Results 81 to 98 of 98
Since these issues do not really assist in the growth of revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat, I do not think it has had the effect you hoped for. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that the illusion of democratic reform under capitalism has been slightly strengthened now. Whether the working class is subjectively "pushed" more toward the left now is immaterial since they are still firmly within the camp of bourgeois politics.
Does this mean that we should completely dismiss these reforms? No. But you seem to be approaching this from the angle that reforms are an end in itself. You're subordinating revolution to reform by doing what empiricists (or pragmatists) do--starting from these aforementioned "facts" without being able to see beyond them. This theoretical line--of accepting reform instead of engaging the reformist consciousness of the masses--is hardly a healthy starting point for revolutionary politics.
For me it didn't really matter who won, considering I view it as two parties, one ideology but I am glad Obama won over that tool Willard, even though he, himself has also been a bigger tool than Bush.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I would say that perhaps its the largest defeat that the left has been dealt it recent memory, because even good leftists are treating it as a victory. That's when you know that you are fucked. People's standards have become so low because of him, that we've perhaps fucked ourselves to oblivion.
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
No dammit. Why does no one understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying that we should accept reform. I'm saying that it's easier to engage the masses in a liberal society than a hardcore reactionary one that has stronger anti communist and pro free market rhetoric. Liberals aren't revolutionary and should not be viewed as such, but they are a hell of a lot more open to the idea of socialism than libertarians, conservatives, and quasi-fascists. I was a liberal at one point. I don't think I would have accepted socialism if I hadn't went from conservative to liberal first.
Well, I agree with you, when it comes to the broader picture. Arguably the Obama administration, like FDR's before him, saved American capitalism from self destruction. It is undeniable, despite the miserable whining of tea-party drones, that Obama is firmly in the conservative camp of capital and that he resists serious progressive change.
However, he does accept the need to minor incremental changes, such as providing tens of thousands of Americans with healthcare. Obviously that massively aids the insurance companies, but it is still a progressive move even if not a huge one. And it is a progressive move that the more reactionary Republican party find intolerable.
Anecdotal evidence isn't terribly representative. I remember reading a testimonial on here about a member who used to be a hard-core Dittohead and never made the stopover at liberalism. Should we be doing our best to make sure hard-right rhetoric becomes even more dominant than it already is in society, in the hopes that more such conversions will occur? Or should we "disdain to conceal our views and aims", no matter which faction of the ruling class runs the media machine this week?
Aye, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is progressive insofar as it is a concession that was extracted via the pressure of the working masses. It should be criticized from the standpoint that it is woefully inadequate and that a genuine solution can not be found within the framework of capitalism.
Really what I want to criticize here is the naive viewpoint of some that programs such as the PPACA are essentially the result of charitable and benevolent intentions of the Democrats, with one user here going so far as to make the absurd statement that "Just because Obama is supported by Wallstreet doesn't mean that he doesn't love the people".
Electoral support for the Democrats is a poor move, I think, especially taken from the standpoint that if large numbers of people seriously began to oppose the Democrats from the view that they were too far to the right, then the Democrats would have to lurch to the left somewhat in an attempt to compensate and reclaim some support. The Republicans wouldn't be operating in a vacuum in this either, as demonstrated by the fact that even they have a hard time going directly against Medicare and Medicaid in their rhetoric.
Providing electoral support for the Democrats supports the status quo, while opposing them from a socialist standpoint and advocating socialist demands drags the system further to the left if these demands begin to be taken up by the masses. Of course that's just a side effect; our real goal is not to merely modify the system, but to raise revolutionary consciousness so it can be abolished.
What many in this thread seem to be proposing is essentially Browderism, which has a very poor track record. The relatively large social programs put forth by the New Deal were in spite of the 'communists' unconditional and total electoral support of the Democrats, not because of it.
What pressure from the working masses? If I recall correctly, and I fully admit that I might not, the working masses were by and large politically and materially demobilized in the wake of the 2008 election. The Affordable Care Act cannot be explained in terms of a concession extracted from capital because there was no movement doing the extracting. How then, can it be explained? Either it really is benevolent paternalism, or it's a straight-up attack differentiated from other proposed attacks by the fact that the faction of the bourgeoisie in power felt they could get away with this one, and not with those.
Okay. If that's really what you meant (and I'm still not quite convinced), let's move on to what you're saying now. On the whole, I found your argument to be terribly weak.
You start by placing an "iron wall", so to speak, between what you view as a "liberal" society, with its opposite being "hardcore reactionary". How has the United States been a "liberal" society in the last twenty years? I don't think such a case could be made, even in the abstract. And no liberal, Obama included, has been wrung dry of "anti communist and pro free market rhetoric". In fact, declaring his faith in the capitalist system was the chief refrain of his entire campaign. As such, it will be more of the same, hewing closely to the very reactionary social agenda that was "begun" by his predecessor. Speaking of a distinction between these two "societies" in the context of bourgeois society is, to my mind, rather wrongheaded.
But perhaps you meant more liberal minded, as in the notion of a changing zeitgeist in the US? In that case, let's address your presumption that "liberal" people are far more receptive to socialism; or at least, more than the others. You seem to be basing this on the notion that "liberal" somehow equates to a more open mind to alternative viewpoints, at least politically if not socially. Even if you were correct, liberalism is a very far cry away from socialist class consciousness. As I said before, all of the ideologies you have listed are firmly within the bourgeois camp and their ruling ideas. You cannot simply assume that liberals are more open when the philosophical methods associated with them are reactionary and lead away from socialism. You may be able to "engage" people better, certainly, but without a revolutionary party, that's all you'll be able to do. How can the masses be more "open" to socialism when socialist parties in the US are largely ineffective? The revival of socialist idealism will not be achieved under a bourgeois liberal zeitgeist with no effective revolutionary party.
If I was wrong about your acceptance of reformism, I don't think I was wrong about your method, which I believe to be empiricism. Again, you start from the "fact" that Obama's victory actually means a defeat of the right wing, and assume that the masses will be more open to socialism. You are unnecessarily limiting your thought here.
Oh, and just for the record, I actually went to Marxism after I had embraced the Republican party for so many years. Liberalism in of itself does not necessarily make it easier to accept socialism.
Last edited by MEGAMANTROTSKY; 11th November 2012 at 20:48.
I think that the concession to the working masses argument only makes sense if you view the election of Barack Obama and the Democrats as the result of a movement of the working masses. There really wasn't any sort of political movement going on when the affordable care act was being debated (well, besides the Tea Party).
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Yes.
In what way am I limiting my thought?
I don't think Obama's victory was a defeat for the right wing. I think it was a defeat for the far right, a small one, but a defeat nonetheless. Though, at this point in the conversation I'm starting to think that the benefits of his re-election are less substantial than I had previously believed. Maybe even to the point that it isn't worth mentioning. Maybe I am full of shit...
When I spoke of "limiting" your thought, I should have been more elaborate. I'll try to make up for that here. I meant that your perspective of viewing the right wing (far or moderate) as "defeated" or liberal people are more open to socialism is problematic. The right wing, even the "far" right, is never defeated in the sense that their policies or their influence will be thwarted by a Democratic congress or otherwise. Recall that even when Obama had a majority in both the House and Senate, the meager social reforms he attempted to push through (like ending the tax cuts for the wealthy) were dictated entirely on the terms of the Republicans. Even as a minority faction, they still "triumphed". Their influence was slightly curtailed, but not seriously in danger at any point.
I believe that with Obama's reelection, you saw that the "left" (in the abstract) was successful, heralding a new zeitgeist, and that the "right" would at least be held at bay for another few years. You took the situation as it immediately appeared to you, and formulated your position on that basis. This practice of basing arguments or opinions on this "immediate and sensory experience" is the hallmark of empiricism. I hope that is a little more clear for you now. I apologize for not going at length before.
Do not think that you are "full of shit" for a second. The aim of a debate, in my view, is not to show the other side up or make them look stupid. Between us leftists, we should see each debate as a learning opportunity. Although, in a debate with a bourgeois apologist, please feel free to change that. I believe that you are mistaken in this exchange, but I wouldn't say you're "full of shit" at all.
I feel Obama set the left back and reforce free market in way conservatives are laughing now .
That look at it this way Americans are libertarians and believe the free market and no tax and allow the CEO and big businesses to do want they like is the answer to all problems. Any government social programs is looked at has very evile.
The Americans have these views before Obama and way more now with Obama !!
The bush administration ran high spending , big debt , wars and major recession. And Obama came in power and had to deal with this major debt and recession.But because of the recession is not over the US has high debt than ever before and people are like Obama is mad man who is spending money like the money coming from the sky thus more anti- left now.
If Mitt Romney would ran after Bush and got in and done the auto bailout , bank bailout and stimulus spending and major unemployment and recession you would have less anti- left and more people even looking at the capitalist system saying why is it such a mess. Now Obama and left is going to take the blame for it !!
Election in Canada please tell me what is going to happpen now and why people in Canada are becoming nore conservative.
You're right about the unwillingness of the democrats to push through meaningful reforms, but that wasn't the point of contention. I never believed in the democratic party. I still believe I was full of shit though in regards to the idea that liberals are more receptive to socialism.
Was it your liberalism that made you a socialist, or was it something else in your life that woke you up to the realities of class society?
This. Many people I know, Including me, drafted into communism because we were already hooked on leftist ideals but didn't really have a way to express them as such. I actually read somewhere that the first modern socialists developed as an antithesis to liberalism; they found the movement's ideological individualism repulsive.
If I was a liberal, I can almost guarantee that I'd have repudiated Marx before I'd even read him.
'despite being a comedy, there's a lot of truth to this, black people always talking shit behind white peoples back. Blacks don't give a shit about white, why do whites give them so much "nice" attention?'
- Top Comment on the new Youtube layout.
EARTH FOR THE EARTHLINGS - BULLETS FOR THE NATIVISTS
I would be curious to hear your argument about why it is easier to advocate socialist political perspectives in a society with legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage, than in a society without those things. What leverage do these policies give toward socialists? If anything, as MMT noted above, their passage under the current regime of flailing capitalism simply reinforces the idea that everything is in working "democratic" order.
if you want the best kind of society for a revolution
you should have a failing dictatorship
