Results 21 to 40 of 71
Although I disagree with your analysis that extremism is the reason for the success of the AMerican republicans, you are right to look to what the reactionaries are doing.
The ruling oligarchs in America have largely concluded that their future lies with an imperfect vehicle like the Republican party for establishing their neo-feudalism. Despite all protestations by (I guess) the people Solnit targets that there isn't any substantive difference between the two parties, the ruling class is betting heavily on one and trying its best to turn the other into essentially a junior coalition partner, succeeding here and there.
If the whole affair were so inconsequential, why are the capitalists pouring immense sums of money into one side? Why are the fascists (and I don't mean the toothless clowns over at stormfront) so insistent and devoted to the apparently meaningless task of filling the judiciary and law books and military and all that in America with their henchmen? And these reactionaries do so even if the vast majority of Republican politicians aren't demanding to nuke Cuba or end universal adult suffrage.
I have no reason to think the right wing is any more misguided or delusional, at least as it concerns political tactics, than the "liberals" we on the left deride. In fact if anything they are incredibly good at what they do - we can only dream of their ideological hegemony in so many areas of life, especially in the advanced capitalist societies. And indeed they famously invest heavily outside of elections in things like obnoxious "non-profit think tanks", media outlets, and other brick and morter movement building entities that should be the radical left's mainstay.
But for those dismissing any value in bourgeois electoral politics, it still is a very real question why the hard core reactionaries invest so heavily in electing Republicans, or even spreading a relatively mild gospel of liberal democracy.
Indeed in every capitalist democracy precisely this dynamic ensues. Capitalists from Mexico to Germany to Australia invest substantial sums to defeat the supposed "other capitalist party". Of course they do it as a "stick" to get the reformists in line by providing "carrots" to the reformist's enemies. But then the question should be, why aren't we using "sticks" to get the conservatives in line by providing "carrots" to the reformists? Such actions aren't unprecedented, as happened in making institutions like social insurance a "third rail of politics" even in the USA. The example of how the ruling class operates raises serious questions about the value of ideological purism that Solnit decries.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
Look, what I'm going to argue at this point is that in the end I don't really care if leftists en masse ended up voting for the Democrats because they think that it's the lesser of two evils and so on. Hell, even I'm considering it (being a college student and all, Paul Ryan and co. want to fuck me over when it comes to Pell grants and student loans I depend on) although I can't be arsed enough to go register and vote. I don't really see this as a problem nor do I think it's an obligation for leftists and radical leftist organizations to tell people to not vote at all.
But I'm thinking more in terms of organizational tactics and such. I don't believe it's the job of socialists/leftists to endorse bourgeois candidates whether at a personal level or especially a resolution-mandated endorsement from a radical organization; ever, at all. What I do believe that these organization, even the liberal-progressives, have the right to criticize all candidates/parties; that's fair-game.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
I'm not sure how you are reaching these conclusions. For one thing most US cities are controlled by the Democratic Party - my own town, San Francisco, Chicago, probably haven't had any sizable Republican influence for decades. So that would seem like a problem for a plan to have Republican control when the major population centers and centers of many industries are in areas basically controlled by Democratic Party machines.
Second, from what I've seen in the mainstream press, Obama has recieved MORE contributions - record breaking in fact - than Romney. Since there are in the 400 and 300 million dollar rage respectivly, I doubt that the bulk of that is personal contributions from workers and petty-bourgoise supporters for the most part.
I don't think anyone implied that this was a characteristic exclusive to the Radical Left.
No, that's not what she's saying. What she's saying is that those criticisms have to be understood in context, and acted upon in a rational way. To not choose the lesser evil, when given the choice, out of some misguided puritanical impulse, is to court the greater one. That never makes sense. Let's take this into the real world; over the last few years, as Solnit notes; we've seen a surprisingly intense assault on reproductive rights. Now; a number of the new provisions limiting access to abortion were not necessarily passed by ballot initiatives, however; the candidates that supported them, or passed them absolutely were elected, moreover; in most cases the candidates' extreme Pro-Life views were probably one of the main pillars of their campaign. As a result of doing nothing to defeat those proposed laws, or the candidates who supported them; abortion is significantly less accessible to many Americans than it was just a few years ago. Presuming we actually care about that, this 'principled abstention' flies directly in the face of the stated principles, and is remarkably stupid.
First; you don't have to accept any particular ideology to ask these questions. Also; I'm not going to touch the question of leadership, because I don't want to derail the thread. The question of demands, on the other hand, is both valid, and topical. This is vital for two reasons; first; if you don't lay out even the broadest list of greivances you basically leave it entirely up to the other side to decide what terms they'd like to accept, which probably aren't even close to what you want. Second; any such movement is almost certainly doomed because it's nearly impossible to build support, to sway the public to your side, and attract new members when you have no agenda. Later, you mention the Civil Rights movement. The raison d'etre of the Civil Rights movement was exceedingly simple; black Americans were demanding the same rights, and freedoms accorded to whites, to be treated like human beings. That was abundantly clear, and widely understood. What did Occupy stand for? It's really impossible to say. This refusal to coalesce around even a loose set of core principles, or demands is, I believe, is what has been killing Occupy, which seems to be very near it's end.
No; that's not what I said, that's not what she said. There's a difference between being against violence (pacifism) and being against stupid violence. Violence that is counterproductive to our efforts, that undermines that which we are trying to acheive, is stupid violence. However; this is really a debate better had, elsewhere.
While this is largely irrelevent, it is also a fairly sound point. Look; I absolutely love punk rock, but if you're trying to have a serious conversation with lawyers, or housewives, or construction workers about foreign policy, or economic justice; you should probably take the nosering out.
No; you're just not understanding it. What she is criticizing, and quite legitimately so, is this feeble-minded, puritanical abstention, from the political arena, whether it's voting for candidates, voting for legislation, or, really any kind of incrementalism, at all, that acts as a massive obstacle preventing the Radical Left from making any headway, and often, by it's inaction actually makes things worse. That's the point.
Not from what I've seen, not from the conversation that takes place on these boards. Just look at this thread. From all appearances; impossibilism is, overwhelmingly, the predominant viewpoint. Furthermore; it is this that represents the greatest obstacle to the Radical Left; we are our own worst enemy.
No, that's totally incorrect. Impossibilism is all she's talking about. Read it, again, if you don't believe me.
Like; more than a handful. Did most of the local Radicals actually show up, I guess, is what I'm asking. Personally; I'd be surprised.
That's a given.
I have no hard data, but I'm skeptical. Most of these people won't even check a box to legalize pot, or gay marriage.
Oh, there's no question that it's marginalizing. Absolutely. Most of the Radical Left cling to their precious irrelevence as if it were a lover, or a life preserver. I'm also substantially more skeptical that people are going to snap out of it. I see no evidence of this. Quite the contrary. I think this is primarily what is killing Occupy, and will have a similar affect on any future endeavors.
Absolutely; nobody said otherwise.
That's mostly accurate. However; what you also need to understand is that it provides insurance for 36 million Americans who would otherwise have none, as well as some of the other provisions like providing free preventative care like mammograms, and colonoscopies, ending lifetime care limits, ending denial or cancellation of coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, and ending gender discrimination in fees because insurance companies were charging women more money, sometimes substantially more, for the same coverage, etc., etc. What I would ask you is; if you're indifferent to that, or if you'd rather go back to the status quo? (36 million more uninsured, etc.) Nobody who cares about the working class should say; yes to either of those questions. Anyone who does that very plainly does not give a shit about the working class.
Nothing exists in a vaccum. I also must disagree. If you make it easier for working people to get education, to get healthcare, if you lift, or ease their burdens, to any degree; that's a positive effect. Furthermore; logistically, it's impossible to build a sizable working class movement if we ignore the pressing issues facing the middle class.
Voting is never passive. Not voting is passive.
Yes; the powers that be will, ultimately, bend to poular pressure, when it gets sufficiently instense. However; we could make that process a lot easier on ourselves. For example; allowing blatantly homophobic politicians to win elections doesn't really advance gay rights in any measurable way, in fact, it's deeply counterproductive.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
You're missing the point. The point she's making is that hoever objectionable the administrations' policies, that doesn't mean that we should passively, or actively ensure the ascendency of one which will be even more objectionable by those same standards. That nomatter how bad your choices are, choosing the worst choice, or abstaining, and thereby risking the worst of the range of possible outcomes never makes sense. That's totally counterproductive, presuming you're genuine in the principles which supposedly motivated such criticisms.
Only if you have no idea what you're talking about. It's absolutely clear.
It's by no means clear what specifically constitutes a marginal difference. On the national scale, small differences can have big results. If a 'marginal difference' is 36 million more Americans having insurance vs. 36 million less, it's would be catestrophically stupid to choose the former. It's a no brainer.
No, I don't think that's true at all. What's more; the inevitable outcome of this logic is that we should actually support the most brutal wing of the establishment, and the most brutal policies. This reduces the question of tactics to how much torture we must inflict upon the working class. Marx knew better. For example; he understood that both classes benefitted from the 10 Hours Law, he supported it because it was a boon to the working class. He wasn't willing to stab the working class in the eye just to spite the elites.
Ok, but that needs to be understood in context. The context is his opposition is worse.
Granted, although; nothing occurs in a vacuum.
That's a good idea, but that isn't what's happening, right now.
No, that's absolutely wrong. She's saying that we need to start pursuing those demands in a way that isn't counterproductive to actually acheiving them.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Well, because it happens to be about the Radical Left, and, more importantly because this; 'Impossibilism' that she's criticizing is, I would argue the most significant obstacle standing in our way.
It's by no means clear what her specific ideology is. Somewhere between Progressive, and Radical, it's never explicitly stated, more to the point; it's irrelevent.
Not just to them, to everybody. It's a matter of empirical fact.
That's precisely the point.
You can't be a Radical and have non-Radical politics. For example; I emphatically support gay rights, and so do Liberals, however; that does not mean that support for gay rights isn't fundamental to Radicalism, only that it isn't exclusive to Radicalism. Likewise, as such, all political activity of a Socialist is, by definition, Socialist political activity. Historically radicals have not been categorically opposed to political participation; Marx absolutely wasn't, Lenin wasn't, etc., etc. Nor does participating in the political process require you to adopt any illusions. The working class will be objectively better off with Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, than Scott Brown, just as they, especially minority youths, will be better off with Cannabis being legal, as opposed to illegal.
She was, clearly, absolutely, speaking to a Radical audience. If you mean by; 'wasting her time', to indicate the futility of confronting many Radicals with facts, or logic, I absolutely agree. I have no illusions on that front, either.
No argument, here.
Again; this is a fact, not an opinion.
Seeing as you live in one of the swing states, one of the only states where the election hasn't already been decided, and, thus; have the ability to tilt this thing one way, or the other, I would strongly urge you to do so, especially if you live in Alan West's district.
Last edited by NGNM85; 17th October 2012 at 21:05.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Well I don't disagree with that in general - but specifically when it comes to the actual examples she gave in the article, I would also not see them as "half-victories" but actually the result of some empty pandering to their base by Democratic polticians. As an example, if the bosses fire half the workforce, but then decide to hire them back at 1/2 pay - this is not a half victory by itself. If the workers went on strike and were able to force the company to hire back some of the workers, then that would be at least a start, that would be a sort of mixed victory. It has nothing to do with the number of workers but on what terms this happened. If bosses hire and fire people, really workers are equally powerless in this process no matter if a good thing happens or a bad thing happens. If workers are able to organize and force companies to not fire people or to increase benifits or whatnot, then we have gained some power back through our own efforts.
In a similar way, if Democratic politicians offer a reform on their own in the absense of pressure from below, then most likely it will be a half-measure, probably with some kind of devils-bargin involved. For example they want to get rid of the death penalty in California... is this a half victory? Well when you look at the details, actually they want to put all death-row inmates into life-imprisonment instead (and they will loose their chance for appeals due to this) and they will be forced to work a job in prison with the money going to victim family groups. What's more is that they take the money from the budget that they claim eliminating the death penalty would save (since death row inmates have the chance to make appeals which is costly to the state) and give it to law enforcement which will end up with more young kids getting harassed and eventually arrested.
So as much as I want to see the death penalty ended, I can't see this as a "half-victory" any more than I can see spoiled meat as half-digestable.
To choose the lesser evil in a two party system like in the US is to move to the upper deck of the sinking Titanic. Choosing the lesser evil is not putting up any kind of opposition - we need to build an independant opposition, but how can we do that if every two years the opposition hault's it's independence in order to support the lesser evil? What are the implications: if you are fighting for LGBT rights but want to support the lesser-evil, this means shutting up and not making independant demands because you will end up hurting the "lesser evil". How dare those Chicago teachers help Romeny by striking in an election year! They should be out leafletting for Obama rather than embarassing the lesser-evil's croney in his own hometown!
No, let's zoom back for a minute. Who was President when Abortion was legalized - Nixon. Huh?! Why. Because people organized an opposition and movements that were not tailing the "Lesser Evil". All the gains of the 1960s and 1970s came because movements actually began to break with the feet-draging Democrats on Civil Rights and with the Vietnam bombing "peace candidate" LBJ.
People voted for LBJ, famously, because he claimed in Ads that his opponet would start war with the USSR. He sold himself as the "lesser-evil" and he was actually the only member of the Kennedy Admin who was against further involvement in Vietnam. The result of "lesser-evilism" in 1964? Victorious LBJ turned around and escalated the war immediately!
As for abortion specifically. Why did the Democrats ever support this to begin with. Because people had organized themselves and forced the issue to be adressed in the country. The general pro-abortion view at that time was that it was a matter of "women's control of her own body" and a health issue. But since the election of lesser-evil Bill Clinton, pro-abortion organizations have been tied to the Democratic Party, a party where their most prominent female politcian claims that we should find common ground with the anti-abortion right and recognize that abortion is horrible, it's just sometimes necissary.
And for the responce now to the anti-abortionists from the Democrats - well some lesser members of the party offered some humorous counter-bills requiring all men to get invasive tests done etc. That's funny, but it's also not an actual DEFENSE of abortion acess. In fact despite two Democratic Administrations since 1990, access to abortion is more limited today than in the 1980s with whole states where there are no real clinics.
Lesser-evilism as a strategy for the pro-abortion movement has been a disaster and now the movement on the streets around abortion rights looks like 50,000 people marching against Abortion in San Francisco each year on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.
ngnm85 is the greatest anarchist thinker of his generation
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
Again; the problem with this is that it implies that defending the working class is only worthwhile when there is an immediate political return on that investment. I strongly disagree. We should always support, and defend the working class, etc.
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Also; I don't think this is universally true, and even if it was, that doesn't necessarily matter.
That's an ethical decision that you have to make through the prism of your own morality. However; I still think it's an improvement.
Not by itself, but nobody suggested that, quite the contrary, in fact.
That assumes that these two endeavors fundamentally anthetical,; they aren't. I mean, for the most part this is irrelevent because most of the Radical community has no interest in doing anything of the kind, in fact; many of them are adamantly opposed to it, and if such an event were to transpire in spite of them; they wouldn't vote for it, anyhow. Let's leave all that aside and presume we're actually serious about this. How would such a thing be accomplished? Well; first, you'd have to overturn Citizens' United, and instate public campaign financing, something along the lines proposed by Lawrence Lessig. The Democratic party is, overall, fairly supportive of this idea, I heard Nancy Pelosi say so, just the other day. Congressional Republicans (Who are, incidentally, responsible for appointing the Reactionaries that gave us this abomination.) minus an insignificant handful of exceptions defend this decision. More importantly; as I noted earlier, the American public absolutely hates it. 79% of registered Republicans think this thing sucks. So; that's a vast wellspring of public anger that could easily be tapped into, if anybody was interested in doing that. As I said, Lessig, and a few Occupiers tried to do something like that, but, as far as I can tell, this initiative was largely opposed, primarily by the Radicals.
Not necessarily. It just means that you have to put those demands in context. There really aren't any valid criticisms of the President that don't go double for the GOP. You think the President hasn't been strong enough on gay rights? Ok. Just don't gloss over the fact that his opposition want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forever. Of course; that's almost assuredly not going to happen, but I don't see how getting a Rick Santorum,or whomever, elected really advances gay rights. I don't see how that's in any way conducive to making progress toward that goal.
This is wrong on a number of levels. The matter was decided by the Supreme Court. The Presidents' sole involvement was to appoint three judges to the bench, all of whom, as it turns out, voted with the majority, along with two Democratic appointees; Thurgood Marshall, and William Douglas. It's also a mistake to draw such a close connection between the Pro-Choice movement and the judges' decision. I think the changing social attitudes prompted, in large part, by the Pro-Choice movement certainly had an effect, but only in that very general, and indirect way. It also bears mentioning that the Republican party of 1973 is not the Republican party of 2012. In years past, the Republican party supported unions, they didn't take any strong position, one way, or the other on abortion. The official platform for the convention this year stated in no uncertain terms that their party explicitly supported amending the constitution to ban abortion, perhaps with some minor exceptions, to be decided on the state level. Paul Ryan basically flat-out said, the other night, that, if given the opportunity, his administration would appoint judges with the hope of overturning Roe, and if he wins, that's definitely possible.
It should be mentioned that impressive gains were made through the Democratic party, in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. For example; (Lifelong Marxist, and self-identified Communist.) Asa Phillip Randolph pressured FDR into the Fair employment Act, and, later, Truman into signing Executive Order 9981, desegregating the army. His march on Washington, with his protege, Martin Luther King, (Also a Socialist, incidentally.) was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act 0f '64, and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Randolph, and Michael Harrington (Also a lifelong Marxist.) played a large role in inspiring the Great Society programs, as well as the ambitious Freedom Budget which was embraced by then-candidate Robert Kennedy, but, of course, he was asassinated, and Nixon thought the whole thing was bullshit, scoffing the idea of; 'spending millions on the poor.'
Yes.
That's a bad paraphrase. However; again, in simplest terms, the choice is between one party that is explicitly, and unequivocally in favor of protecting reproductive rights, and another which is equally explicitly against them. If Romney/Ryan get elected, they might very well get Roe overturned, I'm not being dramatic. It's a strong possibility.
I know. Solnit made that point, explicitly, so did I. Also; to be clear, that's almost entirely the result of state legislatures. Again; while not all of these restrictions on abortion were passed by ballot, I suspect most probably weren't, the politicians who introduced them, and supported them absolutely were, and, whats' more, they probably specifically campaigned on that agenda. This is the fruit of this; 'principled abstention. Congratulate yourselves.
This has very little relationship to reality.
Those restrictions were introduced by Republicans, most of whom campaigned specifically on that agenda, that the Radical Left wasn't interested in opposing.
Again; how do you advance reproductive rights by voting for, or not voting against (Which is the same thing, if you live in a swing state.) a ticket that very explicitly supports banning abortion, and may very possibly be able to do so? How is that productive? How is that smart?
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
It's abundantly clear that comments such as these are purely intended to antagonize me. Presuming you were actually serious, for a moment however, your implication, that participating in parliamentary politics is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism is totally bogus. I fairly sure even you understand that much. If you really want to shock me; you should try saying something intelligent.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
I would also ask that whomever it was (And I have a fairly good idea.) that negged this comment, on page one;
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=14
display the courage of their convictions, and identify themselves, as well as to specifically indicate what it was they disagreed with, if, in truth, they actually did disagree, which I'm not convinced of.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
It is relevant because it's important to know what the intended audience is for her article. I believe her use of "radical" is similar to how Stalinists use the term "ultra-leftist" except targeted at progressives who lately have been skittish about Obama. Her article seems to use progressives to make an argument; it also doesn't target specifically the left-wing criticism of voting but instead targets a liberal/progressive/activist criticism of voting (particularly for voting for a mainstream party/politician).
No she was not. If she was, this would be published in libcom, infoshop, or some socialist (weekly worker? IDK) publication rather than truthdig which is a progressive publication like say alternet. Sure, some activists might read it. I'll even say that one can make arguments about the left's anti-voting (or anti-voting mainstream party; some people here vote 3rd parties) but if you wanted that you should have made your own arguments rather than relying on some article that targets mostly skittish disillusioned progressives and/or run of the mill activists.
I'm not against this line of thinking, nor am I against the line of thinking that it's a waste of time. Personally, I'm of the line of thinking that we need to re-think the left's/activist's tactics since they're seemingly not working however giving mainstream political endorsements/etc doesn't really advance our desire for revolution nor a move that will help the left at all (hell, it may be detrimental; it could make left organizations end up like the CPUSA).
My district isn't a swing district and Alan West I believe is more of a West Palm/Collier politician. (I'm in Lee, we got Connie Mack, Nelson, etc). If I live in the east coast (Dade, Broward, West Palm), Tampa, or Orlando I might have considered voting; yet nevertheless I know that it ain't radical politics and I hope no serious self-described radical political organization engages in the practice of endorsing politicians/mainstream parties or any electioneering.
I feel that argument is a semantic game. Sure, gay rights is a part of what the radical left wants but since it isn't exclusive to radicalism it isn't exactly "radical politics." Voting for politician isn't exactly "radical politics," it doesn't advance the desire to empower the working class, etc.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
The problem is that in America municipal politics play a very minor role compared to state or federal politics. Look at states like Texas. Heavily Democratic Houston, South Texas, Dallas and Austin have done shit all to make that state remotely livable for anybody even in these horrifically lame supposed "bastions of liberalism". Why? Because the 50%+1 in the rest of the state have done a terrific job creating their reactionary wet dream through fiat. The American right-wing wants the same thing for the rest of the country and they have largely succeeded.
As to the money, sure, the center left raises a lot of money; you are correct it's not "personal contributions" of "worker supporters" but union money is actually big part of that. And the bourgeoisie isn't united on this front. Some industries, notoriously the film industry but also industries like high tech ones, do have a tendency to support the center-left in different countries. But they are the exception. In the American context, the ruling class invests heavily in the Republican Party, at the presidential level:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...or-Romney.aspx
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ons-obama.html
but also at other political levels:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/ale...e-legislatures
Moreover, the situation is similar in other democracies where corporations are given a lot of power.
In Mexico, the basically reformist PRD has famously struggled against the huge influx of corporate support for the opposition.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ions-explained
The role of the business community in historically propping up the LDP in Japan is quite well documented:
http://www.sfu.ca/~kawasaki/Crespo.pdf
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...anese-politics
Elsewhere the situation is more mild, because the business community can only give limited support as political contributions are severely curtailed and moreso those by corporations. Here the assessment is more indirect - the ruling class press (e.g., the Economist) is quite vocal about their preferences for the center-right.
But even in Canada, which is probably the most corporate friendly of the industrialized liberal democracies outside of America and Japan that still retains a heavy restriction on private funding of elections, there is a tendency towards corporate groups heavily favoring the donations of the ruling right-wing party:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blo...campaign-trail
In short, as an overall trend, it is hard to deny the rather strong support the ruling class in liberal democracies give to the "center-right" party over the "center-left" party. There may be exceptions, such as Red Ken or the Democratic powerhouses of San Francisco or the ability of Socialists in France to consistently control Paris. But they are aberrations, and when their power seems to extends nationally or even regionally (as in Texas) the reactionaries and their ruling class patrons find a way to come down hard.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
Yes, the buzz of liberal reformism via investing in the Democrat party.
Obama has already annihilated more public programs and services than Bush and Reagan
Because actual socialists have seen the uslessness of this sort of sycophantic apologist position for generations.
Who are these people, the rancid sector of the far left? If the person is refering to revoloutionary sociaists I'll write a long response but I feel like it's a generic critisizm of the generic left with the same old generic cries for supporting reformism via a vote for a capitalist politician. Newsflash - Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan.
Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan. The OP of this blog is also "grateful" for "Obamacare". Where do I start? Is the poster of this thread also "grateful" for the new healthcare law? If so I have to ask, what sort of socialist are you?
No more excuses please. No more investing in the Democrat party. Please stop.
EDIT: look , even liberals and progressives get it. OP, why don't you get it?
http://vimeo.com/20355767
Last edited by Nihilist Scud Missile; 14th October 2012 at 02:33.
And in short.........http://paganmediabytes.com/truthmedi...obama-2012.png
Your arguments are simply lesser-evilism. Yes Santorum is terrible, but the problem with the "lesser evil" is that simply "not being terrible" doesn't actually put up any kind of opposition.
But the main problem with the Democracts these days isn't even that they refuse to put up an opposition - because often they are leading a parallel charge to that of the Republicans. Regan was terrible, but Clinton actually got more Regan-type things passed than Regan was able to! Clinton put the "Defense of Marriage Act" into law, made 30-strikes laws the law of the land, increased the ability of the federal government to exaccute people, got rid of welfare, got rid of any public assistance for anyone conviceted on drug charges, and fought to legitimize US military intervention in the post-cold war era. Clinton was actually a greater-evil than Regan in terms of neoliberalism and US imperialism.
The problems with lesser-evilism as a strategy, is that it leaves us defensless against the government and dependant on capitalist allies in the Democratic party. When there are two parties, there's always going to be a greater or lesser, evil so in this strategy, there is simply no way out - we will always have to vote for some crappy person who may not be as crappy as their opponent.
I think we need to break from that and develop independant movements and perhaps parties that actually fight for class interests, rather than just occasionally pander to voting workers.
Yes, this is what I am arguing for - an independant movement. If we tie ourselves to the Democrats, then we will be told not to make a big issue of abortion because then the pro-life nuts will mobilize and Romney/Bush/Palin will win!
The Democrats are far from unequivocally for abortion - Hilary Clinton called for Democratic Party supporters to have understanding and find common ground with pro-lifers, and to recognize that abortion is a tragety.
It is smart to organize yourself and to create an independant opposition that will actually fight for an issue, rather than to rely on people in a party that doesn't fight for abortion rights and has been in power for most of the time that these rights have been gutted.
This is how these rights were won in the first place, this is part of how the anti-abortion forces have become strong, and this is what has not been happeing for decades and lo, the rights are not being upheld or defended let alone expanded.
i'd be offended if you hadn't previously used exactly the same insult before. it's like you're little, 'i'm actually more radical marx, the mature marx of capital at least' spiel -- do you have this shit copied out in a word doc?
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
Impossiblism as a chic lifestyle?I wish
Seriously though do you consider yourself a possibilist?
You don't get to be offended. You can't start fights with people and cry foul when they take you up on it. That's exactly the response you deserve. If you could behave like a civilized adult; you wouldn't get that kind of response.
I don't recall, but that's probably true. It doesn't matter.
That's a bad paraphrase. I'll speak for myself, thanks. However; incidentally, that is a strong point, that contrary to what is sometimes said, I'm actually further from 'reformism' than Marx was, but this is also irrlevent.
No, it's just in my head. Since you brought it up; you could also ask why people insist on confronting me with the same stupid questions, and the same stupid arguments.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
