Reasons why all politicians in America are the same

[Skin_HeadBanger]

I'll start.

While McCain would have been giving bigger tax cuts to the rich, Obama has attempted to put 300% tax on firearms (making the firearm, part and ammunition cost 4 times as much), making it so that only the rich could defend themselves.

I know the election already happened, but either way, the American people are in for another 4 years of suck.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

They aren't. There are real and significant differences between the democrats and the republicans, which result from a conflict of interest within the ruling class.

Democrats represent: more internationally oriented, capital intensive firms in less competitive industries

Republicans represent: more nationally oriented, labour intensive firms in more competitive industries.

The upshot of this is that those who the republicans represent see america more as a workforce, want cheap labour and low taxes above all else and are focused more on the short term bottom line. Those who the democrats represent see america more as a market for their products (their workforce is mostly abroad), want a strong & stable economy, effective demand, and development of their capital through state subsidy. As in less competitive industries they have a slightly longer term view.

[Pawn Power]

T
Democrats represent: more internationally oriented

Does that mean more willing to go to war? That isn't a very good difference to have.

[RedAnarchist]

Does that mean more willing to go to war? That isn't a very good difference to have.

They both seem very belligerent. I think that what they mean byu internationally oriented is maybe more interference in other countrie's affairs, that sort of thing, although that seems to be something both parties share.

[Dean]

I'll start.

While McCain would have been giving bigger tax cuts to the rich, Obama has attempted to put 300% tax on firearms (making the firearm, part and ammunition cost 4 times as much), making it so that only the rich could defend themselves.

I know the election already happened, but either way, the American people are in for another 4 years of suck.

Yep. I like your icon btw.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Does that mean more willing to go to war? That isn't a very good difference to have.This means firms which do more of their production abroad. As their workers are more foreigners than americans, they are less interested in cheap labour in america. They see america more as a market than a workforce. I'm not making value judgements - just pointing out that there are differences.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Yep. I like your icon btw.

thank you, sir.:thumbup1:

[not_of_this_world]

I maintain that all politicians are the same. I base my thinking on the book compiled by Wendy McElroy, Those Who Refuse to Vote and The Legitimacy of Their Claim. A politician produces nothing of value except more laws that restrict humanity. Just look at what a Democratic majority in House did for the Iraq war that is still raging. This new boob they elected has his sights on Afghanistan for the heroin poppy crop no doubt. Both parties are parties of war, they have to be to keep the stock market afloat. We produce nothing of value anymore, just a service economy that happens to make the best war materials, planes, bombs and bullets. All politicians in America back capitalism and the New World Order. If you vote, you are part of the problem!

[Diagoras]

I maintain that all politicians are the same. I base my thinking on the book compiled by Wendy McElroy, Those Who Refuse to Vote and The Legitimacy of Their Claim. A politician produces nothing of value except more laws that restrict humanity. Just look at what a Democratic majority in House did for the Iraq war that is still raging. This new boob they elected has his sights on Afghanistan for the heroin poppy crop no doubt. Both parties are parties of war, they have to be to keep the stock market afloat. We produce nothing of value anymore, just a service economy that happens to make the best war materials, planes, bombs and bullets. All politicians in America back capitalism and the New World Order. If you vote, you are part of the problem!

They aren't the exact same. They do indeed represent different wings of the ruling class, but their policies often do differ on several issues (none of the ones important to major economic change, unfortunately for us). To pretend that they are carbon copies of each other is simply silly, and tactically irrational if we REALLY want to produce change. It is better for gay rights, generally, for Democrats to be in the government (for one example). Are we simply to ignore the needs of gay people by self-righteously standing by, not voting, and letting things like Prop 8 in California pass?

The state really couldn't care less about our willingness to vote or not (politicians do not look at abstention as a threat to the ruling class or the government in general... nor is it). Unfortunately, we have many comrades in potentially sympathetic movements who, at least in my experience, are hesitant about trusting and working with anarchists (again, my experience)... specifically because of this perception that anarchists all refuse to vote, even on vital issues of protecting human rights and resisting oppressive and theocratic measures. Whether it is from some desire not to "dirty ones hands", or "validate" the state (this notion that the state is somehow challenged or aided by our voting or non-voting does not make sense to me), there is a widespread sense amongst people that I have met working on immediate goals for better community conditions, gay rights, etc., that when push comes to shove, anarchists and some other leftists can't be counted on to even lend a vote in favor of these causes.

I don't know if there is some infatuation with an almost eschatological notion of how "The Revolution" is going to play out to blame, but it seems counter-productive to me.

[Patchd]

Does that mean more willing to go to war? That isn't a very good difference to have.
Well, I wouldn't say war is the only outcome of an internationally oriented Democrat government, finance imperialism is just as exploitative and oppressive as direct imperialism, as shown by war.


Just look at what a Democratic majority in House did for the Iraq war that is still raging. This new boob they elected has his sights on Afghanistan for the heroin poppy crop no doubt.
I would disagree, it seems more likely that the occupation of Afghanistan, and Iraq, are staging posts for a possible future war on Iran. The pulling out of British troops in Iraq signifies nothing, they do not need two staging posts for an offensive on Iran, and it would increase the support the electorate has for the government, as most still support Imperialism in Afghanistan (even some in the left).

[ernie]

They aren't the exact same. They do indeed represent different wings of the ruling class, but their policies often do differ on several issues (none of the ones important to major economic change, unfortunately for us). To pretend that they are carbon copies of each other is simply silly, and tactically irrational if we REALLY want to produce change.
What is silly is to pretend that a detailed understanding of the "differences" between the Democrats and the Republicans can some how effect any significant change for the working class. For our purposes, they are exactly the same.


The state really couldn't care less about our willingness to vote or not (politicians do not look at abstention as a threat to the ruling class or the government in general... nor is it).
I think you're wrong here. I think they want us to vote. A high turnout is extremely important to the ruling class, because it means that people are buying the system. Abstention is a huge threat to them.


Unfortunately, we have many comrades in potentially sympathetic movements who, at least in my experience, are hesitant about trusting and working with anarchists (again, my experience)... specifically because of this perception that anarchists all refuse to vote, even on vital issues of protecting human rights and resisting oppressive and theocratic measures. Whether it is from some desire not to "dirty ones hands", or "validate" the state (this notion that the state is somehow challenged or aided by our voting or non-voting does not make sense to me), there is a widespread sense amongst people that I have met working on immediate goals for better community conditions, gay rights, etc., that when push comes to shove, anarchists and some other leftists can't be counted on to even lend a vote in favor of these causes.
There are reformists in all movements. Remember the "anarchists for Kerry"?

Besides, it seems to me that these people you've met are from the middle class, as they are usually the ones who make up these reformist movements for "human rights". They are also usually very active in electoral politics. In my experience, the opposite is true of the working class; that is, a large portion of the it is absolutely uninterested in electoral politics. This is a good thing.

[Diagoras]

What is silly is to pretend that a detailed understanding of the "differences" between the Democrats and the Republicans can some how effect any significant change for the working class. For our purposes, they are exactly the same.

No, they aren't, unless our purposes differ. Yes, I want the overthrow of capitalism. However, I also want to restrict the expansion of control of theocratic elements within the state here and now. I want women to have access to abortions. I want people to have the right to marry whomever they wish. I want to ensure that fewer irreparable ecological catastrophes occur, so that we have a world to live in after a revolution. These are not minuscule issues that we should simply let go awry, because of some misguided judgment that the only issue that matters is the overthrow of capitalism and the state. Yes, those matter, and would solve many problems. However, to deny the importance of fighting for... *gasp*... immediate gains while working towards a revolution is both counterproductive and a guaranteed way to make sure our ideas remain irrelevant to many.



I think you're wrong here. I think they want us to vote. A high turnout is extremely important to the ruling class, because it means that people are buying the system. Abstention is a huge threat to them.

You haven't established how, nor have you established that the ruling class views abstention as a rejection of the government and a truly militant threat to their power. Of course, we should not JUST vote for immediate gains, but asserting that not voting at all is a revolutionary strategy seems quite unfounded to me. There is a reason that throughout the history of the U.S. government, especially, that the ruling elites of society have consistently attempted to restrict, obstruct, and place arbitrary qualifiers upon voting rights. No, we should not view voting as a truly revolutionary tool in the least... however, ignoring it AS a tool that can be used to secure some gains is, again, counterproductive.



There are reformists in all movements. Remember the "anarchists for Kerry"?

Besides, it seems to me that these people you've met are from the middle class, as they are usually the ones who make up these reformist movements for "human rights". They are also usually very active in electoral politics. In my experience, the opposite is true of the working class; that is, a large portion of the it is absolutely uninterested in electoral politics. This is a good thing.

You are conflating the use of voting to win immediate gains with "reformism" as an end-goal strategy. There is no convincing reason that I have heard so far to not vote at least in some settings, even for anarchists.

So what if some of them are from the middle class? How does that detract from the value of securing abortion access, deflecting fundamentalist Christian legislation, or making the environment slightly less toxic for us to live in? Is it not in working class interests to potentially have more family leave time, or potentially better healthcare so that the family doesn't go bankrupt when a kid gets sick, or potentially safer working conditions? Or, you know, air to breathe? Of course Democrats are not going to give us any of these things without forcing them to, but it is at least possible that SOME victories can be won (and must be won) while capitalism is still around, and it is far more likely that we can wrench the arms of the Democrats than the Republicans.

It would be good if a disillusionment with "politics" for the working class actually did translate to a latent revolutionary fervor. Unfortunately, it generally doesn't at the moment. If you can establish for me in a more empirical fashion that mass abstention from electoral politics somehow does generally reflect potential revolutionary attitudes, and that NOT voting somehow aids the likelihood of the betterment of our conditions as a whole, then I will gladly take that into account in my future judgments of the issue. However, from where I am sitting right now, you seem to be simply belittling the very real and immediate needs of people for some notion of purism.

[Patchd]

No, they aren't, unless our purposes differ. Yes, I want the overthrow of capitalism. However, I also want to restrict the expansion of control of theocratic elements within the state here and now. I want women to have access to abortions. I want people to have the right to marry whomever they wish.
Immediate gains have no benefit on the working class in the longterm. If it is the abolition of capital that we would like to see, then that is what we should primarily fight for, as well as raising the consciousness that without the abolition of capital, you will not see the abolition of racism, sexism, homophobia etc.

Bourgeois politics is for the bourgeoisie, we have no need to concern ourselves with it. If the liberals feel threatened by our radical stance, let them legalise gay marriage, and give women equal rights. We should continue to hold the position that their attempts to create a "fair, nice" capitalist society is an attempt to protect the power of the ruling class. In addition, these immediate gains are immediate gains for those who can afford protection from social strife, and for those privileged "oppressed" sectors of society, rich members of the queer community, rich women and so forth.

Working class queers, women, minority sections of society (I am not using this in a derogatory manner btw, I prefer the term queer to encompass the LGBT) are still getting treated like shit, and we don't have the ability to pay for protection from the state or private companies. This is the real problem and has to be dealt with from a revolutionary standing, through direct action, and an opposition to capital.

And at any rate, as a gay man, I oppose gay marriage anyway, on the grounds that marriage is an oppressive institution which I would like to see the abolishment of post-revolution.


There is a reason that throughout the history of the U.S. government, especially, that the ruling elites of society have consistently attempted to restrict, obstruct, and place arbitrary qualifiers upon voting rights.
Yes and that is to continue to easily secure the dominance of the current strand of Capitalism that dominates bourgeois society at the time. The curbing of voting rights for certain sectors of society, using immigrants as an example, merely reduces the possible electorate able to vote for more liberal or social democratic parties, something which may prove to benefit the more Conservative of capitalists.


Is it not in working class interests to potentially have more family leave time, or potentially better healthcare so that the family doesn't go bankrupt when a kid gets sick, or potentially safer working conditions?
Yes, but not by making capitalism "nice", it doesn't remove the exploitation of the working class. Whatever gains the liberals or social democrats have made however (such as the NHS in Britain) should be defended as an act of defiance against capital, as well as a point of highlighting how these very gains in Capitalist society mean absolutely nothing to the working class, once the more wealthier sections of an oppressed group have access to certain privileges.

[Bilan]

This 'politicians are all the same' really negates the point that politicians aren't the ones who control the nature of the economy, or even international affairs to any significant degree beyond petty declarations.
They all have to act within constraints - constraints, being, they are not able to act in a way which will interrupt (in any significant way) the circulation of capital.
But are they all the same?
Well, no. Do they have to act in accordance with the interests of the ruling class? Yes.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

This 'politicians are all the same' really negates the point that politicians aren't the ones who control the nature of the economy, or even international affairs to any significant degree beyond petty declarations.
They all have to act within constraints - constraints, being, they are not able to act in a way which will interrupt (in any significant way) the circulation of capital.
But are they all the same?
Well, no. Do they have to act in accordance with the interests of the ruling class? Yes.



good point.
I should've titled the thread "The Reasons Why All Politicians Have the Same Interests..."

[ZeroNowhere]

good point.
I should've titled the thread "The Reasons Why All Politicians Have the Same Interests..."
Define 'politician'. If you're only going to be talking about the Democrats and Republicans, please say so.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Define 'politician'. If you're only going to be talking about the Democrats and Republicans, please say so.

Mainly democrat and republican, but overall any American politician that has a chance of being elected in the past/next decade.