did Marx not support bourgeois parties at different points and time?

I doubt it, but even if he did, he did so before the age of imperialism, when capitalism still had some progressive content.


Did not Lenin as well?

Well, not that I know of; certainly not after the formation of the Bolshevik party.


What do you have to say about Marx' comment when negotiating with the liberal British trade unions that he was "mild in manner, bold in content?"

That I assume he told the truth...?

[JimmyJazz]

Red, ultra-leftism is an infantile disorder dontcha know! :lol:

[Charles Xavier]

Red Rev is no Leninist, hes got an infantile disorder.

[Comrade B]

Red Revolutionary, what is with your witch hunt for reformists? It is like a reverse McCarthy era. US democrats in the McCarthy era were accused of being communists for not despising them. If people show a sign of support for reformists you declare them reformists and claim that they are counter revolutionary.

[jake williams]

No one here likes the Democrats and you can put your e-finger down, that's just childish and ineffective. The question is whether or not it would be better if the Democrats were elected than if the Republicans were. That's the question, because that's the choice in bourgeois elections, everything else is just ignorance.

And let's recognize - the differences are tiny, but because there's so much power in the American state, they become significant. The only way that it would be better if the Republicans won would be if it would increase revolutionary sentiment by making both objective and subjective conditions worse for workers. If you believe in this sort of fiddling, I'm not going to deny that there's an argument, but it's an ugly argument, and I don't really think it's appropriate. Moreover, the election of a black president would indeed make real differences in American society, and there's no way to deny that. His policies could be identical to Ronald Reagan's and it would be progressive for black people.

Also, my understanding of American politics is finite. The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals in Canada is something like the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats respectively, but slightly larger, and it would indeed make a meaningful difference if the Liberals one, Harper is really frightening even though the Liberals are abhorrent, and that's the context I'm working in right now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, the not-so-progressive Conservatives are generally seen as leaning more to the Democ-RATS than the REPUGN-icans, while the Liberals are generally seen as being the "left" wing of the Democ-RATS if not further "left."

Harper ain't gonna press for a "constitutional amendment" against same-sex after that Supreme Court ruling, for example.

[Lenin's Law]

Moreover, the election of a black president would indeed make real differences in American society, and there's no way to deny that. His policies could be identical to Ronald Reagan's and it would be progressive for black people.

I really can't believe I'm hearing such a superficial argument: so a black capitalist that exploits black workers would be better than the white one? Looking at issues from an identity standpoint and not a class one is faulty and superficial in the extreme. This is the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton logic and it would not be "progressive" for black people but only serve to foster further illusions that capitalism is making progress when it is only exploiting the wishful thinking of some people by making the exploiter "look" like something different.

And tell me if I misread you, but are you telling me you think it would be progressive if a President with the same policies of Ronald Reagan were to be elected if he was black?

[jake williams]

I really can't believe I'm hearing such a superficial argument: so a black capitalist that exploits black workers would be better than the white one? Looking at issues from an identity standpoint and not a class one is faulty and superficial in the extreme. This is the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton logic and it would not be "progressive" for black people but only serve to foster further illusions that capitalism is making progress when it is only exploiting the wishful thinking of some people by making the exploiter "look" like something different.

And tell me if I misread you, but are you telling me you think it would be progressive if a President with the same policies of Ronald Reagan were to be elected if he was black?
I'm sorry if you'd like to deny that racism is a real force in our society, but it is. If the country believed that a black man were doing very progressive things in a leadership position, the top leadership position, even if he weren't even remotely doing so - and this is what I think is likely to happen, I think Obama is likely to win, and be viewed as enacting progressive policies even though he isn't - it would change the society of the country. It would change the country's views towards black people, period, this much you can't deny. It would lead to a less racist and ultimately less repressive society, almost certainly. Short term it will probably be bad for black people, but long term I think it will reenfranchise and even reempower black people.

A similar question comes up here as did in the Austria-drops-voting-age thread. Do comrades believe women should be allowed to vote in bourgeois elections? Or should they be kept out so they can radicalize and fight better against an oppressive system? There is a real discussion here, but that's not the discussion here, the discussion here is "oh, well racism isn't really what's important, it's just an ILLUSION and it's not really real". This is false, and moreover, and I don't care if you reject this logic, it's usually white people saying it.

[OI OI OI]

No never

[BraneMatter]

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that in Section IV of the Manifesto, Marx was speaking about the times leading up to the revolution, and not that communists would share power with the bourgeoisie in a government. In other words, if a particular alliance furthers the movement towards the revolution, then that situation should be taken advantage of. At the time Marx wrote that, the bourgeoisie was still in revolt against the ancien regime of feudalism and monarchy, and I think that was the context where he talks about working with the bourgeoisie in Germany against the old order.

It's a tricky proposition, at best...

[JimmyJazz]

I'm sorry if you'd like to deny that racism is a real force in our society, but it is.

And a symbolic racial victory is just the thing to fix it. :rolleyes:

That's like saying "let's elect this hardcore conservative, because he's from a working-class background."

Are you going to vote for Palin because gender oppression is real?

[Lenin's Law]

I'm sorry if you'd like to deny that racism is a real force in our society, but it is.

Racism should be combated but supporting a bourgeois politician simply because of his skin pigmentation will do nothing to help black workers or any worker for that matter.


I think Obama is likely to win, and be viewed as enacting progressive policies even though he isn't - it would change the society of the country.

So enacting reactionary policies, while the country thinks they are progressive (thus the illusion aspect) and this would be a good thing??

Oh yea that's right, he's black so that means capitalist policies are OK.





A similar question comes up here as did in the Austria-drops-voting-age thread. Do comrades believe women should be allowed to vote in bourgeois elections? Or should they be kept out so they can radicalize and fight better against an oppressive system?


Not similar at all; this is not about keeping black workers out of bourgeois politics, it's about giving active support to a (reactionary) bourgeois politician who happens to be black.



There is a real discussion here, but that's not the discussion here, the discussion here is "oh, well racism isn't really what's important, it's just an ILLUSION and it's not really real".


Racism is not an llusion; giving support to a reactionary politician who happens to be black in the completely idealist notion that he would bring about "change" is.



This is false, and moreover, and I don't care if you reject this logic, it's usually white people saying it


And if white people say it that means it's bad? Meanwhile it's OK if a politician is bourgeois and reactionary...so long as he's black. :rolleyes:

Thanks identity-politics liberal!

[jake williams]

Racism should be combated but supporting a bourgeois politician simply because of his skin pigmentation will do nothing to help black workers or any worker for that matter.

So enacting reactionary policies, while the country thinks they are progressive (thus the illusion aspect) and this would be a good thing??

Oh yea that's right, he's black so that means capitalist policies are OK.

Not similar at all; this is not about keeping black workers out of bourgeois politics, it's about giving active support to a (reactionary) bourgeois politician who happens to be black.

Racism is not an llusion; giving support to a reactionary politician who happens to be black in the completely idealist notion that he would bring about "change" is.

And if white people say it that means it's bad? Meanwhile it's OK if a politician is bourgeois and reactionary...so long as he's black. :rolleyes:

Thanks identity-politics liberal!
Fuck you. You obviously have no interest in actually understanding my point, and only want to parade on an internet forum about how Revolutionary you are and how you're too hardcore to vote because you're too cool for school. I'm not sure how voter registration works in the States, but if it's anything like it is here it takes half an hour tops to vote. This is not "support". My point is that a Democratic win would be better than a Republican win, because the policies are marginally better (I dare you do deny this, and actually prove it), and because a black president perceived to be productive would change the attitudes of some people, enough that it would affect the whole society, regardless of his policies.

I'm using my example for this descriptions I've heard about the effects of Morales's election on indigenous Bolivians - it gave them new political confidence. If I'm given real reason to believe something roughly analogous would not happen for blacks in the United States, I'd give it serious consideration, but I kind of doubt it. On the topic, it's very possible that a black America with raised political confidence might make bigger demands on their political leaders than blackness, which itself doesn't actually make their lives better. If you actually believe I'm suggesting that Barack's melanin is the ink that will write a new emancipation proclamation, you're profoundly misreading my view, not because I'm inarticulate but because folks like yourself absolutely refuse to consider that non-Marxist leftists can be something other than bourgeois "liberals".

Note also the difference between "support" and voting. I'm speaking about a tactical matter on a revolutionary leftist forum. This is not public support. It's not personal support either, for that matter. While I have some forms of agreement with sentiments he's expressed and way deep down may even possess, on a number of levels I despise him and I think he's a hypocrite and a liar. But this isn't the perception of him, and I'm talking about perception. I can understand why ultra-orthodox "Marxists" might discount the effects of perception, because they evidently haven't got a lot of it, but it is a real phenomenon that functions in society.

The difference between this and support is that I think this political moment and the world in which it is situated is extremely ugly. I would not like an Obama presidency, it would not make me feel good and it would not make the world a safe, free, happy place. But it would be better than a Republican presidency, assuming that making conditions worse for workers in the short term isn't an appropriate tactical decision, which it may be, but we'd have to actually debate that, and not this drivel about how we're not allowed to advocate for a less racist capitalist society in lieu of a decent one, faced with functionally two options in the next month and a half. There will not be a workers' revolution which properly emancipates all workers in the next month and a half, or year even. Let's make a bet. The combined communally owned productive forces and I will bake you a cookie if this happens, and I'll even let you call me Bourgeois Liberal forever. Deal?

[Zurdito]

I'm not sure how voter registration works in the States, but if it's anything like it is here it takes half an hour tops to vote. This is not "support". My point is that a Democratic win would be better than a Republican win, because the policies are marginally better (I dare you do deny this, and actually prove it), and because a black president perceived to be productive would change the attitudes of some people, enough that it would affect the whole society, regardless of his policies.


the question in the OP was "is it ok for revolutionaries to support..."

a revolutionary means you are active trying to build for a revolution.

if you are serious then as a revoltuinary, come election time, you will be saying something about the election from the perspective of trying to build a revolutioanry organisation.

to do this, you cannot tell workers, as a representative of communism, that you think they should vote for a class enemy! someone who is opposing the struggles of our borthers and sisters!Jammeo, Evo has sent the police to repress miners on stirke, and two have been killed! Chavez has had striking workers in Sanitarios Maracay an SIDOR, where my comrades are active btw, locked up, beaten the shit out of! And you want us to spend our time publishing shit telling workers to vote for these people? To vote for the bosses!? To vote for our enemy who exploits and represses us!?

That is not the way to build for a revolution.

Now you can choose to keep choosing the lesser evil but at the end of the day politics is made from the bottom, not the top. governments are only as progressive as we force them to be, McCain facing a strong labour movement will be more "left wing" than Obama facing a crushed labour movement. Chavez facing a crushed labour mvoement will be more "right wing" than another govenrment facing a strong labour movement.

So it makes mroe sense to be telling the truth and trying to build our own organs of struggle independent of these class enemies,Chavez, Morales or Obama. We can't do that effectively if we are still looking for those same bastards to "help" us somehow, or telling workers to have some kind of illusions in them. When workers put down their guard and show trust tothose people, they end up crushed. it has happened time and time before and will again. :(

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You make a compelling argument, but unfortunately it loses as all credibility when you compare Chávez to Republicrat neoliberal imperialists like Obama. I absolutely agree that Chávez isn't a revolutionary, but it simply makes no sense to say that critically supporting his government's actions that brought literally millions out poverty, mobilized workers, and took economic measures consistently against the Venezuelan ruling class, the international bourgeoisie and Washington is tantamount to to supporting imperialist mass murderers.

Obama wants to give bankers US$700 billion, Chávez has taken Venezuela out of the shackles of the IMF. If you can't see the difference, you're blind.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Chavez and Morales fo sho. The other ones maybe in a united anti-fascist front or something similar.

[Zurdito]

You make a compelling argument, but unfortunately it loses as all credibility when you compare Chávez to Republicrat neoliberal imperialists like Obama. I absolutely agree that Chávez isn't a revolutionary, but it simply makes no sense to say that critically supporting his government's actions that brought literally millions out poverty, mobilized workers, and took economic measures consistently against the Venezuelan ruling class, the international bourgeoisie and Washington is tantamount to to supporting imperialist mass murderers.

Obama wants to give bankers US$700 billion, Chávez has taken Venezuela out of the shackles of the IMF. If you can't see the difference, you're blind.

Yes they are diffrent because they are in different situatons, but I am questioning the "lesser evil" logic. Either you base your poltiics on the workign class, or you base your poltiics on the "lesser evil" between bourgeois regimes. This means giving support to enemies of our class.

Chavez does do work for imperialism anyway. He paid off the IMF out of Venezuela's oil wealth. The Kirchner govt. in Argentina also paid off the IMF. This is not such a radical measure as you make out. Especially not considering that the IMF was becoming very weakened and discredited in Latin America at the time, and that oil prices have been very high under Chavez's rule.

The most important work Chavez does for imperialism though is managing the Venezuelan economy to the benefit of capitalism.He is a component part of imeprialism. He used circumstances - discredited neo-liberalism in Latin America, high prices of raw materials, and US preocupation in Iraq and Afghanistan - to benefit slightly the internal market. He is less radical than Peron and much less radical than someone like Cardenas was. All he represents is trying to improve Venezuela's position slightly within imperialism.

If revolutionaries sow illusions in this as "anti-imperialist" then we are actually helping imperialism quite well, by sowing illusions in genuine progress within imperialism under subordinate bourgeoisies like the boli-bourgeoise is. When utimately those same regimes are just the local managers for imperialism.

[Lenin's Law]

Fuck you. You obviously have no interest in actually understanding my point,

Your entire "point" has consisted of

1. Obama is black and that would inspire black people even if he is reactionary - which is absurd and highly reactionary to support, vote for, whatever you wanna call it, a bourgeois capitalist politician simply because of skin color. I don't think you're understanding this basic point of revolutionary politics - the need to break with the bourgeois parties, if not, then essentially it's not a different line than the liberals with their "he's better than a Republican" which has not worked in the last 40 years and only brought the Democrats closer to the right at the expense of the working class!





and only want to parade on an internet forum about how Revolutionary you are and how you're too hardcore to vote because you're too cool for school.


Never said not to vote - quite the opposite, I said not to vote for a bourgeois politician, Democrat or Republican. This is not "hardcore left" at all in fact I think it's the essential difference between a socialist and a liberal.




I'm not sure how voter registration works in the States, but if it's anything like it is here it takes half an hour tops to vote.


It depends; major cities can take hours, rural and some suburban areas a few minutes. What does this have to do with anything though? There's a principle involved here about not supporting bourgeois politics and telling workers the truth about the dictatorship of capital, it's not about convenience or time spent voting for 1 reactionary or another.




My point is that a Democratic win would be better than a Republican win, because the policies are marginally better (I dare you do deny this, and actually prove it)


Sigh. I feel that I have been making this point over and over again but it is routinely ignored. Meanwhile you have yet to offer one shred of evidence than Obama represents any 'real change'.

For the last time-

Obama has said that a military option against Iran is on the table.
Obama has said he would be willing to violate Pakistani sovreignty in the name of "fighting terrorism" with or without Pakistan's approval , thus risking a war with a nuclear powered country.
Obama denounced Russia as being the aggressor and favors NATO members of Georgia, Ukraine...an obviously provacative act.
Obama has called for more troops in Afghanistan to fight "the good war"
Obama has received more money from Wall Street than John McCain.
Obama has endorsed the Wall Street Bailout, arguably even more so than McCain.
In fact, he blamed the Republicans for their resistance against voting for it.
Obama openly admits that he regularly speaks with Bush nominated-Treasury Secretary Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO and would consider keeping him on board.
During the debates, Obama merrily stated that he agreed with McCain no less than 11 times. Often saying that McCain was "absolutely right."
Obama has said he would consider sanctions against Venezuela, something McCain has not done.

I could go on, but what's the point? You'll find some superficial reason for betraying the socialist movement and supporting Obama based on "perceived" (false)change. For the liberal-left there will always be a reason to support the "lesser evil" bourgeois candidate: He's black, you can't possibly deny that won't do some good! She's a women, that will stir things up! He's Latino, we must support him, it'll build perceived notions of change! He's just another white guy...but then again his opponent is a Republican!!!!



and because a black president perceived to be productive would change the attitudes of some people, enough that it would affect the whole society, regardless of his policies.


So much idealism and wishful thinking here. If you really believe that than why not be a full fledged supporter? Tell me though, who was the first African-Americn Secretary of State, first African-American female Secretary of State and currently the only black Supreme Court Justice?

Answer: Powell, Rice and Thomas. Now tell me did they change "anything?" Were imperialist policies altered in any way whatsoever? Did the rich fail to get richer at the expense of working people? We all know the answer to this but let me guess your response: But these were imperialist capitalists with an "R" next to their names while Obama has a D!!!!



On the topic, it's very possible that a black America with raised political confidence might make bigger demands on their political leaders than blackness, which itself doesn't actually make their lives better. If you actually believe I'm suggesting that Barack's melanin is the ink that will write a new emancipation proclamation,


Sigh. For the umpteenth time, lesser evil politics and pressuring the Democrats into becoming more left has ...NOT...WORKED! It has not worked in the last 40 years despite near-unanimous support from the liberal-left and in fact has only made the Democrats more and more to the right to the point where they're virtually indistinguiable.



you're profoundly misreading my view, not because I'm inarticulate but because folks like yourself absolutely refuse to consider that non-Marxist leftists can be something other than bourgeois "liberals".


Supporting reactionary bourgeois liberals who promise an escalation of imperialist wars, openly nationalistic policies, embraces organized religion and supports bailing out Wall Street while calling for "sacrifices" from the working class sounds pretty bourgeois to me.




But this isn't the perception of him, and I'm talking about perception. I can understand why ultra-orthodox "Marxists" might discount the effects of perception, because they evidently haven't got a lot of it, but it is a real phenomenon that functions in society.


Yes it is a real phenomena but what you call "perception" is more appropriately called ILLUSION. An illusion of workers, white, black and otherwise into believing a bourgeois politician can mean any significant change. For the so called leftists and "revolutionaries" to give this ANY kind of support, whatever name you might give for it, would be disastrous and yes, stupid.



The difference between this and support is that I think this political moment and the world in which it is situated is extremely ugly. I would not like an Obama presidency, it would not make me feel good and it would not make the world a safe, free, happy place. But it would be better than a Republican presidency,


Welcome to the world of the liberal left! Sorry if you take offense to it but this is the classic center-left strategy: Get everyone scared of the big bad Republican ignore the fact the Democrat (who moves further and further to the right) is about the same but make a big deal over some "perceived" notions at change. Your personal feelings in this regard matter little here.



Let's make a bet. The combined communally owned productive forces and I will bake you a cookie if this happens, and I'll even let you call me Bourgeois Liberal forever. Deal?


Save your cookie for your next Obama house party. Meanwhile real socialists and leftists, and no not just "hardcore" ones but ones whose name means anything at all to them will be building class consciousness among the workers and demonstrating to them that they have no interest in the ruling class fight over which bourgeois reactionary capitalist takes the American throne.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Never.

[jake williams]

LL: I don't think you quite get my point about the difference between RevLeft and the real world. In the real world I've spent the last year or so being a very vocal opponent of Obama, and I've spent much longer despising the hypocrisy and atrocity of the Democratic party. Moreover I do this in a pretty well educated middle- and upper-middle class, very "liberal" anti-revolutionary and anti-working class environment. They're very ignorant, close-minded folks, and they're extremely hostile to my anti-Obama position. I get seriously ugly looks. In fact often they're very racist folks who hate being called on it, especially since they've done their due and supported the black kid, which I don't. This is my real political life.

But there's also the tactical question, which perhaps doesn't relate well to the intent of the thread. There's zero chance of any electoral outcome that isn't either Democratic or Republican. Folks here have some power to influence that by voting, and if you intend to vote that's the only question you should really deal with because the "third party" alternatives are as far as I understand non-functioning, and politically irrelevant anyway. There's two questions, alright. First, is there a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Is there a difference of consequence between one being elected and the other? And the answer - which I've yet to see you directly deal with without a whole lot of nonsensical rhetoric - is that yes, there would be. It would not be what the main part of Obama's supporters think it would be. It would not be a leftist administration, it would be responsible for completely unspeakable atrocity over a four year term, or even within six months, or two days. It would be a counter-revolutionary bourgeois capitalist party. But it would be less brutal and dangerous, not quite so much as folks think, but far more than everyone here is willing to admit because everyone here has their heads up Marx's ass without realizing that he was a polemicist dealing with an ugly political reality at the beginning of bourgeois democratic socialism and he had specific things he was trying to deal with, and they influenced his theories in ways which I think weakened their absolute applicability. I am not a Marxist, although I think he did a lot of valuable work and he was an intelligent guy, and I also further think he was a moral person howevermuch he tried to deny it.

But back on topic. I think the President has a lot of symbolic meaning in the American psyche, it may not, but I believe it does. People have seen black sidekicks, that's the usual role, and that's why Condoleeza Rice doesn't do much. "President" is I think more meaningful. I think it would be psychologically and politically and societally beneficial for black people to have a president who looks black rather than a president who looks white, all else being equal, and that's not even quite the situation, although I've never denied, in fact I've worked harder than I should have to to insist, the parties and policies and direct policy and executive outcomes are all very similar. You haven't offered a coherent argument against the notion that a black president would positively affect the American psyche - to do that you'd have to prove it would either have a neutral effect, which you've tried poorly to do, or prove it would have a negative effect, which is conceivable but ugly.

Now again, I'd admit a tactical question - maybe you want to disenfranchise black Americans or other oppressed groups so they react in revolutionary ways rather than through other methods, but you haven't actually done that. I'm interested in the question. I'm not a revolutionary leftist because I think it's cool, or to win e-points, I think it's a means to certain ends, but it's not for it's own sake. It's really a question of methodology. Now in the long run, our society requires certain fundamental changes which would have to be accomplished via major institutional changes which would themselves require what would almost be by definition revolutionary change, I accept that argument. But unlike a lot of people I think positive things can be done - and this is very broad, and I mean it that way - there are positive consequences of non-revolutionary actions. Deny that, I dare you. This mentality that until some mythical preordained superperfect workers' revolution happens, everything else is useless and a diversion from the real work, which is trying vigorously to purge internet forums from others not dedicated to doing exactly what you do, which again is mostly this task or some variation of it, that's all bullshit.

[Lenin's Law]

LL: I don't think you quite get my point about the difference between RevLeft and the real world.

It's nice that you think that but this was not the point of the thread or the discussion.





But there's also the tactical question, which perhaps doesn't relate well to the intent of the thread. There's zero chance of any electoral outcome that isn't either Democratic or Republican. Folks here have some power to influence that by voting, and if you intend to vote that's the only question you should really deal with because the "third party" alternatives are as far as I understand non-functioning, and politically irrelevant anyway.


So the solution then is to give up, throw up your hands and endorse a bourgeois candidate?



There's two questions, alright. First, is there a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Is there a difference of consequence between one being elected and the other? And the answer - which I've yet to see you directly deal with without a whole lot of nonsensical rhetoric - is that yes, there would be.


Obviously it is you then who ignored my post as I cited issue after issue, from Iran to Pakistan to Venezuela to the Wall Street Bailout which demonstrated Obama's position (complete subservience to the ruling class). I even prefaced it by saying that it's routinely ignored by people like you and yet you ignore it still.

Meanwhile, you have yet to offer one tangible piece of evidence that Obama will make a 'positive change'! Nothing! All you've done is engage in meaningless psychobabble and semi-spiritualistic notions of "affecting the nation's psyche" "symbolism" and "inspiration" Offered nothing concrete and then jump around from your thoughts on RevLeft to your analysis of Marx which has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a bourgeois candidate.




But it would be less brutal and dangerous, not quite so much as folks think,


Which you have offered absolutely zero evidence of. Besides the usual "prove this , I dare you!! Double dare you!!"



but far more than everyone here is willing to admit because everyone here has their heads up Marx's ass


In case you haven't noticed this site is generally anarchist/libertarian communist, who I believe would even be more militant than I am in not voting for a bourgeois candidate. Thanks for changing the subject though.




But back on topic. I think the President has a lot of symbolic meaning in the American psyche, it may not, but I believe it does. People have seen black sidekicks,


Idealism..idealism..idealism....what is there to be disproved here? That you believe (without citing any evidence) in the almost supernatural abillity of Obama to "inspire" people and change things without even meaning to?






You haven't offered a coherent argument against the notion that a black president would positively affect the American psyche - to do that you'd have to prove it would either have a neutral effect, which you've tried poorly to do,


Yes, I've actually cited evidence like Obama's embrace of the Wall Street bailout, aggressive policies against Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Venezuela..while you've offered psychobabble-idealist nonsense which sentences that begin with

"I believe.....I believe... I dare you to prove my unsubstantiated beliefs wrong!"




Now again, I'd admit a tactical question - maybe you want to disenfranchise black Americans or other oppressed groups so they react in revolutionary ways rather than through other methods, but you haven't actually done that. I'm interested in the question. I'm not a revolutionary leftist because I think it's cool, or to win e-points, I think it's a means to certain ends, but it's not for it's own sake.


Again: no one's talking about disenfranchising black people; only refusing to support a ruling class representative who happens to be black. I don't know why you feel the need to go into your personal beliefs for being on RevLeft, that's really not what the subject is about I quite frankly don't care.




This mentality that until some mythical preordained superperfect workers' revolution happens, everything else is useless and a diversion from the real work,


which is awaiting the mythical preordained powers of OBAMA that will inspire the people to change and change the pysche and even if he is reactionary or not..well I don't care....and well I believe it so disprove it I dare you!!

[Zurdito]

I don't think you quite get my point about the difference between RevLeft and the real world. In the real world I've spent the last year or so being a very vocal opponent of Obama, and I've spent much longer despising the hypocrisy and atrocity of the Democratic party. Moreover I do this in a pretty well educated middle- and upper-middle class, very "liberal" anti-revolutionary and anti-working class environment. They're very ignorant, close-minded folks, and they're extremely hostile to my anti-Obama position. I get seriously ugly looks. In fact often they're very racist folks who hate being called on it, especially since they've done their due and supported the black kid, which I don't. This is my real political life

It sounds like your real political life is a waste of time.

[chegitz guevara]

Until last night, I would have said, it's never okay to support the bourgeois parties' candidates. I went to see a movie called Uncounted, (http://uncountedthemovie.com/) which is about the theft of elections, vote fraud, etc. I would be willing to vote for people who have been committed opponents of vote fraud and election theft. The struggle for free and fair elections is an important one, even if we understand that we will not take power via the electoral road. But these are local elections, not national.

[JimmyJazz]

Really? I would kind of think that openly corrupt elections would be a good thing, considering how rotten and corrupt our "democracy" is beneath the surface.

*shrug*

[chegitz guevara]

By that kind of thinking, dictatorship is better than bourgeois democracy, and fascism is the best of all.

The problem is our elections aren't openly corrupt. They are just corrupt enough to give the illusion of fairness and freedom, which deludes people into thinking they've got freedom. Furthermore, we need free and fair elections in order to be able to use those elections as avenues of struggle against the system. There are a number of avenues of class struggle that could be advanced through electoral struggle, but which are not current open to us.

Frankly, it would be best of socialists were waging that struggle, but we're too few and far between. If some Democrat or Republican individual takes on his own party and the powers that be in order to make the electoral process better, I think we should support that person.

I should note, however, that I am constitutionally prevented form supporting such candidates by my organization, so I don't.

[JimmyJazz]

By that kind of thinking, dictatorship is better than bourgeois democracy, and fascism is the best of all.

Uh, I was being a little more specific than a simple "worse is better".

Things already are corrupt. It already isn't a democratic system. I know you don't accept bourgeois parliamentarism, so I'm not sure what your exact concern is with what I said. The existence of fair elections (fair between the two heads of the corporate party duopoly) are the major legitimizing aspect of the whole system, so how would getting rid of that aspect not be a good thing? You're basically saying that you dislike the underlying system but you're eager to defend the smokescreen.

[BraneMatter]

Sigh. I feel that I have been making this point over and over again but it is routinely ignored. Meanwhile you have yet to offer one shred of evidence than Obama represents any 'real change'.

For the last time-

Obama has said that a military option against Iran is on the table.
Obama has said he would be willing to violate Pakistani sovreignty in the name of "fighting terrorism" with or without Pakistan's approval , thus risking a war with a nuclear powered country.
Obama denounced Russia as being the aggressor and favors NATO members of Georgia, Ukraine...an obviously provacative act.
Obama has called for more troops in Afghanistan to fight "the good war"
Obama has received more money from Wall Street than John McCain.
Obama has endorsed the Wall Street Bailout, arguably even more so than McCain.
In fact, he blamed the Republicans for their resistance against voting for it.
Obama openly admits that he regularly speaks with Bush nominated-Treasury Secretary Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO and would consider keeping him on board.
During the debates, Obama merrily stated that he agreed with McCain no less than 11 times. Often saying that McCain was "absolutely right."
Obama has said he would consider sanctions against Venezuela, something McCain has not done.



Obama's endorsement of the Wall Street bailout puts him directly in favor of transfering a vast sum of money from the working class to the super-rich capitalists and their political cronies. It is the largest single robbery of the people in U.S. history taking place under Bush. The Bush fascist regime has already fleeced the people for trillions during his eight years in office, and I see no reason at all to believe ANYTHING THEY SAY about the bailout. As for Paulson, he is just another super-rich CEO and day trader from Wall Street. Trust THEM with the money??? You've got to be kidding!!!

So I agree with your assesment of Obama wholeheartedly.

The Democratic and Republican parties are just two wings of a single Capitalist Robber Barons Party! The ones worth anything in the House and Senate I could count on the fingers of my hands.

To think that the Democratic Party can somehow be transformed into a true revolutionary working class party is, I believe, to live in fantasy.

That's just my opinion of Obama and the Democrats, but I do understand how some people are just so angry over Bush and the fascist Neo-con Republicans, that ANYTHING seems better. There is some validity to that point. After all - they ARE fascists, so it's hard to fault someone who wants to be rid of Bush and the Neo-con gang even if the replacement is only a slight improvement. These are desperate times...

As for me, I just can't bring myself to vote for Obama, not when he sides with Bush and McCain over the Wall Street bailout, but I understand how bad people want the end of the Bush regime, and McCain is just four more years of the same.

I apologize for sticking myself in the middle of the controversy, but hopefully you BOTH won't pounce all over me now!!! :D

I also think that by watching who, among the Democrats, votes for the bailout, tells one a lot about who's side they are on, the people or the bankers...

[BraneMatter]

My own Party has taken the position that, at this point in time, it is crucial to break the reign of the right-wing neo-cons at all cost, even if that means voting for Obama and taking a "long view" of things.

I understand this strategy given the current historical circumstances in the United States, but it is also like asking Party members to vote for eating a "crap sandwich." They say eating the crap sandwich is unfortunate, but necessary, and that we must hold our nose and keep our eyes on the ultimate prize.

I dunno.

It places us all in a real fix. If we go with Obama, we are accused of not being true Marxists and revolutionaries. If we don't go with Obama, we are accused of being unrealistic and failing to use every opportunity and circumstance that moves us a little closer to the ultimate goal. Obama or McCain, one of the two will win, and that's a fact. If we vote "third party" and register a "protest vote," then we are accused of wasting our vote, not being realistic, and failing to make what progress is possible.

It's all enough to give one a headache...

[chegitz guevara]

Uh, I was being a little more specific than a simple "worse is better".

Things already are corrupt. It already isn't a democratic system. I know you don't accept bourgeois parliamentarism, so I'm not sure what your exact concern is with what I said. The existence of fair elections (fair between the two heads of the corporate party duopoly) are the major legitimizing aspect of the whole system, so how would getting rid of that aspect not be a good thing? You're basically saying that you dislike the underlying system but you're eager to defend the smokescreen.

My point is that limited victories can be won through the ballot, for example, defeating anti-gay marriage amendments. Simply accepting a corrupt system is tantamount to accepting defeat in a field we should be contesting. Fight the bourgeoisie everywhere.

[chegitz guevara]

My own Party has taken the position that, at this point in time, it is crucial to break the reign of the right-wing neo-cons at all cost, even if that means voting for Obama and taking a "long view" of things.

Which organization?

[Killer Enigma]

Both Lenin and Trotsky, even in situations where they gave military support to a bourgeois government, never gave any sort of political support to the ruling class. Good examples are Lenin's attitude to Kerensky fighting Kornilov, or Trotsky's attitude towards the Spanish popular front.
O RLY? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p4)

[BraneMatter]

which organization?


Communist Party USA.

They have not officially endorsed anyone however, but I base what I say on this policy statement (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/). - god knows we've all had enough of Bush.

I just don't personally feel I want to criticize anyone's choices as to how to deal with the mess we are in. I would like to see more unity, but I also know that people are very serious about their differing views.

Then again, I'm an old man now, and my generation had its days in the streets back in the Sixties. We changed a lot, but failed to change the capitalist system itself. The future is in the hands of the younger generations now, and they will have to work things out according to their own insights. Unity is the hardest thing to achieve.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes they are diffrent because they are in different situatons, but I am questioning the "lesser evil" logic.

Chávez isn't a "lesser evil" in the sense that Democrats are supposedly less evil than Republicans. Unlike Democrats, who are not less evil than anyone, Chávez's government is actually making considerable advances for workers in Venezuela. Sometimes, when working class revolution simply isn't on the horizon, supporting governments such as that of Chávez can bring about really meaningful changes that only someone totally out of touch with workers would discredit.


Either you base your poltiics on the workign class, or you base your poltiics on the "lesser evil" between bourgeois regimes. This means giving support to enemies of our class.

There's no question that Chávez is a bourgeois politician. Whether he's a haute bourgeois or petit bourgeois or middle bourgeois politician is irrelevant. But what we must recognize is that not all bourgeois regimes are the same.


Chavez does do work for imperialism anyway. He paid off the IMF out of Venezuela's oil wealth. The Kirchner govt. in Argentina also paid off the IMF. This is not such a radical measure as you make out. Especially not considering that the IMF was becoming very weakened and discredited in Latin America at the time, and that oil prices have been very high under Chavez's rule.

How is this "work for imperialism"? The Latin American ruling class has long since been a willingly submissive ally of international capital. Chávez is not. That's the difference.


If revolutionaries sow illusions in this as "anti-imperialist" then we are actually helping imperialism quite well, by sowing illusions in genuine progress within imperialism under subordinate bourgeoisies like the boli-bourgeoise is. When utimately those same regimes are just the local managers for imperialism.

How exactly is he a "local manager"for imperialism? I can clearly see how that label would apply to the XX century military dictators of Latin America, who actually placed their countries under enormous debt and consequently economic control of the IMF and Washington, who were partners of international investors in submitting their country's natural and human resources to global capital. But to claim that Chávez is a local manager for imperialism is ludicrous. Consider please the managers for imperialism who preceded him.

[Zurdito]

Chávez isn't a "lesser evil" in the sense that Democrats are supposedly less evil than Republicans. Unlike Democrats, who are not less evil than anyone, Chávez's government is actually making considerable advances for workers in Venezuela. Sometimes, when working class revolution simply isn't on the horizon, supporting governments such as that of Chávez can bring about really meaningful changes that only someone totally out of touch with workers would discredit.

This is strange though, the leaders and members of the Fraccion Trotskista section in Venezuela which I keep linking to in the IMT thread are mostly workers. Many have been repressed brutally by the Chavez government for striking. Are you going to tell them to vote for him?

As for "really meaningful changes" - much less meaningful than Peron or Cardenas for example. What has Chavez really done? He has taken advantage of a favourable global economic and political situation to benefit the Bolivarian bourgeoisie, i.e. the weaker capitalists who depended more on the internal market and productive sectors, than the oligarchy who were based more on exporting raw materials and importing, umm, debt.

So what though? The Chavez governemnt represents a sector of the borugeoisie benefitting itself. Why do we give support to that? Just because they can form an alliance with sections of the masses based on more wealth staying in the internal market?

That is just neo-developmentism. Nations share interests across classes due to the fact that the stronger the national borugeoisie is, the more they can afford to pay, etc. You may as well just folow that to its logic and forget class politics then.


But what we must recognize is that not all bourgeois regimes are the same.

No, but capital is only one. The only way out of the crisis we are in is to overthrow capitalism, and all borugeois regimes stand in our way, with the full force of the state against us.


How is this "work for imperialism"? The Latin American ruling class has long since been a willingly submissive ally of international capital. Chávez is not. That's the difference.

Is Venezuela not still submissive to imperialist capital? What about factories like Toyota, Mitsubishi, Coc-Cola, and literally dozens of others, all making superprofits out of the Venezuelan working class int he factories they have there? Are they imeprialist corporations? Does Chavez protect their property and ensure them super-profits while holding down the owrkers? Yes or No? If yes, then how is he not doing work for imperialism?




How exactly is he a "local manager"for imperialism?

Becuase imperialism is global capitalism, because Venezuela is still structurally subordinated intothis system, and because chavez is a part of this system, dependent on it for his class interest, and, managing it locally to ensure it is not overthrown and to ensure that capital remains profitable.

Sure he was favoured by conditions which allowed him to direct more wealth to the internal market and benefit the weaker capitalists after almost 2 decades of neo-liberalism that was making capitalism unsustainable in Venezuela. neo-keynesianism coupled with populist rehtoric and a few demagogic measures, whilst trying to bring the organs of workers representation ever more under his control and drive out dangerous left elements from the workers movement, is not really a basis for marxists giving him political support though.

[Catbus]

Ha! Another reformist! Voting for the "lesser evil" capitalist is the classic centre-left reformist point of view. Obama is just another militaristic capitalist hardly any different than McCain. It's bad enough to support the Greens or Naders but Obama?!!? :laugh:


You say that as if you've just identified a traitor. Honestly get over this whole "I'm more revolutionary than you" attitude because it's incredibly childish and isn't helping accomplish anything. I don't have anything against the leftists that vote for Obama because deep down we all would rather see him than McCain. Obama and McCain may be the same on most issues, but I'd like to see Obama make some steps for LBGT and Women's rights that McCain would never even dream of taking.

Edit: Shit, didn't see that I'm just posting what most other people have said already.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This is strange though, the leaders and members of the Fraccion Trotskista section in Venezuela which I keep linking to in the IMT thread are mostly workers. Many have been repressed brutally by the Chavez government for striking. Are you going to tell them to vote for him?

No, I'd encourage them to continue pursuing their own political goals. But that doesn't mean that Chávez isn't genuinely more favorrable to workers than other bourgeois parties. Unlike, say, the Democratic Party.


He has taken advantage of a favourable global economic and political situation to benefit the Bolivarian bourgeoisie, i.e. the weaker capitalists who depended more on the internal market and productive sectors, than the oligarchy who were based more on exporting raw materials and importing, umm, debt.

This is a fair analysis and I have no disagreements.
What I insist on emphasizing, though, is that such policies have hugely benefited workers in Venezuela.


That is just neo-developmentism. Nations share interests across classes due to the fact that the stronger the national borugeoisie is, the more they can afford to pay, etc. You may as well just folow that to its logic and forget class politics then.

No, but capital is only one. The only way out of the crisis we are in is to overthrow capitalism, and all borugeois regimes stand in our way, with the full force of the state against us.

It's very comfortable for first worlders to say that the only solution is to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but like I said before, not all bourgeois regimes are the same. Latin Amercans have long since suffered under leaders who represented the oligarchy you mentioned before, and changing that is a step forward, even though it's not overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

[Zurdito]

Warning - my G key works very badly, it is not that I can't spell. I hope you understand the message anyway.



No, I'd encourage them to continue pursuing their own political goals.

But they can't do this on their own. at the moment they are isolated and will be defeated - either by Chavez or by the right. surely the revolutionary left needs to be supporting those workers and propagandisin to progressive workers in struggle the need for class independence and their own party.

the question here is, do you think this is possible or not? If not, then for all intents and purposes, you have iven up on the revolution. I do not say this to denounce you like some Catholic Priest callin you a heretic. Much of the left has given up ont he revolution. The revolution has been wiped out of the collective consciousness. People now get excited over regimes which our ideoloical ancestors would have fought openly against as reactionary!

That is the situation we are in. The question is can we change it or do we accept the new "reality". The question is, do you believe it is possible for todays working class to form its own revolutionary party, to answer the current questions we face, and come to power within our lifetimes? Do you want to use your life to create that party, or not?

The Bolsheviks believed this. In 1905 they were tiny and regarded as mad, and they were around 3000 members in all of Russia - smaller proportionally than the party I am active with in Arentina is! Yet 12 years later they were in power!

Now I do not think a revolution is around the corner and I do not thinkw e are in 1905. But I think there will be bi crises in our lifetimes and it is urent to begin buildin now for a genuine reovlutionary party built on the vanguard of the workin class. Otherwise, we will lose everythin int he future. Revolution or barbarism.

Also the Bolsheviks faced the same kind of objections of sectarianism to the democratic revolution, as essentially those who propose class independence face when we are accused of sectarianism to the "democratic revolutions" of the semi-colonial bourgeoisie aainst imperialism.

I believe history proved the bolsheviks right and the Mensheviks wrong. If you don't agree then that is a wider question than this thread, but at the very least, anyone reading this claimin to be a Leninist should know that they be against Chavez and with the workin class, ebcause that is the Leninist position.



What I insist on emphasizing, though, is that such policies have hugely benefited workers in Venezuela.

I dsipute the "hugely". In terms of historical precedent, Chavez is no Peron.




It's very comfortable for first worlders to say that the only solution is to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but like I said before, not all bourgeois regimes are the same. Latin Amercans have long since suffered under leaders who represented the oligarchy you mentioned before, and changing that is a step forward, even though it's not overthrowing the bourgeoisie

yeah I know how much Latin Americans have suffered, why do you think my family left Arentina? Why do you think I am back here now living with the working class, trying to build our party, to make a real revolution against this bourgeoisie? I know what the bourgeoisie - collectively, including the "nationalists", including the "anti-imperialists", including the Trade Union leaders, etc. - did to us in the Dirty War, and I know that will start happening again. Many of us will end up tortured or dead. And tortured in sick ways like Hostel or something. Before throwing alive out of the aeroplanes into the Rio de la Plata (which I am sure you knew already) they used to make them dance samba with electric shocks! (you probably didn't know that)

So it's not really a joke to me.

Which is why this time we must not place ourselves in subordinate Popular Fronts with the "national bourgeoisie", like the Trotsko-Chavista and Stalino-Chavistas do, because that way we end up crushed again.

[Yehuda Stern]

I love how the Chavista just tried to play the "You're a first worlder" card to an Argentinian.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But they can't do this on their own. at the moment they are isolated and will be defeated - either by Chavez or by the right. surely the revolutionary left needs to be supporting those workers and propagandisin to progressive workers in struggle the need for class independence and their own party.

Excuse me, but I think Chávez and the PSUV have, can and will do more for the workers' struggle in Venezuela than your "troo revolutionary" party over in Argentina.


the question here is, do you think this is possible or not? If not, then for all intents and purposes, you have iven up on the revolution. I do not say this to denounce you like some Catholic Priest callin you a heretic. Much of the left has given up ont he revolution. The revolution has been wiped out of the collective consciousness. People now get excited over regimes which our ideoloical ancestors would have fought openly against as reactionary!All good points. I am in full agreement with the need to organize workers.


I dsipute the "hugely". In terms of historical precedent, Chavez is no Peron.Good, 'cause Peron was a fascist.


yeah I know how much Latin Americans have suffered, why do you think my family left Arentina?Beats me, but why don't we get back to the topic at hand?
...


Why do you think I am back here now living with the working class, trying to build our party, to make a real revolution against this bourgeoisie?Because you're a real revolutionary?
lawl


I know what the bourgeoisie - collectively, including the "nationalists", including the "anti-imperialists", including the Trade Union leaders, etc. - did to us in the Dirty War, and I know that will start happening again. Many of us will end up tortured or dead. And tortured in sick ways like Hostel or something. Before throwing alive out of the aeroplanes into the Rio de la Plata (which I am sure you knew already) they used to make them dance samba with electric shocks! (you probably didn't know that)

So it's not really a joke to me.

Which is why this time we must not place ourselves in subordinate Popular Fronts with the "national bourgeoisie", like the Trotsko-Chavista and Stalino-Chavistas do, because that way we end up crushed again.Wait a minute...
You're against Chávez because you think he'll crush workers the same way the bourgeois military dictatorships of the last century did?! You're out of your mind!

Like I said before, there's no question that Chávez is a bourgeois politician, but at the risk of sounding repetitive, not all bourgeois regimes are the same. Imperialism and neoliberal economic policies are in many Latin American countries the principal means of subjugation to foreign imperialist powers. Chávez is reversing that and consequently bringing about considerable improvements for Venezuelans. This is a fact that leftists must recognize. There exists a huge difference between the policies of his government and the policies of the dictatorships that tortured and murdered workers en masse in the 1970s. In that respect, I support Chávez's governemnt.

While all bourgeois regimes may ultimately be our class enemies, they are not all the same, and it doesn't make sense to treat them that way. Some, like Chávez's Venezuela, are significantly more favorable to workers than others, like the United States under the Democratic Party or Argentina under Peron.

[Yehuda Stern]

Chavez will crush the workers or prepare the rise to power of another person who will do so himself. Either, the continued support for Chavez by the left will be used in the future to destroy whatever gains the workers have made in the last ten years and drive them even further back. In fact, repression by Chavez has already started - under his watch, workers have been suppressed by the state, and militant trade union activists have been silenced and dismissed. Support for Chavez's government is ultimately support for these policies.

By the way, part of the sort of left that supports Chavez today supported Peron in his left-wing phase. Big surprise for those people when Peron established a murderous dictatorship afterwards.

[Vendetta]

I don't think it's at all necessary to work with bourgeois parties.

[Zurdito]

Excuse me, but I think Chávez and the PSUV have, can and will do more for the workers' struggle in Venezuela than your "troo revolutionary" party over in Argentina.

You probably do think that, but then again I was referring to our comrades in Venezuela, the LTS, and I said that clearly. So considering you didn't pay enough attention to note that I was talking about an organisation of Venezuelan workers run by Veneuzuelan workers and not a party in argentina (quite a big difference in this context), then I don't think you are in a position to make that udgement. Unless you are happy making a judgement on a prty you don't know anything about.

The question is simple do you, as a subjective revolutionary, support workers in struggle trying to create a revolutionary party, or do you support the government of their bosses? You can argue with workers to either join a leninist party of their own, or join the PSUV. Which is it? Do you see the working class as the subject of history, or mere object to be helped from above?


Good, 'cause Peron was a fascist.

No, he was a populist, just like Chavez, and who one who materially benefitted workers much more, and clashed with imperialism much more.


Beats me, but why don't we get back to the topic at hand?[/
[quote]

I would like to, but then you claimed that it was because I was a first-worlder tha I don't appreciate all that the great leader Chavez has done for the Venezuelan people, so I was refuting that. Maybe you have trouble following tangents you introduced yourself?

[quote]
Wait a minute...
You're against Chávez because you think he'll crush workers the same way the bourgeois military dictatorships of the last century did?! You're out of your mind!

I'm not out of my mind at all, sadly. Basically, what Yehuda Sern said.

What led to the defeat of the Chilean working class? The popular front strategy. Who appointed Pinochet as head of the armed forces? Allende.

What led to the Proceso post-1976 in Argentina? The Peronist governments of Peron and Isabela, who the entire third-worldist, populist, class collaboration left trusted in, while saying exactly wha you jus said: that you'd be mad to not tell the difference beween the nationalist bourgeoisie and the liberal pro-imperialis bourgeoisie, that look how many real reforms Peron had acheived and look how much the workers supported him etc.

In fact I could go on with the examples, but instead I have a question for you. Name me one single reformist government since the 20th centruy in Latin America or even the whole third world, which has managed to defend the economic, social and democratic gains of the masses under it? One single one which did not wipe out those gains itself in he face of the end of favourable conditions and the demands of the right, or which was not overhrown by the right, or which not fall to a revolution.

Just one.



There exists a huge difference between the policies of his government and the policies of the dictatorships that tortured and murdered workers en masse in the 1970s. In that respect, I support Chávez's governemnt.


You say this, but you fail to recognise that those dictatorships were supported by the bourgeoisies of those countries in practically their entirety, including those who had previously favoured more populis policies oriented to the internal market. In other words, the social base which used populism to cover its strengthening of itself and to avoid the social unrest caused by its the liberal policies of the more globalised sectors of the bourgeoisie, then turned to outright repression when the contradictions between what the masses had come to expect, and what they could now offer in less favourable economic conditions, came to a head. And precisely because the left had liquidated itself into that same populism and precisely because he workers rather than being organised in a mass class independent leninist party, were organised underneath, subordinate to and dependent on that same "national bourgeoisie", they were crushed. And if the left and working class follows your logic this will happen again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for "really meaningful changes" - much less meaningful than Peron or Cardenas for example. What has Chavez really done? He has taken advantage of a favourable global economic and political situation to benefit the Bolivarian bourgeoisie, i.e. the weaker capitalists who depended more on the internal market and productive sectors, than the oligarchy who were based more on exporting raw materials and importing, umm, debt.

So what though? The Chavez governemnt represents a sector of the bourgeoisie benefitting itself. Why do we give support to that? Just because they can form an alliance with sections of the masses based on more wealth staying in the internal market?

You know, I was thinking about Chavez's professed Maoism, and I now think his comments speak more about him than his intended populist hypocrisy. Since the referendum defeat, he talked about cozying up to the "national" (as opposed to "comprador") bourgeoisie, like a typical New Democracy person. Then again, between him and that class traitor Chirino (and his spoiled-rich-kid accomplices in the universities)... :(

[Zurdito]

You know, I was thinking about Chavez's professed Maoism, and I now think his comments speak more about him than his intended populist hypocrisy. Since the referendum defeat, he talked about cozying up to the "national" (as opposed to "comprador") bourgeoisie, like a typical New Democracy person. Then again, between him and that class traitor Chirino (and his spoiled-rich-kid accomplices in the universities)... :(

why do you need to choose between Chavez and Chirino or the opposition? What is wrong with an independent class line?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise... I'm for AT LEAST a class-strugglist labour party, if not a class-strugglist social labour party.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I think it's OK for Revolutioinaries to support bourgeois parties if it's used against fascism and nazism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Worked real well in Chile.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Worked real well in Chile.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[chegitz guevara]

He's talking about supporting the bourgeoisie against fascists and Nazis, i.e., it didn't work. At a certain point, they will switch sides, catch the workers off guard, and crush them, generally with horrifying results.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Which leftists in Chile supported a bourgeois party against fascists and were horrifically crushed? I'm not familiar. Is this some twisted way of saying that the coup of '73 involved a defensive stance on Allende's part? Because it didn't. They were just crushed. There was no support for Allende against the fascists coup d'etat because nobody knew the true nature of the fascist threat until it was too late.

[Yehuda Stern]

Which leftists in Chile supported a bourgeois party against fascists and were horrifically crushed?In 1973, when leftists supported the reformist Allende, whose name became synonymous with "getting deposed and not doing dick about it."


Is this some twisted way of saying that the coup of '73 involved a defensive stance on Allende's part?Not twisted but very direct. Allende's actions were the main reason for Pinochet's victory. And defensive would've been a step forward - Allende made Pinochet the army's commander in chief less than a month before the coup.


Because it didn't. They were just crushed. There was no support for Allende against the fascists coup d'etat because nobody knew the true nature of the fascist threat until it was too late.That's bullshit. Are all revolutions doomed to be crushed? The Bolshevik revolution wasn't, because the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries who did not seek to defend capitalism but to destroy. They didn't have to play nice with the bourgeois state or the bourgeoisie itself, unlike Allende, and so could effectively defend themselves against people like Kornilov.

Second, if it really was impossible to learn from the past about coups against left-wing governments (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964... list goes on and on), then one could certainly learn about it from the right-wing's rhetoric. Even the Militant, the IMT of those times, was able to tell in advance that the right-wing is preparing a coup*. Allende's leadership, not the capitalists' might, was the main cause for the coup's victory.

*First I quote Woods favorably, now I mention a good insight made by the IMT... I definitely need to lie down.

[JimmyJazz]

repression by Chavez has already started - under his watch, workers have been suppressed by the state, and militant trade union activists have been silenced and dismissed.

link please

[Yehuda Stern]

Chirino:
http://www.onesolutionrevolution.org/?p=157&language=en
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/labor_leader_fired_state_oil_company.htm
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/solidarity_ochirino.html

In general:
http://www.marxist.com/repression-sanitarios-maracay-workers240407.htm
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/venezuela81.html (under "Repression of workers...")

[Zurdito]

Which leftists in Chile supported a bourgeois party against fascists and were horrifically crushed? I'm not familiar. Is this some twisted way of saying that the coup of '73 involved a defensive stance on Allende's part? Because it didn't. They were just crushed. There was no support for Allende against the fascists coup d'etat because nobody knew the true nature of the fascist threat until it was too late.


I already talked about this in my reply to you. Allende put Pinochet as the head of the armed forces himself! In a revolutionary situation, he prtected the monopoly of violence of the state and therefore the bourgeoisie.

The Popular Front strategy lead to the defeat of the Chilean working class.

Also, how about answering the question I asked?


Name me one single reformist government since the 20th centruy in Latin America or even the whole third world, which has managed to defend the economic, social and democratic gains of the masses under it? One single one which did not wipe out those gains itself in he face of the end of favourable conditions and the demands of the right, or which was not overhrown by the right, or which not fall to a revolution.

Just one.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

First, the failure of Allende's government to defend its reforms from reactionary elements within its own armed forces is not an inherent shortcoming of all reformist regimes.

Blaming Allende for the coup of '73 because he made Pinochet commander in chief is the greatest absurdity I've ever heard in my whole life. Do you frankly think he knew Pinochet would stage a coup against him? Was Allende's treasonous bourgeois ass complacent with the fascist coup? hahaha!!
Gee, I never knew that bourgeois class interests would drive someone to conspire against their own life.

Allende's appointment of Pinochet as commander in chief was an attempt to defend his government from the eminent threat you're talking about. I can hardly believe that you're suggesting that he was less committed or less loyal to workers because he let the CIA kill him. Do you realize how much you're not making sense?

In hindsight it's easy to say, and I would agree, that Allende made mistakes and underestimated the risks that his country ran. Of course we can learn something. I would say that undoubtedly Cuba and most recently Bolivia and Venezuela, among other governments which have in one way or another threatened the power of the ruling classes have all learned from '73. The main lesson is to be always wary of the Ianquis.

[Yehuda Stern]

You are a don'tknowwhatthefuckheistalkingaboutfest.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's downright laughable and honestly bewildering that you would actually try to discredit socio-economic reforms that allow workers to attain more rights and better conditions because such regimes could be victims of military attacks by the right.

It's obvious that workers' rights in bourgeois regimes are always under the threat of reactionary forces, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be defended and upheld. As leftists, we all agree that workers are not free in any bourgeois regime, but what seems to fail to enter your thick skulls is that in some bourgeois regimes, that have not unknowingly placed themselves in eminent danger of being deposed, workers are less unfree than in other bourgeois regimes. What you two are effectively saying are that these freedoms don't count. And then you say that I'm anti-worker. Rich.

[Yehuda Stern]

Who the hell said we don't defend the gains workers make? We in the ISL defend all the gains of Venezuelan workers, against both the right-wing and Chavez himself, but warn that unless the workers create a revolutionary party to overthrow Chavez and the capitalist state, they will be crushed by either Chavez or by some other agent of the ruling class. Given the history of Latin America, it takes a really empty head to not understand such a simple and obviously correct argument.

[Zurdito]

so Dr.R thinks that the criticism of the popular front in Chile rests on the belief that Allende deliberately wanted Pinochet to kill him, and cannot see that the fact that reformism has not succeded in delivering anything in Latin America since the beginning of the 20th Century is irrelevant tot he argument about whether supporting reformism in Latin America is a good strategy for the working class?

it is funny how some arguments are like a comedy sketch.

[Sankofa]

Moreover, the election of a black president would indeed make real differences in American society, and there's no way to deny that. His policies could be identical to Ronald Reagan's and it would be progressive for black people.
:rolleyes: No fucking comment.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, he's right.

[Sankofa]

Actually, he's right.

How so? Please, enlighten us poor negroes on what's progressive for us, massa.

[redguard2009]

Well, history books can now print that America had its first black President elected in 2008, rather than some later date.

I think what he's erroneously referring to is the fact that a black President will in some way help liberate the consciousness of the African-American population by instilling in them the knowledge that not only can a black be President, but that they have the right to now.

It's nothing really material or physical; it's not like if Hillary became President we'd all be talking about how revolutionary and progressive it is that a woman has been elected. It'd be cool, and good, but we don't gain very much. The racial problems facing America have not been swept away overnight; infact, his winning the election does not really change the standing of the racial situation in America at all. It won't happen until more fundamental changes are made -- and we all know that if Obama ran on a campaign promising more equality for blacks and other minorities, he would've lost a long time ago.

[Bilan]

Um...Obama being elected does not equate to progress for African Americans. That's fucking ludicrous.
What liberal bullshit.
You judge a character by their actions, not their colour.

The fucking stupid things people will say.