Democrats in the United States

[erupt]

Of course they claim to be the working class, which we all know isn't true. And we all know how the voting system is almost for sure fixed, and the one who wins is the one who dishes out his moolah.

But, if us revolutionaries are serious about helping out the modern working class any way we can, should we not vote for the farthest leftist leaning social reforming candidate in the elections?

One good example is my local area. During Clinton's term, my community had countless workers in the airline mechanic industry. Not more than ten months into Bush's term, a vast majority of those workers were laid off, greatly increasing unemployment in the area. Now until the large scale revolution is in place, what's wrong with trying to do what the social democrats are doing through reform, legislation, etc.?

If the working class thrived more under Clinton's term than Bush's, why not use the so called "right to vote" and vote for who would benefit the proletariat the most.

Now of course this will probably get some backlash from some members here, and I'm relatively a very new member to Revleft, but I just want to see some of the logic of why we can't use this ability to elect someone who obviously isn't helping the working class on purpose, but still none-the-less is benefitting them somewhat.

[Zurdito]

Of course they claim to be the working class, which we all know isn't true. And we all know how the voting system is almost for sure fixed, and the one who wins is the one who dishes out his moolah.

But, if us revolutionaries are serious about helping out the modern working class any way we can, should we not vote for the farthest leftist leaning social reforming candidate in the elections?

One good example is my local area. During Clinton's term, my community had countless workers in the airline mechanic industry. Not more than ten months into Bush's term, a vast majority of those workers were laid off, greatly increasing unemployment in the area. Now until the large scale revolution is in place, what's wrong with trying to do what the social democrats are doing through reform, legislation, etc.?

If the working class thrived more under Clinton's term than Bush's, why not use the so called "right to vote" and vote for who would benefit the proletariat the most.

Now of course this will probably get some backlash from some members here, and I'm relatively a very new member to Revleft, but I just want to see some of the logic of why we can't use this ability to elect someone who obviously isn't helping the working class on purpose, but still none-the-less is benefitting them somewhat.

As marxists, we fight for the working class to take power.

Many social democratic parties in Europe, such as Labour, were founded out of working class struggle, and despite the betrayal of their leadership, are still partly working class organisms. For example, Lenin called Labour a bourgeois workers party. This is because in its constitution, it is partly run by the trade unions.

The Democrats however have no such internal set-up. There is no working class within the party, they are just outsiders who appeal to the working class with false promises.

We tell workers to vote Labour, because workers see it as "their" party, which the leaders betray, and we want to highlight that betrayal, saying to the workers "if this is your party, why don't the leaders work for your interest" - and the only way to force the leadership up against the wall, and to say to them "why don't you look out for workers interest when you are ruling in the name of workers organisations".

We should not call for a vote for the Democrats, because there is nothing to "betray", and we just look stupid when the Democrats then go and do exactly what their class interest says they should, i.e. attack workers, we can't say to them "why are you attacking workers", they will just say "because we're a bourgeois party, stupid, and you knew that when you voted for us".

Also, why should we tell workers to be grateful to the Clinton's? IF the ruling class is forced into giving reforms to the workers, it;s because they are scared of social unrest. Why should we help them put it down with the minimum of reforms possible, so they can see out the hard times and then impose harsher policies when the struggle has been disarmed?

[erupt]

Also, why should we tell workers to be grateful to the Clinton's? IF the ruling class is forced into giving reforms to the workers, it;s because they are scared of social unrest. Why should we help them put it down with the minimum of reforms possible, so they can see out the hard times and then impose harsher policies when the struggle has been disarmed?

We shouldn't be grateful to the Clintons. We should not put down the social unrest we should increase it.

I think to sum up what I meant and get rid of some confusion I may have created, what I meant is if the ruling class in one administration benefits some workers more so than others, what is wrong with voting for said ruling class that benefits the workers more so?

I think it's safe to assume that the revolution is a long ways away so any help any oppressed class member can get is necessary.

[Zurdito]

We shouldn't be grateful to the Clintons. We should not put down the social unrest we should increase it.

I think to sum up what I meant and get rid of some confusion I may have created, what I meant is if the ruling class in one administration benefits some workers more so than others, what is wrong with voting for said ruling class that benefits the workers more so?

I think it's safe to assume that the revolution is a long ways away so any help any oppressed class member can get is necessary.

because if you are a real marxist you have to take yourself seriosuly and act like a potential leader, and an internationalist, even if you have no-one to lead. You should a.) be looking at the global picture and not jsut writing off revolution because your corner of the world happens to be stable and b.) making serious analyses of the class character of different candidates, and measuring them up against your own demands, instead of passively sitting back and just voting for this or that bourgeois candidate. The point is that the Democrats do not benefit workers. They just channel their struggles into failure. That partyis a cancer on the American working class and the best hting that could happen for them is its destruction.

[erupt]

I agree with you completely, but I guess the question boils down to that old saying, the lesser of the two evils. I understand the international outlook and I agree with everything you say, but if (even though this is through capitalism's eyes) the economy was a little better off during Clinton's term, why not vote for him/her. Sadly, the communist and socialist parties in America get nowhere, and even though our votes mean nothing in the first place, voting for a socialist or communist would really just waste a vote. Also, I highly doubt the local area I live in was the only place to benefit.

Once again I agree completely with you, but I guess the whole situation could be resolved by trying to liberate the democrats into transferring into the real working party, the socialists. The dual party system is cancerous to the proletariat, and the democratic party is cancerous to the worker's in the U.S. If only the large percentage of the American population that believes the democrats are the working party could be enlightened, this problem wouldn't be a problem, now would it?

[FireFry]

There are some people within the ruling class who behave like royalty.

[erupt]

There are some people within the ruling class who behave like royalty.

I know this, but I do not understand where its relevance is. Sorry if something is going over my head severely.

[MarxSchmarx]

I understand where you are coming from, Erupt.

The problem with lesser-evilist voting are two fold. First, there is the question of whether your vote matters in presidential elections. Highly unlikely.

The closest this ever came was in FL in 2000. Even then, the chances of your particular vote making the difference are miniscule (1 in 500, or 0.002). Moreover, unless you sat on SCOTUS, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Second, there is a real question about whether the democrats are enough of a lesser of two evils to justify voting for them. Some individual democrats didn't, but you can't make a blanket statement for supporting the whole party.

economy was a little better off during Clinton's term, why not vote for him/her

Well, this does assume the economy was better BECAUSE Clinton was in office or is worse off because Bush was in office. I don't think this is true. In a capitalist country like the US, a president's relationship to the economy is extremely limited.

[erupt]

In a capitalist country like the US, a president's relationship to the economy is extremely limited.

Yes I understand, I just felt that if the Marxists living in the U.S. vote, why not vote for the candidates who at least want restrictions on some businesses.

The only other possibility with voting is to get the most conservative far right damn-near fascist president in office, in hopes the workers of the country will unite under a totally new allegiance to a totally new revolutionary party and try to do something about it. But, I feel that ushering in that sort of garbage to commence a possible chain reaction is to risky and possibly to harmful to other oppressed peoples.

[SouthernBelle82]

Yep. It was the Clinton's who gave us NAFTA/CAFTA. Of course now Senator Clinton is saying she's against it to appeal to union workers. Of course you do have a few democrats who are looking out for the unions and workers and small businesses. For example Senator Kerry is very big on small businesses and helping the working class. However over all I would agree with you. Oh another democrat not bad on issues of economics is Kucinich. But I do agree with you highly about one administration benefiting some workers more than others. We only really hear about the so-called middle class. What about those in total poverty? We need to help empower them. I'm currently majoring in criminal justice and taking a social problems class and this week we've started talking about poverty and the mind set of poverty and one of the main mindsets of people in poverty is you're stuck there and there's no way out while with middle-class you at least are thinking you still have a chance to get out such as education or another job opportunity so I think it's important that we empower all workers and not just the middle class. For so long it's been all about the middle class while poverty rate people are just left a lone and shuffled around. It's really heartbreaking.

We shouldn't be grateful to the Clintons. We should not put down the social unrest we should increase it.

I think to sum up what I meant and get rid of some confusion I may have created, what I meant is if the ruling class in one administration benefits some workers more so than others, what is wrong with voting for said ruling class that benefits the workers more so?

I think it's safe to assume that the revolution is a long ways away so any help any oppressed class member can get is necessary.

[SouthernBelle82]

I disagree. The voters in FL didn't matter in 2000. The voters overwhelmingly voted for Al Gore and the Supreme Court took on the case when it should've been a state issue and nothing more as stated in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Supreme Court deciding elections so in that case, I believe it's amendment ten, it states that everything not included in the Constitution is left to the states. People love to blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss but Nader had really no effect at all since Gore did win the popular vote. The will of the people be damned. Also with the democrats if you live in the south like me you aren't going to get a liberal democrat. Before I was a communist I was supporting a democrat for Congress here who was a pretty liberal progressive guy and he lost to the more conservative candidate who loss to the republican. I do agree with you about the president's job with the economy. Only thing they can do is pass or veto legislation. They can't pass legislation without it going through Congress and the Senate. I would put more on them than the president quite honestly.

I understand where you are coming from, Erupt.

The problem with lesser-evilist voting are two fold. First, there is the question of whether your vote matters in presidential elections. Highly unlikely.

The closest this ever came was in FL in 2000. Even then, the chances of your particular vote making the difference are miniscule (1 in 500, or 0.002). Moreover, unless you sat on SCOTUS, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Second, there is a real question about whether the democrats are enough of a lesser of two evils to justify voting for them. Some individual democrats didn't, but you can't make a blanket statement for supporting the whole party.



Well, this does assume the economy was better BECAUSE Clinton was in office or is worse off because Bush was in office. I don't think this is true. In a capitalist country like the US, a president's relationship to the economy is extremely limited.

[erupt]

What about those in total poverty? We need to help empower them. I'm currently majoring in criminal justice and taking a social problems class and this week we've started talking about poverty and the mind set of poverty and one of the main mindsets of people in poverty is you're stuck there and there's no way out while with middle-class you at least are thinking you still have a chance to get out such as education or another job opportunity so I think it's important that we empower all workers and not just the middle class. For so long it's been all about the middle class while poverty rate people are just left a lone and shuffled around. It's really heartbreaking.

Your right, buddy. In this system if the middle class prospers the lower class still gets shit on while the upper class looses a tiny bit. The poor are looked down upon so much in the United States it's amazing. When one's in a "rut", it does feel as if they cannot get out because the boss at work won't give a raise or help out economically on demand, there must be some sort of reasoning for a raise in capitalism. The person just keeps going in this repetitive cycle. When the poor start to get pissed off and do something about it, they're put down quietly.

[SouthernBelle82]

Yep. And if you talk about helping the poor more than the middle class you're a communist. Of course I am a communist so it fits me haha. One of MANY reason's why I am a supporter of communism. Oh you should check out about the union strike against Congressional Hotel in Chicago. I believe that's the name of it. They've been on strike for FOUR years trying to get decent benefits/wages etc. I only found out about them because I was watching video's of Obama and he was down there supporting their cause and marching with them listening to them.

Your right, buddy. In this system if the middle class prospers the lower class still gets shit on while the upper class looses a tiny bit. The poor are looked down upon so much in the United States it's amazing. When one's in a "rut", it does feel as if they cannot get out because the boss at work won't give a raise or help out economically on demand, there must be some sort of reasoning for a raise in capitalism. The person just keeps going in this repetitive cycle. When the poor start to get pissed off and do something about it, they're put down quietly.

[erupt]

I only found out about them because I was watching video's of Obama and he was down there supporting their cause and marching with them listening to them.

Yeah they do anything to get votes. I'm sure the writer's guilde strike will have some sort of American political influence.

[SouthernBelle82]

And you know that how? How do you know he isn't really a supporter? I guess you're practicing your psychic skills eh? Sorry but I don't judge whether someone is just doing something for votes or not. There are other things to judge them on.

Yeah they do anything to get votes. I'm sure the writer's guilde strike will have some sort of American political influence.

[erupt]

And you know that how? How do you know he isn't really a supporter? I guess you're practicing your psychic skills eh? Sorry but I don't judge whether someone is just doing something for votes or not. There are other things to judge them on.

Your right dude, I'm not in his head and I don't for one hundred percent sure what he, or any person wants. But, I can make an estimate or guess based on how many other presidents the United States delegates have elected. Presidents want power. He's still a capitalist which means there will still be capitalist casualties and atrocities committed under his administration. But, I will go out on a limb and say I believe he is the least of the evils in this year's bourgeois election.