Republicans in Power

[Berianidze]

I don't understand why the majority of self-described Marxists claim that Republicans are fascists, and that they need to be removed from power. If anything, the liberalism of the democrats (though the real difference only manifests itself on insignificant peripheral social issues) means a probably end to the Iraq war, self-imposed restrictions on international capitalism, and the foresight to install certain measures that objectively deter the material-development of imperialism to carry itself out to its maximum capacity.

The inevitable consequent of this is that the bourgeois liberals have time after time again have greatly softened the most devastating effects of capitalism/imperialism by advocating for the concessions that are "just enough" to make it tolerable to the oppressed and exploited. The George Soros' of the world use private capital to put a friendly face on imperialism, by another name, "human rights."

Barack Obama, while undoubtedly an agent of bourgeois imperialism, will actually do more damage in postponing the inevitable. That's why Americans should support Republicans who are invariably more capable of taking imperialism to its most perilous extremes, far more willing to use militarism to carry out its objectives, and by their less scrupulous political doctrines, do a better overall job of creating the necessary pressures that will sew the destruction of global capitalism.

Observations of the Western Left:
On a secondary note, the Western left today is plagued with an overt revisionism that makes them more prey to the social-liberalism of the decadent bourgeoisie. I've attended and witnessed several meetings, lectures, and commentaries by Western parties that have completely failed to take a proper Marxist-Leninist assessment of the political, economic, and social conditions of the world in its present state. Though it should be qualified that this is no surprise, as the Marxist-Leninist movement in the United States couldn't help but be diluted by a decadent labor aristocracy that subjects itself (willingly) to the compromise mindset of bourgeois liberalism.

[Sprinkles]

Yeah sure...

Not to disturb your faith in the inevitable demise of capital at the hands of the Republicans, or the implied possibility that the Democrats could potentially save it, which is unlikely if the crisis turns out as bad as most people suspect. But I thought the idea was to overthrow capitalism through organization of the proletariat. Not to put incompetent management at it's helm and watch it burst apart at the seams while dragging the working class with it into destitute poverty and widespread unemployment.

The gloating by certain leftists about the prospect of a complete economic collapse is a bit offensive really. Especially since poverty and unemployment are not guaranteed to contribute to either the rise of class consciousness or push the working class to go beyond the defensive struggles of today. It might open up new chances for a revolutionary perspective, but the crisis and the accompanied hardships aren't something to get excited about.

[Berianidze]

I never said that the vanguard of the proletariat should sit idly by and watch the incompetence of the bourgeoisie destroy itself. One follows the other. The active practical work amongst the proletariat is required to ensure the correct political consciousness, which requires an active material transformation to lead to the delusion of capitalism amongst the workers. The US isn't the target as it has no revolutionary zeal. The working class needs a material surrounding originating in the infallibility of capitalism to get it on the right track.

More importantly, the epoch of global capitalism (imperialism) has created a world in which orthodox understandings of capital have to be re-assessed. It's no longer a world in which capital takes what it wants without consequence, and is overtly oppressive and exploitative. The most politically expedient means for the vanguard is to actively support the exploitation of the weakest link in the chain of global capitalism. Neo-liberalism is that weak link, and accordingly, it should be exploited to its full extent.

Let the bourgeoisie create the material conditions necessary for making socialism politically viable; let the mechanisms of the Party condition the proletariat into a viable force capable of executing the goals of socialism.

[Sprinkles]

The most politically expedient means for the vanguard is to actively support the exploitation of the weakest link in the chain of global capitalism.


This is one of the most vile things I've ever read.



The US isn't the target as it has no revolutionary zeal


Isn't the rest of the world lucky to be subjected to widespread misery instead.
Oh well, guess it's alright since it's all for the greater cause...



...let the mechanisms of the Party condition the proletariat into a viable force capable of executing the goals of socialism.


Like the vast majority of the working class I find your nostalgic notions about "Marxist-Leninism" that you still try to peddle as "communism" completely irrelevant.
Your ideas of manipulating and conditioning us are even worse and can be accurately described as completely abhorrent.

Have fun gloating and trying to profit from other people their misery though.

[#FF0000]

The most politically expedient means for the vanguard is to actively support the exploitation of the weakest link in the chain of global capitalism.

I have to disagree with your entire premise here. You are saying we should give power to the more reactionary of the two American political parties, because they would make life miserable for the working class, who will then rise up?

Let me list the ways in which this line of thinking is ridiculous.

1. You're assuming that just because the Republicans are corrupt and thoroughly inept, that people will not continue voting for them. That simply isn't true. The Republican party leadership is not stupid. They know how to get votes and play politics. You're underestimating the enemy.

2. You're assuming that the workers will not just vote Democrat. That's the only other viable alternative to Republican party rule that Americans have. And the Democratic party leaders and advisors aren't idiots either. They also know how to get votes. That's their job, and it stands to reason that they'd be good at it by now.

3. You're assuming that the workers will take time out of their intensified daily struggle to read Marx and develop a class consciousness. I'm not sure whether to call this belief "liberal" or "reactionary", so I'll just call it "foolish". With the Republican party in power, it's safe to assume that people in general are going to get poorer, and it will be harder for them to make ends meet. If basic survival gets harder, then getting anything beyond that gets harder as well, including an education, which is vital. Just because people are discontent does not mean that they will have the "correct ideas".

On top of all this, you believe, against all logic, reason, and lessons of history, that these people, who are hit hard by economic instability, and who struggle more than ever to survive, will be able to fight the powerful ruling minority, when the workers don't have the means to do so!

[Berianidze]

This is one of the most vile things I've ever read.
Then you need to read more.


Isn't the rest of the world lucky to be subjected to widespread misery instead.
Oh well, guess it's alright since it's all for the greater cause...
It's going to be subjected already. If you have the more socially liberal minded Democrats, who with their foresight, are willing to concede to a welfare-state and humanitarian foreign policy (for the sake of political realism), then what you're left with is a more benign and stronger form of imperialism. What good does that do?


Like the vast majority of the working class I find your nostalgic notions about "Marxist-Leninism" that you still try to peddle as "communism" completely irrelevant.
Duly noted.. And what working class do you represent?


Have fun gloating and trying to profit from other people their misery though.
How do I profit?


I have to disagree with your entire premise here. You are saying we should give power to the more reactionary of the two American political parties, because they would make life miserable for the working class, who will then rise up?
That the Republicans are more "reactionary" is of little to no real consequences. The two parties are largely the same, with the Democrats more willing to concede to a Western-European welfare state. Roosevelt invariably extended and prolonged capitalism's stay through recognition that the most overtly exploitative and harmful aspects of capitalism jeopardized its very existence. The concessions offered to the working class by bourgeois liberals are more damaging. History has already shown this.


You're assuming that just because the Republicans are corrupt and thoroughly inept, that people will not continue voting for them. That simply isn't true. The Republican party leadership is not stupid. They know how to get votes and play politics. You're underestimating the enemy.
Not at all. The Republicans are not inept; in fact, their political strategies are far more sound than those of the Democrats. It's the fundamental and inherent principles of their policies that will steer the political infrastructure down an irreparable path.


You're assuming that the workers will not just vote Democrat. That's the only other viable alternative to Republican party rule that Americans have. And the Democratic party leaders and advisors aren't idiots either. They also know how to get votes. That's their job, and it stands to reason that they'd be good at it by now.
As republicans represent the manifestation of the truly "bourgeois" interested state; they're push towards A) more independent private economies; B) more militarism abroad will cause *irreperable* damage that, by the time any Democrat or liberal were to assume power, would prove futile as an attempt to resuscitate a dying system.


You're assuming that the workers will take time out of their intensified daily struggle to read Marx and develop a class consciousness. I'm not sure whether to call this belief "liberal" or "reactionary", so I'll just call it "foolish". With the Republican party in power, it's safe to assume that people in general are going to get poorer, and it will be harder for them to make ends meet. If basic survival gets harder, then getting anything beyond that gets harder as well, including an education, which is vital. Just because people are discontent does not mean that they will have the "correct ideas".
That is the practical role of the vanguard of the proletariat; i.e. an actual, functioning party capable of executing this component. The working class is the means for revolution, but its origins lie in the Party's ability to dteer it in the appropriate direction. Let the real-world conditions turn the working classes against capitalism; let the vanguard party deliver them to the scientific socialism of Marxism-Leninism.

Besides, the most elementary basic step is to create a situation in which the bourgeoisie can no longer retain control over the state apparatus; secondly, to utilize the working class as the revolutionary body capable of tearing down the remnants of the old society; and thirdly, taking advantage of the relative and comparative weakness of society to engage in armed conflict for control of the state, whereupon the old institutions are to be liquidated an in their place a truly proletarian state may arise.


On top of all this, you believe, against all logic, reason, and lessons of history, that these people, who are hit hard by economic instability, and who struggle more than ever to survive, will be able to fight the powerful ruling minority, when the workers don't have the means to do so!
Economics always dictates the political; if the delusion of capitalism is not severed from the malleable minds of the masses then you have nothing.