"Get money out of politics"

[DeathToNations]

I have way too many liberal and libertarian friends who support this notion that we can get money out of politics. I was wondering how I could best explain that even with formal rules and regulations on funding elections and giving private money to politicians, that politicians would still serve capitalism above all else. Essentially, Marx's theory of the bourgeois state.

[NGNM85]

I have way too many liberal and libertarian friends who support this notion that we can get money out of politics. I was wondering how I could best explain that even with formal rules and regulations on funding elections and giving private money to politicians, that politicians would still serve capitalism above all else. Essentially, Marx's theory of the bourgeois state.

This, as (unfortunately) is so often the case, is a vulgarization of Marx, not the genuine article. The mechanics of capitalism ensure that nomatter who governs, the bourgeoisie, ultimately, rules. However, like the working class, the bourgeoisie is fractious, and divided, and one of the primary functions of the state is to act as their 'executive committee', affecting a consensus they are basically incapable of reaching on their own. Because of the discord among the ruling class, combined with the fact that they do not, themselves govern, (and in fact, are incapable of doing so) as well as the diffuse, and the particularly fragmented structure of the American government, government takes on a life of it's own, and is not simply the instrument of the ruling class. Under these circumstances, the legislatures, the courts, etc., are vital, in fact, essential battlegrounds upon which real gains for the working class may be realized. While it is true that any such gains may be lost, in the future, (particularly if nobody bothers to defend them) it is only through this process, of fighting for 'modest increments of dignity' within capitalism that holds the possibility of ultimately transcending it, as Rosa Luxemburg so eloquently explained in Reform or Revolution.

Citizens' United was a massive defeat for the working class. However, it presents unique, and tantalizing possibilities for organizing workers. The American public absolutely fucking hates this thing. The polling data is remarkable. Even reactionary elements of the working class overwhelmingly, and enthusiastically oppose it. It simply cannot be overemphasized what a historic opportunity this is, not only for winning real gains for workers, but also for consciousness raising, and organizing on a nationwide scale. The fact that the radical left hasn't seized this historic opportunity is absolutely shameful. (This is also the primary reason why the Occupy movement collapsed.) However, it's not too late.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I wish I got money out of politics

[motion denied]

i wish i got money out of politics

zing!

[BIXX]

I wish I got money out of politics

That's how I was reading this thread. It took me a while to realize what it was actually about.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Citizens' United was a massive defeat for the working class. However, it presents unique, and tantalizing possibilities for organizing workers. The American public absolutely fucking hates this thing. The polling data is remarkable. Even reactionary elements of the working class overwhelmingly, and enthusiastically oppose it. It simply cannot be overemphasized what a historic opportunity this is, not only for winning real gains for workers, but also for consciousness raising, and organizing on a nationwide scale. The fact that the radical left hasn't seized this historic opportunity is absolutely shameful. (This is also the primary reason why the Occupy movement collapsed.) However, it's not too late.

While I think the focus might not be on Citizens United per se there is certainly an overwhelming feeling of too much money in politics. It is certainly heartening that the phrase "Koch Brothers" is going around.

One thing I have to say is that I think occupy did its part in pushing consciousness and I don't think it could be looked at as a failure. Perhaps it didn't end the capitalist way of things, but it did help firmly plant phrases such as "the 1%" and "income inequality" into everyday discussion. And that's good.

Plus, there is the fact that much of the struggles have decentralized into minimum wage battles in the states (Arkansas is getting a hike for the next few years, for instance) or smaller communities, such as Seatac and that $15 minimum wage. And directly coupled with that is the national battle for a $15 wage for fast food workers and renewed unionization efforts. There is actually pro-union feeling again, which is nice.

[DeathToNations]

Come on guys. I was hoping for some real examples of ways that money has influence in politics beyond private financing of campaigns. Obviously European political parties like Syriza in countries without private financing get corrupted relatively easily, so there has to be some reason why that is.

[NGNM85]

While I think the focus might not be on Citizens United per se there is certainly an overwhelming feeling of too much money in politics.

You're average American doesn't fundamentally understand what Citizens' United was, or what effect it had. (In fairness, neither do most of the regulars on RevLeft.) However, Americans are utterly repulsed by the increasing flood of money into politics. More than 75% of Republicans are (somewhat ironically) vehemently against it. There's few things that unite the American public in such a fashion.

It is certainly heartening that the phrase "Koch Brothers" is going around.

Granted. Thanks to a number of activists who actually had their shit together, (again, unlike RevLeft) the Koch network; ALEC, which represents the most aggresssive, most viciously anti-worker faction of the capitalists, has lost it's greatest strength, which was secrecy. That's just gone, now. Too many people are watching them.

One thing I have to say is that I think occupy did its part in pushing consciousness and I don't think it could be looked at as a failure.

'Failure' implies a clear objective. Occupy had no such thing. It's like Malcolm X said; 'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.' Without anything like a platform, or a list of demands, Occupy was fundamentally limited in its capabilities. The end result was tragic, but entirely predictable.

Perhaps it didn't end the capitalist way of things, but it did help firmly plant phrases such as "the 1%" and "income inequality" into everyday discussion. And that's good.

It's better. However, this is still lacking. The responsibility of the Radical Left, to the extent there is such a thing in the United States, is to sharpen worker's focus, to teach them that it isn't about wealth, or demographics, it's about class, It's about capitalism.

Plus, there is the fact that much of the struggles have decentralized into minimum wage battles in the states (Arkansas is getting a hike for the next few years, for instance) or smaller communities, such as Seatac and that $15 minimum wage. And directly coupled with that is the national battle for a $15 wage for fast food workers and renewed unionization efforts.

Those are all good things, but these are fragments, splinters, of what was, or, rather, what could have been a nationwide movement. That's what we need, ultimately. Occupy could have turned into that. It's still possible. However, I'm extremely pessimistic about that.

There is actually pro-union feeling again, which is nice.

I haven't studied any recent polls, but there's a lot of work to do in that regard. Large percentages of Americans still view organized labor with mistrust, even contempt.

[Stirnerian]

Come on guys. I was hoping for some real examples of ways that money has influence in politics beyond private financing of campaigns. Obviously European political parties like Syriza in countries without private financing get corrupted relatively easily, so there has to be some reason why that is.

Because Syriza is still a capitalist Party, with a capitalist ideology.

It's easy to talk a tough game on neoliberalism; reformists like Naomi Klein have been doing it for years. But these groups still exist within a functional capitalistic framework, and as such are simply performing their role within that framework.

This isn't even 'corruption', which implies some lofty bygone days before these people were 'bought out'. It was always going to be thus from the first.

Now , recognizing this, I'm not a stickler for ideological purity. I'll take what I can get. I vote - shock, horror - for Democrats, knowing they will do essentially nothing to alter the state of my world. Because I have to; I am impoverished. This scarcely means I endorse their policies, or that I don't feel awful about it every time I read of some Arab boy getting slaughtered by a drone. But that's the choice I have a to make within our capitalist society. It's one of the reasons - among so many others - that society needs to be radically transformed. I imagine it's the same conundrum that confronts the Greek working class.

[DeathToNations]

Because Syriza is still a capitalist Party, with a capitalist ideology.

It's easy to talk a tough game on neoliberalism; reformists like Naomi Klein have been doing it for years. But these groups still exist within a functional capitalistic framework, and as such are simply performing their role within that framework.

This isn't even 'corruption', which implies some lofty bygone days before these people were 'bought out'. It was always going to be thus from the first.

Now , recognizing this, I'm not a stickler for ideological purity. I'll take what I can get. I vote - shock, horror - for Democrats, knowing they will do essentially nothing to alter the state of my world. Because I have to; I am impoverished. This scarcely means I endorse their policies, or that I don't feel awful about it every time I read of some Arab boy getting slaughtered by a drone. But that's the choice I have a to make within our capitalist society. It's one of the reasons - among so many others - that society needs to be radically transformed. I imagine it's the same conundrum that confronts the Greek working class.

I agree with all this. I suppose what I'm asking for is specifics on why the government inherently has to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, or why as Marx said, it's essentially the executive committee for the bourgeoisie. I want to be able to explain that to my friends from a structural point of view, so that they aren't illusioned by the idea of merely "taking money out of politics" as an end all, be all solution.

[Stirnerian]

My view of it - and I have no idea if it's a view endorsed by any particular Leftist sect, or even one compatible on some deep foundational level with Marxism - is basically this:

Capitalism is riven with contradictions, like a parched, cracked desert surface. There are as many divisions between types of capitalists as between workers, and their interests only sometimes coincide, as when putting down a General Strike. By far the largest part of their time and energy is spent in competing with each other, and this competition is inherent to capitalism as a system.

Politics in any society which is considered 'democratic' in the current paradigm consists in the main of the alignment of these different interests into broad factions.

I will here use the American system as an example because it is the one I am familiar with, and because foreign readers will likely understand some of it; I cannot speak for conditions in Greece.

The Republican and Democratic Parties are like gamblers who have been dealt a hand of cards each. Each card is an industrial interest; each hand is an array of interests broadly opposed to the other. The Republican hand contains, among altogether too many others, the fossil fuel industry, as embodied in the likes of the Texan and Oklahoman oil companies, for instance. Consequently, the Democratic hand ends up containing their natural competitors - 'green energy' businesses like Solyndra, say.

Occasionally these hands will be reshuffled (there was a time when the Democratic Party represented oil, as naturally befitting the Party of the South, mostly in the first half of the twentieth century). But always the industries in one hand will be competitors, in some sense, with those in the other.

This becomes a murkier analogy to apply to a multiparty parliamentary republic like Greece, even if in practice only a handful of Parties get corporate backing, and consequently political 'legitimacy'. But the principle should apply regardless. What sectors of the economy, other than union organizations, actively support Syriza? I don't know; I know very little about global politics. Do they generally have the backing of 'progressive' capital - that is to say, business interests that fashion themselves as being on the ascendant, like social media corporations and so on?

[NGNM85]

I agree with all this. I suppose what I'm asking for is specifics on why the government inherently has to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, or why as Marx said, it's essentially the executive committee for the bourgeoisie. I want to be able to explain that to my friends from a structural point of view, so that they aren't illusioned by the idea of merely "taking money out of politics" as an end all, be all solution.

No offense, but as I was saying earlier, I'm not totally sure you are fully appreciating what Marx meant by that. There's no shame in that, it's pretty complicated. Hell, I'd even venture that most of the regular posters don't understand this.

Even if we had entirely publicly financed campaigns, (Which, Incidentally, would be a substantial improvement, and a major victory for the working class.) it wouldn't change the underlying inequality between workers, and capitalists. Capitalists are able to exercise a disproportionate influence (and by when I say; influence', I'm not just talking about money) relative to the size of their demographic, and they always will be. This is not a conspiracy; the capitalists have this power because they control the means of production, and they control the means of production because they own them.

Also, like Marx said, the ideas that are promoted by mainstream intellectuals are invariably ideas that support the status quo. Otherwise, they would be heretics. This is the major difference between the hard sciences and the humanities. In mathematics, biology, physics, etc., students are encouraged to question orthodoxy, that's how scientific breakthroughs happen. However, if, like me, your field happens to be history, or political science, it's quite different. When I say inconvenient, yet painfully obvious things like, for instance; ' The United States government is the most prolific sponsor, and perpetrator of state terrorism on earth.', people treat me like I'm a some kind of fanatic. History, political science, economics, etc., they're all like that. You absolutely cannot question the status quo, specifically, you cannot question capitalism in any kind of serious way, then you're a crank, a pariah, and, therefore, by definition, not worth listening to. If you want to further investigate the mechanics of thought control in nominally democratic societies, I'd highly recommend Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. say you should probably watch the documentary based on it, first, (It's probably on YouTube.) the book is fantastic, but it isn't exactly light reading.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is actually pro-union feeling again, which is nice.

What's nicer is the positive publicity being given to employee victories in labour law litigation, and to the pro-employee law firms engaging in them.

Unions negotiate or mediate, but don't organize class action lawsuits.

[flobee1kenobi]

'Failure' implies a clear objective. Occupy had no such thing. It's like Malcolm X said; 'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.' Without anything like a platform, or a list of demands, Occupy was fundamentally limited in its capabilities. The end result was tragic, but entirely predictable.

occupy actually did have a list of demands after pressure came from the msm for a list. It was a 50 bullet point list, I think it should have been 1 or 2.

[NGNM85]

occupy actually did have a list of demands after pressure came from the msm for a list. It was a 50 bullet point list, I think it should have been 1 or 2.

Occupy didn't make that list, because Occupy wasn't remotely capable of doing such a thing. It was too disorganized. That list was made by people who participated in Occupy, it may very well represent the goals, and aspirations of the majority of Occupiers, but Occupy simply wasn't capable of that kind of coordinated, conscious activity. This lack of organization was a key factor that rendered Occupy unable to build a self-sustaining movement; because Occupy lacked a coherent goal, or platform, it couldn't build the kind of organizational infrastructure that such a movement would require, nor was it able to keep growing, because in order to win hearts, and minds, you have to have a clearly defined objectives, you have to have something people can rally around. Tragically, that simply wasn't the case.

[NGNM85]

What's nicer is the positive publicity being given to employee victories in labour law litigation, and to the pro-employee law firms engaging in them.

Unions negotiate or mediate, but don't organize class action lawsuits.

All of which underscores the importance of class action suits as a means of advancing worker's interests, and the necessity of steadfast opposition to tort 'reform', which is nothing less than a brazen attempt to hamstring workers by depriving them of one of their most effective weapons.

[TheAntiReactionary]

Don't just get money out of politics.
Get politics out of money.