you said "I am on here because there is a lot of good information and discussion, as well as a lot of good, helpful, wonderful people that I would miss."

What do you mean? (Sorry for making you spell it out).

TOS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant#Electoral_history

I forgot about that part. Problem is that the Dems are running three varied candidates to pull off as much support from her as they possibly can (not to actually win, of course, just to screw her ) so it is debatable whether or not she would "throw the election".

Btw, I've been meaning to say, I've really been appreciating your posts since you joined a while ago. Very thoughtful and informative. I keep a look out for your posts now

Her opponents aren't actually on the Democratic ticket anyway, right? Municipal elected offices in Seattle are non-partisan. So I would think you should be able to support her on here as loudly as you'd like, no matter whether the local Dem establishment might be supporting the others or not.

And that's something I really should have known--oops. It really does tell you where the Party's priorities stand, though--at least in Seattle, it is NOT with the working class. I have a feeling this next election may be close--very interested to see how rent control is featured. We desperately need it--rents are skyrocketing around here, and I definitely can't afford to live in Seattle's version of San Francisco. Half of my paychecks each month is going to rent right now, and I don't even have my own place. And I have a reasonably inexpensive one, too, which is the crazy part.

make no mistake ~ he is not a revolutionary. In fact I have serious qualms about trying to elect someone who could very well be the next FDR. Yes, some see that as a huge plus but I can't help but have mixed feelings because it will only drag on this farce that is capitalism.

The way I participate is to bring things I think can provoke thought and perhaps encourage the folks who are already there with me to continue to fight. I know this board really does lean quite liberal despite the few loud trolls (including both republicans and third-way democrats in that analysis). I can read EarlG's occasionally commentary (usually through his cartoons) and know that he is a friend. I don't think he is a Marxist by any stretch, but I do think he is a very good person who was completely disgusted with the election of Bush and everything that went along with that. I know he is a caring individual and sees the pain that inept policies cause.

Further, in the tradition of Lenin I can get on board with voting for the least objectionable candidate when I see it can actually help people on a daily basis (ie their checks won't suddenly be cut off & leave them without food and shelter).

As I say all this I know I can do it while I still rally for unions and the day we can overthrow this ridiculous economic system that only benefits the lucky few that are able to claw themselves to the top. And that remains my top priority as an activist.

This is kinda where I am at right now. I think this is where the best discussions on DU are anyways--talking about the hard questions that Hillary vs. Candidate of the Day doesn't really get to. Opening up the dialogue to something past the usual limitations and restrictions put into place on debate by the American political system is exactly what boards like this are for. I think this is where my posts will probably remain for the time being. At least, I hope they will. I'll shoot for "mildly interesting" if not "thought-provoking"


As can I--those who are desperate may not be able to change their situation immediately, and in the meantime, I think it's a good idea to at least get somewhere where they can resist without losing their lives (lives meaning a lot more than just life, of course).

As for Bernie, I think you've nailed it. Exactly where I am. I am happy that people seem to be taking an interest in the situation we are in, but I am very scared he is going to deradicalize the left, and we need a strong radical left for their to be any significant social and economic change in this country, capitalism in place or not. The absolute last thing we need right now is for the agitators on the streets to be brought into the party--we need them out there, agitating, and that's impossible to do within the party, as shown by ample historical evidence (which I'm sure you're well aware of).

Thanks for the response again--it was quite helpful.

than advocating violent armed resistance to the US GOVT.
I agree we need every possible person fighting for radical Left policies.
What we cannot do on this board is start calling people to fire bomb XXXX stations.

I have a hard time believing the capitalists are going to allow us to begin living by a new economic philosophy without a hard fight.
This is just not the place to issue a "Call to Arms".

I don't think it's going to be a peaceful revolution, but not because I don't want one.

to the amount of violence that the state and the capitalist system uses to PROTECT said system. It's self-defense, but on a class wide basis. That's the way I not only frame it, that actually the way I think of it.

And that's a critical piece of information, right there, one that we need to publicize as best we can:

ViolenceInASocialistRevolution ∝ ViolenceUsedToPreventRevolution

I talk around it but you have a way of cutting to the chase.

I mean who could be against self-defense?

even though running for US president is not a revolutionary act, and I'm skeptical about electoral politics being able to change anything. I actually do hope he gets in and becomes the next FDR--not because I want to save capitalism, but just because I want to eat and not lose my benefits and be thrown out in the street, at least for a while. Capitalism is falling apart anyway, in part because of new technology that is increasingly eliminating wage labor, the basis of capitalism. No labor, no value. If nobody has work, nobody will be able to buy goods. The capitalists are going to run out of markets. I don't even think an FDR can save it this time. Maybe we can have social democracy for a while (and I actually do hope we can get that, because otherwise it's going to be ugly), but I think the only place we have to go is socialism. I fear we are heading towards fascism myself.

There will be no market when people are going hungry and thirsty.

Just posted a a couple days ago here, and it really puts things into perspective (if the constant release of reports since the 70s hasn't already scared you to death):


My personal view is that we don't have the time to progress through social democracy. However, you've put in an interesting idea here: what if capitalism is going to fail soon anyways? Can we make a case for supporting social democracy?

My initial thoughts are no: we still need a revolution in order to establish socialism in this country. But there's a lot more to it.

I'm going to have to think about that, and maybe make a post or two here in the future about it.

Interesting thoughts. I agree that facism is an unfortunately likely prospect. When the tea partiers finally realize just how screwed they are, they will take it out on everybody around them, and they'll be ripe for harvesting. Someone will happily take control (they're authoritarians--there's a reason they love "security&quot and be able to use them to gain dominance. Also unfortunately, that person is likely to be one of the current wealthy sociopaths that we have in charge right now.

(which most here wouldn't advocate anyway, as far as I can tell) or run afoul of juries, we've been pretty free to post what we want in here.

I always tell folks in here that they take chances with juries, since I can't predict what will get hidden, and we are subject to the whims and vagaries of the rest of the membership, since the group is open to all readers. I've don't recall an OP getting hidden by a jury in here though.

As far as DU as a whole, or GD--it just depends on your level of tolerance. It's always going to be a site for primarily Democratic electoral politics. I've been here for 10 years, and despite my politics, this is kind of like my local bar. I always check in for news and to see familiar faces, despite sometimes thinking this place will drive me up the wall.

As far as the D-Party being the party of Wall Street, for me, yes and no. It's a vehicle that working people use for reform and to get some social parity among the nationally oppressed. It is also a party that supports capitalism, but opposes (even though weakly at times) the ultra-right free-market version that the Republicans have unleashed on states like KS and WI.

So even though I have to hold my nose for some of my votes, it's still worth it to protect some working class needs and gains with even the smallest tools we have. If we lose any more union density, we can kiss democracy goodbye. We'd be hella fucked, in my Marxist-Leninist opinion. We won't get to socialism if a tea party Franco gets in power.

And I am certainly no advocate of violence (though I'm not going to criticize things like the Baltimore riots, either--that place was ripe to be burned down, agree with the actions taken or not. That's political protest, in my mind).

I think there's a very interesting discussion to be had there. That's part of what I'm attempting to come to grips with while working with the ISO in Seattle. But a discussion for another time. I appreciate your response and your perspective on DU as a whole.

and fascism. It's pretty scary. And I also agree about trying to hold on to the concessions and gains the working class has won in the past. We don't need to get any more screwed over.

We live under an entrenched 2-party political system. We have a vibrant, powerful capitalistic economic system. We have a bought-off, fat, happy, complacent proletariat.

And we have a world of have and have-not nations and peoples.

We are in the midst of revolutionary globalization. Capital injections are creating prosperous working people and middle-classes around the world, transforming lives. We are engaged in intricate, complex economic and financial relationships with nation after nation. We have partners, not adversaries.

The Democratic Party pushes for social and economic justice. We expand individual rights and freedoms. That can't be argued. We attempt as best we can to at least impede the natural inclination of capitalism to pursue profit at any cost, through regulation and legislation. We attempt to use progressive policies to reduce income inequality and transfer excessive wealth to programs for the impoverished and have-nots. We try to make the capitalist system a little less exploitative.

There will be a time when the world will have a real working class. When the world will rise up against exploitation! When there will be something to fight for, not just more poverty and hunger!

And our best and greatest ideal should always be democracy! Democracy should be our Number 1 export!

"Democracy is the road to socialism!"



"

socialist. I, personally, am a revolutionary. I don't find the argument that it is possible to reform such an incredibly broken system within the time frame that things like equality and climate change require to be convincing. I also believe, in accordance with some theories that I have read, that a revolution is required for the working class to understand what is at stake, and what true democracy and socialism will take.

One other note: I refer to it as a broken system, but that's more out of habit. This often implies that it can be fixed, and I think that's completely untrue. Our system, so far as I can tell from what history I have read and understand, is not only not working for labor, but designed to oppress and minimize labor while maximizing profit and property rights.

You say that can't be argued, but I would disagree with that. I also very strongly differ from your perspective on this:


However, that is a discussion for another time, and one that I may eventually get around to making a post on in this forum.

Thanks for your input.

We have a hugely growing displaced, dispossessed, precarious proletariat with increasingly little hope. Very few people among my friends and acquaintances have full-time living wage jobs. Most people I know are on unemployment or other benefits, or are working seasonal or part-time low wage jobs, or do odd jobs or informal jobs. People are doubled up with friends, or living with their parents. At best people are hanging on. And many people are absolutely destitute and homeless. I don't see a lot of happiness or complacency.

If it gets me kicked off, I'm fine with that.

Thanks for your perspective.

And not ones I'm sure I can address. I've only been here a few years. Perhaps someone with more history here could tell you?

I don't disagree with anything you've said, though. I've wondered about a couple of those myself. "America-hater" in particular sounds rather nationalistic and right-wing. I can't think of a single good way to define that term that couldn't eventually be used to silence legitimate criticism.

"Hard-line communist" seems wrong as well. For me, as a revolutionary socialist, yes, my end goal is communism. I will be shocked if we ever make it in my lifetime, but in the meantime, I will push for the transitory stages. Does that make me a hard-liner? Maybe it's referring to the "communist" dictatorships of Soviet Russia and the like, but then it should say so. Even then, it still seems like pretty right-wing phrasing to me.

And I think "terrorist-apologist" is reasonable: aka, don't be supportive of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Not exactly clear, though--and you're absolutely right. We are by far the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, bar none that I can think of.

Agreed, though I think it's just saying keep your paranoid fantasies off this site. Odd since we do have a CT forum for that nevertheless.

All very good questions that I haven't really thought about with more than a passing glance. These are legitimate concerns over very vague phrasing on an important part of the site. Thanks for bringing them up. I might toss a thread over in ATA to see what's up with some of these.

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I am to the right of you, but even I have to watch what I say to stay within the TOS, I very often bite my tongue or say less than what I believe.

If you look at who runs the site, and their views and posts, it's pretty much a mainstream corporate Democratic site that used the word Underground not in the sense of being for reform of the Democratic Party, but in the sense of, after the (s)election of GW Bush in 2000, they saw their centrist Democratic views as needing to go underground and network and grow to return to power. That meant, I think, a return of the likes of Clinton and Obama, not actual reform of capitalism.

It's great for people like you to stick around here, for one thing I like having people working to my left, makes it easier for me to advocate for a system closer to the Scandinavian democracies, which I think would go a long ways towards making a more sustainable and tolerable society.

I'm curious which, if any, nations you see as models for your views, I am not real informed about the manifestations of radical revolutionary socialism.

One thing I will say that I absolutely hate about this site is having to defend views that should IMO need no defense by Democrats, views such as corporate hegemony being the fundamental problem we are facing, that our military and police are for the most part forces deployed by coporate interests, there are a million such positions and I don't need to go into all of them now. I spend a lot of my time fighting off attacks from people invested in supporting bought-and-paid for pols and policies, which is counterproductive and a negative drag on my psyche. I used to think it was a battle that could be won, but as I learned more about who ran this place I came to realize it is really what this site is setup to advocate for, and if we don't, we're considered to be working in the interest of Republicans. So for that reason I often think of leaving here myself, or hope to find a place where the foundational purpose is to better the lives of the masses rather than to support a particular political party. If (when?) Hillary wins the primary I will probably take a break from here rather than suffer the get-on-board coersion, that for me is a bridge too far.

I read what you wrote about your fear of the Sanders campaign causing true revolutionaries to be assimilated (hopefully I am getting that right) and was surprised by that. I think Bernie does want a revolution, in that he doesn't think we are legitimately represented, seeing our representatives as serving their donor base rather than their electoral base, which I agree with, and in my mind changing that would allow us to exist in an imperfect but sustainable society that would provide a context for satisfying and decent lives for most of its citizens. I love Sanders but to me he is just a vehicle towards reigning in the beast, not necessarily the best vehicle but the best one at this moment to run a national campaign.

Re revolution, elections are so fraudulent right now (power doesn't really change with elections, though the people running it do) that I can understand working to bring one about, but I choose to work to remove the influence of money from our elections so that there would actually be the possibility of true reform through electoral politics. If that can't happen, though, and it is very much an uphill struggle, it will require an actual revolution, which would probably not end well but there would be no alternative.

Anyway, I hope you keep posting here, you can work elsewhere too, DU doesn't have to be everything, but DU can benefit by more people who seek actual systemic change or reform rather than just a change in how many bones are thrown to the proletariat.

for the Fifth International. As such I'm WAY to the left of Kshama Sawant (I consider her right centrist or even left reformist) and we're probably to the left of the ISO too. As such, MANY of the things that I read, even in this group, I disagree with more or less. And I will argue my points, BUT ...

I think that one way to avoid some of the pitfalls you mentioned is to keep the arguments into the realm of theoretical discussion and not get real specific about personalities. This is one way that this group has, so far, avoided some of the more heated, polemical Stalinist vs Trotskyist debates that have divided the left and other boards. Not that I won't argue against what I consider Stalinist conceptions of party organization and their theoretical concepts, I just will do it without calling it Stalinist. I've found that when you keep the arguments on a purely theoretical level, you can avoid a lot of grief. Hope this helps.

Some of us do look at US politics from a class analysis framework. In my view class analysis is the best way to understand the WHY of politics in the US.

Too much energy is spent discussing the "what" of politics rather than the "why". The corporate media is the main tool here, but what passes for history in much of the school system also keeps the focus on the WHAT.

As to a revolution, the revolution must start in peoples' minds, not in the streets. Armed revolution is conflict using the tools of the largest military empire in history. NOT a good idea in my view.

Do you ever read Socialist Worker?

Actually though, up here in Seattle I've met a number of the writers that post articles on that site. I work with at least a couple of them closely.

I'll get to the rest of your post later--gotta try and finish and essay before I get even more distracted...

where you can like-minded folks. I keep very quiet here in Texas. If the folks down here have their way we will be living in a fascist Scott Walker-led theocracy.

In contrast, I dream of living in a future like The Venus Project (https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/), but I seriously doubt it is going to be a cake walk to do away with currency and markets in order to shift to that sort of paradigm. I consider myself revolutionary as well. Others may see that as an aggressive term but I view it as self-defense. In my view it is not the poor who have waged class war through the ages, but those who have grabbed power and insist on hoarding resources and assuming control over others who are the aggressors.