President Talks About Gay Rights During Inaugural Speech

[NGNM85]

Are you this daft, NGN? That's not what we are saying at all. You're the one implying that because you believe that voting third or independent is a vote for the right wing. Lord, you are well traversed in liberal talking points.

If you're going to quote somebody; attribute the quote. I know you know how to do this.

I see no evidence that Lenina Rosenweg has appointed you as her personal representative.

There are only two possible interpretations, in English, of the aforementioned quote; that the Democratic party is, in her estimation; 'the graveyard of social movements' because most of the American Left votes Democratic, as opposed to voting for some more Left-wing third party, such as; the Green Party, SPUSA, Socialist Alternative, etc., etc., or; she means that as the less brutal wing of capital, are preferable, because their more cruel, and brutal policies provide an easier environment to politically capitalize upon. In conjunction with other statements; I assumed it was the latter. That might be true, incidentally, However, as I said; no Radical should ever take this position. We should never be betting against the working class. If, in fact, I was mistaken, and she meant the former; that's simply naïve. The reason why third parties always lose isn't simply that everyone knows third parties always lose, so they don't vote that way. (However; this is a problem, and, this is why I am an advocate of single-transferrable voting, or; 'STV.') It's also the massive disparity in resources. It's the media blackout. The electoral system is rigged against third parties. There's also the inconvenient truth that this happens to be a very partisan country, and, while independent voters make up a large chunk of the electorate, survey, after survey shows that most independents are secret partisans.

In either case; this is fundamentally distinct from my empirical observation that votes for non-viable parties only tend to benefit the opposite end of the spectrum. Incidentally; as I've said, perhaps you missed it, this is not exclusive. Gary Johnson, and the so-called; 'Libertarian party', primarily hurt Gov. Romney, in this past election, although; not very much, just as Nader primarily hurt Vice President Gore's chances of becoming President. (In fact; it was probably a decisive factor.)

Why don't you ever find the system at fault instead of the leftists you chide for not compromising and accepting the very system that excludes them?

Acknowledging reality is not a compromise. I'm not saying I like the way things are; I absolutely don't. However; reality is not multiple choice. I don't get to live in the world that I wish I lived in, I have to live in this one. I find it very difficult to be patient with people who are unwilling, or unable to do the same.

If anything you side with liberal rags, studies and opinion pieces far more than anything a leftist, socialist or marxist puts out.

If you're going to exclude every piece of information that hasn't been ideologically vetted; you're committing yourself to not understanding things. The rational approach is to read everything with a filter, including Radical publications.

You keep thinking they're being objective and rarely if ever question them but you are the first to jump in and question the objectivity of a left winger. Why? If anything we make no bones about being anti-establishment and anti-status quo.

See above.

You don't need to concede the legitimacy of the establishment to interact with it; you only need to acknowledge it exists.

You're little liberal humantarianism is about as shoddy as Christoper Hitchens and the whole Euston Manifesto is about liberal war humanitarianism.

Philosophically; I'm an entirely consistent Anarchist, which the record will confirm.

I mean I just take you as another brazen token liberal who is annoyed with Marxists and leftists for being so vulgarly anti-establishment. As if we're being utterly immature and "punk" by being so anti-status quo or rejecting compromise.

You don't understand many of the terms you are using.

To people like yourself; everything, short of immediate, total annihilation of the status quo, is hopelessly compromised. Never mind the material reality. Never mind that the working class isn't anywhere close to seizing the means of production, nor is it likely to be anytime soon. You're not interested in such trivialities. That's why I called you an Ultra-leftist; because people like you take a hyperRadical posture that has no relationship to the political, and economic reality.

You literally accept the entire framework of the liberal mindset and see it as self evident truth. You lack a class analysis, which is a basic prerequisite for being a radical, and on top of that you spout rights jargon like a naive idealist.

I'm very clearly employing class analysis, and I always have. Although; you are correct in asserting that it is this that separates Radicals from non-Radicals.

You've got it backasswards. I'm being the hard-headed pragmatist, here. You, and the other Ultra-lefts, are playing the part of the wild-eyed dreamers. The material reality of the situation is the revolution is, presently, impossible in the United States. The working class, who, according to doctrine, (I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, incidentally.) are the only ones who can carry out the revolution; are nowhere near revolting. Even during the pit of the recent economic crisis; we were miles away from that. Revolution will only be possible when the working class is sufficiently empowered, and united, has achieved a certain level of class consciousness, and has exhausted the existing institutions, in the pursuit of it's interests, as a class. Then; revolution will be inevitable. That's not where we are, today. That's the place we have to get to. To do that; we need to empower the working class, and break down the barriers that divide the working class. That is the task at hand. Presently; American Radicals are doing an abysmal job of that. That's unfortunate, especially for the working class.

You keep coming back in here and saying that we're the loony ones for not seeing how fundamental and important that these single issue rights are...

Reproductive rights, gay marriage, mandatory minimums for drug offenses, so-called; 'Right-to-Work' laws, etc.; these are all individual battlefields in the class war. Therefore; as the self-appointed defenders of the working class, we have an interest in these fights. These are our fights.

...and playing the card of not caring for working people when we don't support a watered down compromised reform.

You, and other like you, don't accept anything; that's the problem. People like you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the present over some ideal of perfection. Reality never lives up to this fantasy, therefore; you oppose everything, or nearly everything, as hopelessly compromised. That's Ultra-leftism, and more importantly; it's totally counterproductive.

How would you have spun NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulation of the banking system, don't ask, don't tell, or any other Clinton policy in the left's favor?

How many crisis were there under Clinton that further eroded the financial system? Long Term Capital Management, Dot. Com, Tequila Crisis in which we bailed out Mexican banks, etc.

I didn't say the Democratic party was fantastic, it absolutely isn't, I said their policies are better than the Republican's. That's sufficient.

It's all the same stuff between Dems and Repubs and you keep harping on these marginal differences being the main catalyst for workers to beat the status quo? You keep acting like a saint that you think these marginal differences are what keeps the working class fed, housed and alive?

On the state level, or the national level; small differences aren't so small. Take the Affordable Care Act; it's totally flawed. Plenty to criticize. However, as a result; 31 million Americans will have some health coverage, who, otherwise, probably wouldn't. That's not including the other benefits like free contraceptives for women, or getting rid of rescission, etc. That's a substantial benefit to the working class. If you
support the working class; you want to protect that, at least; until you can come up with something better.

Yet, you reject any working class alternative an not viable because they espouse too many radical and unrealistic alternatives that the system would not allow? And you call yourself a fucking radical?

There's no rational reason to expect the political system to be able to achieve things that it is incapable of doing. We can't vote out capitalism.
That isn't possible. Similarly; Third parties, even more experienced, and more accessible parties, like the Green party, don't have a chance in hell, because, as I've explained; the system is rigged against Third parties.
It makes no sense to waste time, and energy trying to do things that any rational, intelligent person knows we cannot do. It makes even less sense to dedicate ourselves to these doomed pursuits, or to do nothing, at all, while the class war rages around us. The primary commitment of any Socialist worthy of the name, is the total, unequivocal commitment to the
defense of the working class.

Seriously, what is the difference between you and someone from Daily Kos, TYT and Democratic Underground? What is the fucking difference? That in your backwards warped mind you think that you're being a consistent anarchist?

The difference is that I'm a Socialist, and they are Liberals. Liberals, and moderate Right-wingers, all believe that what we need to do is fix the nation-state, that we need to fix capitalism. A Socialist understands that the overwhelming majority of our social ills are the inevitable result of the fundamentally corrupt, and flawed nature of those institutions. That these institutions cannot be saved, or redeemed; they must be dismantled, and replaced. That's the definition of; 'Radical.'

Also; I don't need to distinguish myself, in everything that I do, because I'm not primarily worried about my image. If nothing else; I've proven I absolutely do not give a shit about trivialities like that. Nobody should. We should be focused on empowering, and defending the working class.

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the canon, (I'd be happy to make some recommendations.) and then read the archives, if you wish. This will confirm what I've said.

[RadioRaheem84]

Acknowledging reality is not a compromise.

There is a difference between acknowledging it and giving in to it's framework. You're literally citing the liberal version of TINA (there is no alternative). Have you ever heard of the concept of 'social reality'?

If you're going to exclude every piece of information that hasn't been ideologically vetted; you're committing yourself to not understanding things. The rational approach is to read everything with a filter, including Radical publications.

I tend to use discernment when reading liberal rags or conservative ones or mainstream ones that claim objectivity. If we didn't do that on the left, we wouldn't be so radically split.

You don't understand many of the terms you are using.

To people like yourself; everything, short of immediate, total annihilation of the status quo, is hopelessly compromised. Never mind the material reality. Never mind that the working class isn't anywhere close to seizing the means of production, nor is it likely to be anytime soon. You're not interested in such trivialities. That's why I called you an Ultra-leftist; because people like you take a hyperRadical posture that has no relationship to the political, and economic reality.

You like to tell us that we do not understand the terms we use but then you go right ahead defining terms, especially leftist ones, totally out of context or blatantly misusing them.

Do you not see who I have as my avatar? It's bloody Salvador Allende. I post Monthly Review articles all the time and I consider myself a member of the MR School which is hardly an "ultra left" organization and are always accused of being Keynesian and Democratic Socialists, i.e. not radical enough.

The point I am always trying to make is that you can go through the parliamentary system as had been done in Chile '70 and Venezuela to enact some 'radical' reforms. Much better than say waiting around and fighting for compromised solutions with an establishment party.

Now again, you keep skirting the issue on purpose I assume. What are the conditions in this country that make is damn impossible for a viable working party when it's happened in other liberal democracies like Venezuela and Chile, nations deemed to have had far worse conditions regarding system exclusivity?

Why would an occupied factories movement in this nation not be something worth supporting if it did start?

WHY DO YOU KEEP AVOIDING THIS TOPIC?

I didn't say the Democratic party was fantastic, it absolutely isn't, I said their policies are better than the Republican's. That's sufficient.

Not it's not. The Democratic Party is moving more toward the right and there is nothing that you or a cadre of people "pressuring" them is going to change that. It's single issue fluff that just doesn't touch on the root cause that's shifting the party right ward each election cycle.

You, and other like you, don't accept anything; that's the problem. People like you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the present over some ideal of perfection. Reality never lives up to this fantasy, therefore; you oppose everything, or nearly everything, as hopelessly compromised. That's Ultra-leftism, and more importantly; it's totally counterproductive.

What an idiot! You're defining reality based on their framework. You see this as self evident and chide each of us in here for being dopes on not seeing this and thinking that even working outside the system is "Utopian"? How are you in the slightest bit a radical if you cannot even fathom working outside the system to enact real social and economic change? That's the whole point of being a radical!

You do not understand what you're saying. You do not understand your own positions. And you do not understand what it means to be a radical or a socialist for that matter. You sir are clearly bonkers.

There's no rational reason to expect the political system to be able to achieve things that it is incapable of doing. We can't vote out capitalism.

So then why do you want to work within a system that you know cannot change from within?

I mean basically what you're doing is throwing away even any attempts at a viable alternative to just protect what we have because you believe that any real viable alternative is utopian and would be counterproductive to ousting capitalism? I mean explain your deluded logic here.......

A.) Do not engage in alternative struggle like third parties because it will undermine the establishment party you like vs the one you don't like

B.) Forming a viable alternative is utopian and counterproductive to ousting capitalism because it will give the party you do not like a chance to win and take away our gains.

C.) Our best chance is to pressure the establishment party you like to enact watered down reforms and protect the little gains of the past we have left, so that we can be stay healthy enough to one day oust capitalism?

But when will we be ready for real social and economic change? When will people have to stop supporting the establishment party and actually change the system?

You talk all this about being a socialist and a radical and whatnot but if we're so busy pushing away viable alternative to the power structure and defending an establishment party, when will we have time to actually do anything....you know radical?

Unless of course you're not suggesting that empowering and defending the working class is defending the Democratic Party from the Republicans?

Also again, I ask for the tenth fucking time; If a viable alternative party or organization reared it's head and actually became a real contender, would you consider them hopeless agitators that will give the right wing a complete victory or would you support them?

My belief is that you will not, not only that but that the scenario I painted is impossible under these conditions. But I tell you that it's happened in other nations where the conditions were worse. Why can it not happen here? And I am not talking about a bullshit Green Party, but a real deal Labor Party.

[RadioRaheem84]

You've got it backasswards. I'm being the hard-headed pragmatist, here. You, and the other Ultra-lefts, are playing the part of the wild-eyed dreamers. The material reality of the situation is the revolution is, presently, impossible in the United States. The working class, who, according to doctrine, (I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, incidentally.) are the only ones who can carry out the revolution; are nowhere near revolting. Even during the pit of the recent economic crisis; we were miles away from that. Revolution will only be possible when the working class is sufficiently empowered, and united, has achieved a certain level of class consciousness, and has exhausted the existing institutions, in the pursuit of it's interests, as a class. Then; revolution will be inevitable. That's not where we are, today. That's the place we have to get to. To do that; we need to empower the working class, and break down the barriers that divide the working class. That is the task at hand. Presently; American Radicals are doing an abysmal job of that. That's unfortunate, especially for the working class.

Funny how your terminology has changed over time. First it was fighting the ills of "corporate communism", chiding Marx, and chiding us for not seeing religion other than in class terms. Now all of a sudden you're deeply devoted to a class analysis? Gimme a break. You're incorporating more jargon into your bananas idea that we're empowering the working class by voting Democrat.

Look NGN, at some level I can see where you're coming from but what conditions have to be met in order for the working class to be empowered, and class conscious ready to achieve revolution? What are you basing this on? That there weren't mass revolts in the streets after the pit of the crisis?

There was no crisis needed in Venezuela to necessarily spur any radical social movement. Same in Nepal or what's happening in India.

The existing institutions have prove time and time again that they are not aligned with the working class in this country even at the margins. Even in county's like Poland or Chile, measures pass all the time that give some "empowerment" to the people in terms of health care rights, education or even work. These little compromises happen all the time but it doesn't mean that there is somehow going to be a level of empowerment as a whole later on in the future to oust the system there. The only thing that brings that about is the people and a movement outside of the system that empowers them, and it doesn't need a crisis, a time, or a certain fixed period where all the conditions are ripe.

[NGNM85]

Why fight all our lives to put pressure on politicians we know don't give two shits about us when we could form our own parties?

We can form as many parties as we like. However; typically, the purpose of building a party is to elect candidates to office, which is predicated on the idea that said candidates have some chance of actually winning. As I've repeatedly explained; the political system is rigged against third parties. Before a third party could win any kind of chance of winning seats in Congress, we would need to remove the structural barriers, most crucially; campaign finance. There's also things like transfer voting, etc., etc. Those sorts of things would open the door. Then;the task is to convince workers that they should vote for it.

On top of that fight even harder to keep the watered down compromises we gained from being destroyed?

That's the way it works. That's why they call it; 'class warfare', not; 'class pillow fight.'

Your answer is that third parties are not a viable alternative? I ask why.

Again; because the cost of running political campaigns is astronomical, and climbing fast. Second; the two ruling parties have an enormous, complex national infrastructure, teams of seasoned political operators, etc., etc. Third; there are all sorts of institutional barriers, third parties are generally excluded from debates, etc. Fourth; the American electorate is extremely partisan. Finally; because most of the American public knows that Third parties are lost cause, and they don't like wasting their vote.

You say it's because the system prohibits it. I tell you that that is whole reason why we go an independent route.

Any campaign pretty much has to end the same way; with one candidate getting more votes than the other candidates. There's simply no way, at present, for a third party to get those kinds of votes. Maybe in the city governments, or some of the state legislatures, but that's about it. Frankly; I'm not even very optimistic about that.

So why do you insist on fighting to gain inclusion into a system you know systemically and systematically prohibits us?

If we could gain entry, we'd no longer be excluded. Also; because, until the masses start revolting, which isn't likely in any immediate future, that's all that we can do. That, and to put targeted pressure on the ruling parties. I mean; there's also local stuff, community organizing, etc. However; that tends to have a very minimal sphere of impact. If we're going to make substantial change, we need to be acting at the state, or national level. That's how you make the biggest difference.

No gain that we seek will ever be fully implemented.

Maybe, but at some point we have to be able to deliver something.

While we did receive gains in the past it was due to hardcore labor militancy. A section of the public that
has largely been beaten back and now we're reduced to defending those gains from being "reformed" or rescinded, or reduced to having a choice between right wing disaster or heavily watered down compromises. That is what the system gets you!

That's not the case. For one thing; the majority American working class never acquired a sufficient degree of class consciousness.

What part of this are you utterly failing to comprehend? The gains we received in the early half of the last century was due to the historical development of the working class and the fact that there were successful revolts happening all
over the world.

That was part of it, it was also a substantial movement, right here, in the United States. Coming down to earth, for a minute; there's plenty of things we could do to empower the working class today, that would have a real impact on worker's lives.

Why cannot the US actually fight and have a Labor Party?

For the reasons I've already mentioned. We already have Radical parties. There's SPUSA, Socialist Alternative, etc., etc. They virtually never win anything, for the reasons I've already explained. There's absolutely no logical reason to suspect a new Radical party would have any greater degree of success.

If one came around and was actually approaching to be a viable contender in the US, would you vote for it?

There's a world of difference between; 'approaching viability', and;
'viability.' That would depend entirely on the circumstances. For example; what office is being sought, is this a candidate for the Senate, for the House, the Presidency, school board? What state am I in? I live in Massachusetts, which is a true blue state. If I lived in Tennessee; I'd vote differently, because it has a different political environment. There are other relevant questions, like; what does the polling data suggest? Usually, you can get a pretty clear indication of how things are playing out. Finally; who's running? There's a certain amount of diversity among the ruling parties, although; much less so on the Republican side. All of these factors need to be taken into account. The yardstick should be universal,but the results should vary, substantially, from place, to place, from time to time. I have voted for third parties before; the Socialist candidates, and the Green party candidates, but those were essentially protest votes, those candidates didn't have a prayer. This November, I didn't bother voting for any of the presidential candidates, I just voted in the races where my vote could have actually mattered.

[RadioRaheem84]

That's the way it works. That's why they call it; 'class warfare', not; 'class pillow fight.'

You're limiting class struggle/warfare to the ballot box?

In all of your responses you seem to really accept the framework of current status quo. And I mean really accept it because you're literally shutting out all alternatives to it and are screaming at us for not seeing this at the utter reality of things. And I wasn't just talking about third parties but movements. Mass movements of the stripe that brought about change in the early half of the last century.

You've accepted the social reality framework that the Dems and liberal often repeat to shut out radical voices. You accept it as self evident and belittle others in here for not seeing it as though it's this undeniable fact. Well we're contesting that and all you can do is be as brazenly snide as a TV pundit or politco blogger (which I can tell you so desperately want to emulate) about it, insisting that it's like we're going against evolution or climate change.

And again, you keep ignoring the question I laid out before. I don't know why you are intentionally doing this?

In other nations the two party system has been broken, even when conditions were far worse for any third party or movement to gain popular support.

How do you explain that it can work there but not here? How do you explain that there can be a recovered factories movement in Argentina that has severely impacted private property rights? So much that it's frightened foreign investors.

I do not get why you keep ignoring this issue?

[NGNM85]

Jesus. I'll give you one thing; you're fucking lightning quick with your responses. At least try to hold off until I catch up? I promise; you'll have plenty of opportunities to expound on my numerous alleged personal failings, and accuse me of things.

[NGNM85]

There is a difference between acknowledging it and giving in to it's framework. You're literally citing the liberal version of TINA (there is no alternative).

There's nothing fundamentally; 'liberal' about it. Nor will I be cowed by the invocation of an emotionally potent phrase. (Or, in this case; an emotionally potent acronym.) Sometimes there aren't any alternatives. Life can be unfair like that.

Have you ever heard of the concept of 'social reality'?

Vaguely. I know it's connected to the idea, of; 'the big lie', which is developed by Herman, and Chomsky's; Manufacturing Consent.
What it sounds like you're suggesting is that we could convince enough people that a Radical third party would be viable, and that they should support it, and then it would become so. That's true. However; we'd actually have to be able to provide some sort of evidence that supports this contention. Also; we have to be politically active on behalf of the working class, before that's even possible. Workers aren't interested in Marxist boilerplate; they want affordable healthcare. They want to be able to feed their kids. They want to be able to give their kids a decent education. We need to be speaking to those needs, and not in a theoretical sense, not in some far off future, but right now. If American Radicals really were the advance guard of the working class, as they claim to be; the workers would be coming to us.

I tend to use discernment when reading liberal rags or conservative ones or mainstream ones that claim objectivity. If we didn't do that on the left, we wouldn't be so radically split.

You have to read everything with a filter, even Radical publications.

You like to tell us that we do not
understand the terms we use but then you go right ahead defining terms, especially leftist ones, totally out of context or blatantly misusing them.

That's incorrect. Every definition I use, I can point to, usually in an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. There's a lot of flagrant abuse of language that goes on, here. I usually choose my words very deliberately. Again; you don't have to take my word for that. You can look it up. Oftentimes; I even supply links to dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

Do you not see who I have as my avatar? It's bloody Salvador Allende. I post Monthly Review articles
all the time and I consider myself a member of the MR School which is hardly an "ultra left" organization and are always accused of being Keynesian and Democratic Socialists, i.e. not radical enough.

I can see the avatar; yes.

Ultra-leftism can express itself to varying degrees. There are some who demonstrate a more mild version of this affliction; others appear to be terminal. In fairness; (unfortunately) this appears to be epidemic, among American Radicals.

The point I am always trying to make is that you can go through the parliamentary system as had been done in
Chile '70 and Venezuela to enact some 'radical' reforms.

That's a great idea. However; you have to get elected, first.

Much better than say waiting around and fighting for compromised solutions with an establishment party.

Again; that assumes a Radical party can win. If that was the case; I'd be all for it. Unfortunately; it isn't.

Now again, you keep skirting the issue on purpose I assume. What are the conditions in this country that make is
damn impossible for a viable working party when it's happened in other liberal democracies like Venezuela and Chile, nations deemed to have had far worse conditions regarding system exclusivity?

See above.

More represive states tend to be less stable, because the crude repression fosters resentment. These are also poorer countries. Lack of access to basic necessities, like clean water can be a powerful motivator. Also; people learn to distrust state propaganda if it is too crude. The Western governments have the most sophisticated propaganda systems, because they have to. The United States has the most sophisticated propaganda system in the world.

Why would an occupied factories movement in this nation not be something worth supporting if it did start?

I didn't say it wouldn't be. However; property rights are practically sacred in the United States. You'd have to build new enterprises, or; you'd have to buy them from the owners, (Both of which are prohibitively expensive.) who probably have other plans. Otherwise; the police are going to come in, and drag everybody out. Then; it's all over.

Not it's not. The Democratic Party is moving more toward the right and thereis nothing that you or a cadre of people "pressuring" them is going to change that. It's single issue fluff that just doesn't touch on the root cause that's shifting the party right ward each election cycle.

There's only so much that I, as an individual, can do. The Radical left, however, could exert some pressure, if it was so inclined, even more so if it could build coalitions with other groups. Then; we'd be much more imposing. There are a lot of reasons for the rightward shift of American politics. In part, the Democratic party is catching up to the Republicans, who've gone completely insane. After Dukakis was defeated, there was a lof of soul searching in the Democratic party and the conclusion reached by much of the party leadership was that they had to move to the Right.This is where President Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership Council (Which Jesse Jackson nicknamed; 'Democrats for the Leisure Class.') came in, they were firm believers that the Leftward shift that had been a response to the pressure from the Leftist movements of the 60's, in which Radicals played no small part, had to be reversed. They had to move to the Right. So; they did. President Obama isn't a member of the DLC, but he's of that ilk. Always has been. Take the race between Ned Lamont, and Joe Lieberman; the President went to support Liberman. So; that's part of it, as well.

Gay marriage is not; 'fluff', for gay Americans. Drug law reform is not; 'fluff' to the workers who are incarcerated, many of them for simple possession. These sorts of things would make a real difference in workers lives.

You're defining reality based on their framework.

No; I'm recognizing reality for what it is. If a couple million Americans actually decided to support a Radical party; that would change things. For me, alone, to reject the reality of the situation is simply delusional.

You see this as self evident and chide each of us in here for being dopes on not seeing this and thinking that even working outside the system is "Utopian"? How are you in the slightest bit a radical if you cannot even fathom working outside the system to enact real social and economic change? That's the whole point of being a radical!

The whole point of being a Radical is the emancipation of humankind, which is the emancipation of the working class. That means fighting for the working class. There's not a whole lot of that going on, right now. Again; change starts in the streets, but until the minute the masses are ready to overthrow the whole mess, which is worlds away from where we are now, those battles, if they are successful, must, inevitably end in the halls of government, because, as long as the state exists, that's where the laws get made.

So then why do you want to work within a system that you know cannot change from within?

You can create smaller changes. On the state level, the national level, those changes have big impacts. Just because you can't overthrow capitalism through the parliamentary system, doesn't mean participating in the parliamentary system is not integral to overthrowing capitalism. I hate to speak in metaphors; but it's like saying mixing bowls are irrelevent to making brownies, because you can't bake brownies in a mixing bowl. Similarly; it's equally vital to use the levers of power to empower the working class, and fight for the interests of the working class.

I mean basically what you're doing is throwing away even any attempts at a viable alternative to
just protect what we have because you believe that any real viable alternative is utopian and would be counterproductive to ousting capitalism? I mean explain your deluded logic here.......

It's not a belief; it's the truth. How do you explain the fact that the existing Radical parties are failing so badly? They don't lose by big margins, they lose by enormous margins. The SPUSA is a real Radical party, Socialist Alternative is a real Radical party, and they are failing, miserably.

A.) Do not engage in alternative struggle like third parties because it will undermine the establishment party you like vs the one you don't like

There are lots of other forms of struggle. You can hold sit-ins. You can put together demonstrations. You can create petitions. You can put together ballot initiatives. You can form a union. You can go on strike, etc., etc.

I don't like either of the ruling parties. However; any rational person would prefer the bad party, to the worse party. If voting for an unelectable party tips the election so that the Republicans win; we might as well just vote Republican.

B.) Forming a viable alternative is utopian and counterproductive to ousting capitalism because it will give the party you do not like a chance to win and take away our gains.

If that's the case, as it was in 2000, then; yes. Nader helped give us President Bush. If that is; 'success', what does; 'failure' look like?

Also; it all depends on the circumstances of the particular election.

C.) Our best chance is to pressure the establishment party you like to enact watered down reforms and protect the little gains of the past we have left, so that we can be stay healthy enough to one day oust capitalism?

The political activity could be roughly devided into two extremely broad categories; defensive, and offensive. Defensive activity would be fighting Right-to-Work laws, which are a fucking naked attack on unions. Same goes for overturning all these fucked up laws Republicans passed, in the state legislatures, to undermine Roe v. Wade. Anbother example would be trying to protect Medicare, and Social security. Those are all defensive actions, in that they are responding to an assault by the master class. The other half is offensive, where new ground is broken. Gay marriage would be one example. Drug law reform would be another. What they are trying to do in Vermont, building a real universal healthcare system, that could be fucking fantastic. Overturning Citizens United, and building some kind of publicly-financed campaign system; all of those would be offensive, that would represent new territory seized for the working class, it would mean empowering the working class. Obviously; the idea is to primarily be on the offensive. However; that depends on holding tight to what has already been claimed.

But when will we be ready for real social and economic change?

What does; 'real change' mean? Does it mean; fundamental change, as in overturning capitalism? That's down the road, that's big picture. However; the smaller changes we can make now can have a very real affect on workers' lives. That matters.

When will people have to stop
supporting the establishment party and actually change the system?

I'm assuming that by; 'change the system', you really mean; 'overthrow the system.' There are a couple prerequisites. First; we must understand that this task can only be performed by the working class, itself, and only in a genuine, free, and democratic way. In order for that to happen; the working class needs to be sufficiently empowered, and united, they have to have achieved the required degree of class consciousness, and they have to be puruing their interests, as a class. If all of that happens, when they do that; they will inevitably crash against the fundamental limitations of the ruling institutions. At that point; revolution will be inevitable.
There will be no option except to demolish these institutions, namely; the nation state, and capitalism. In broad strokes; that's how it's got to happen. That's the only way it can happen.

You talk all this about being a socialist and a radical and whatnot but if we're so busy pushing away viable alternative to the power structure and defending an establishment party, when will we have time to actually do anything....you know radical?

What I've been trying to tell you is that there are no viable alternatives to reject. We also don't have to defend either of the ruling parties. We
should regularly, and publicly criticize the Democratic party. We just need to be smart about how we express ourselves. I talked to several of my co-workers before the election. They are blue-collar, like me, but many of them are poorly educated, most only have a high school diploma, some don't even have that. I never told any of them the Democratic party was on their side. Quite the contrary. I told them both parties represent big business, but there are some differences, and then I gave a very simple explanation of what some of those differences were, and how it might affect them, or people they might know. Basically; if workers walk away from you thinking they should vote Republican; public speaking isn't your forte.

What does it mean to be Radical? Being Radical means totally, unequivocally supporting the working class, above all else.
So; pursuant to that, you support gay rights. Liberals, as it happens, also support gay rights. Thhat doesn't mean that fighting for gay rights isn't absolutely, positively 100% Radical, just that it isn't exclusive to Radicals. We shouldn't expect to distinguish ourselves in every thing that we do. We don't brush our teeth much differently from anyone else. We don't sleep differently from anyone else. Etc., etc. We shouldn't be worried about that. We should only be concerned with what needs to be done. What it is that we can do, at that moment, to empower the working class. Building a working class movement involves a lot of boring, or laborious, or tedious workmanlike activity. It's slow going. It often seems fruitless, and there will be many setbacks. That is the way of things. You just keep going. Like the old Chinese proverb; 'the longest journey starts with a single step.'

Unless of course you're not suggesting that empowering and defending the working class is defending the
Democratic Party from the Republicans?

Like I said; there's no reason we should ever have cause to apologize for either of the ruling parties, or perpetuate any illusions.

Also again, I ask for the tenth fucking time; If a viable alternative party or organization reared it's head
and actually became a real contender, would you consider them hopeless agitators that will give the right wing a complete victory or would you support them?

If it was really viable; it wouldn't be handing a victory to the Right. In that case; yes, absolutely, with all my heart.

My belief is that you will not, not only that but that the scenario I painted is impossible under these conditions.

That's what I've been trying to tell you. It can't be done, right now.

But I tell you that it's happened in other nations where the conditions were worse. Why can it not happen here? And I am not talking about a bullshit Green Party, but a real deal Labor Party.

Because the circumstances are not right. Therefore; we have to wait for circumstances to change, or change the circumstances, ourselves.
It takes time, but it can be done. It's better than doing nothing.

[PigmerikanMao]

I can see that this has clearly gone off topic- maybe start a new thread for your personal correspondences?

In all seriousness though, if going through the capitalist democratic system has yielded results for the advancement of rights of most LGBTQ people, why oppose it? Yes, there are arguments that can be made both against and in support of colluding with capitalist parties, but if you're talking about situational reality, there's obvious evidence that working within this representative framework has yielded results. It's not an argument about whether revolutionary movements can only pursue militant or representative means to an end; in fact, most successful leftist movements in liberal democracies have used both.

[RadioRaheem84]

I can see that this has clearly gone off topic- maybe start a new thread for your personal correspondences?

In all seriousness though, if going through the capitalist democratic system has yielded results for the advancement of rights of most LGBTQ people, why oppose it? Yes, there are arguments that can be made both against and in support of colluding with capitalist parties, but if you're talking about situational reality, there's obvious evidence that working within this representative framework has yielded results. It's not an argument about whether revolutionary movements can only pursue militant or representative means to an end; in fact, most successful leftist movements in liberal democracies have used both.

Considering all the problems the LGBT community has dealing with issues such as homeless gay youth, affordable housing and overall expression of their sexuality. I invite you to read the LA Weekly series on the West Hollywood (a gay neighborhood) council debates which can get pretty heated. There are accusations of some of them being in developers pockets who simply care more about expanding a market niche than real social and economic justice for LGBT. Maybe some do not feel comfortable working with pro-gay rights Republicans like who was selected as speaker for the first march led by Human Rights Campaign. Maybe some do not feel the long term goals will be best realized if they continue a path of constant compromise. Of course all people should be in favor of gay rights and gay marriage, but it's the way to go about it that's key, and to think that the assimilationist way or the way it;s being handled now is the only way is being narrow.