Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
1. Ryan was the choice of a key constituency within the Republican base: millionaires and billionaires
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:18 AM
Sep 2012

"Why Paul Ryan? Simply put, Ryan was the choice of a key constituency within the disparate Republican base: the millionaires and billionaires..."

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
2. Yep. AND..........
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:43 PM
Sep 2012

his policy positions give the millionaires and billionaires philosophical cover for their economic rape of the rest of us.

BOG PERSON

(2,916 posts)
3. should focus more ire on democrats than on republican clowns
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:17 PM
Sep 2012

democrats (and the faded halo of the new deal they have to polish w/ every election cycle) are the main obstacle for socialists, not republicans, who have, by and large, disappeared up their own behinds

(not that your article wasnt critical of democrats, but it did imply that republicans were more hostile to working class interests than democrats)

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
4. Well aren't Republicans more hostile currently?
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:41 PM
Sep 2012

I mean sure in the long run both parties work for the elites, but the Democrats are better in the short time. Many Democrats still want to protect or expand the social safety net which is more useful to workers than dismantling it. This is purely in the short term, of course. Ultimately neither party really cares about the working class and poor.

BOG PERSON

(2,916 posts)
5. socialists have zero influence in american politics
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:01 PM
Sep 2012

there's no point in worrying about the short term. the working class is not in a position to demand concessions from capital. capital is not obliged to make concessions. the immediate goals are pointless and self-defeating. why not try to think strategically, i humbly ask.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
7. We should worry about the short term because it effects a lot of people.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:25 PM
Sep 2012

If the the Republicans get rid of Social-Security or Medicare for instance a lot of the working class will suffer. We should use whatever tools we have to help the working class and if that means voting then so be it. It's foolish to cause people to suffer in the name of ideological purity.

BOG PERSON

(2,916 posts)
9. ideological purity? wut
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:42 PM
Sep 2012

nobody said anything about "ideological purity". how silly would it be for me to kvetch over "ideological purity" in the year of our lord 2012 when gangsters rule the planet. (using that term "ideological purity" makes you sound like a liberal, btw.) all i'm saying is it wouldnt hurt to have a little foresight + a healthy degree of pessimism, to try to get a grip on the historico-economic trends of our time . nothing more.

p.s. it is dishonest to dangle the carrot of social democracy in front of people. social democracy is gone and the only version of it that's ever coming back is its mutated clone - fascism.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
10. I've heard plenty of socialist who refuse to vote in elections due to ideological issues.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:51 PM
Sep 2012

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Mostly from Left Communists, though. My ideological purity comment wasn't aimed at you so much as those who advocate abstaining from all forms of elections, and yes the only reasons I've heard are purely ideological, tactics don't enter into it. Still the facts remain the Democrats would hurt the working class less than the Republicans.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
8. Personally ..........
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:26 PM
Sep 2012

(and it is personal, Workers Power hasn't come to an official position on the election yet) I find it easier to make a few united front style, ISSUES ONLY, alliances with Democrats even now than with Republicans. I also PERSONALLY think that organizing will be easier with Obama in office for the next 4 years than with Romney (although I could be wrong about that). Finally, I think that Dems can more easily be shamed into siding with the working class on certain issues than the Republicans. For all of these reasons, I would probably rather see an Obama Presidency than a Romney one. But I'm not totally sold on that position yet. I could have my mind changed and I expect a discussion sometime in the near future about it.

Workers Power has always held a STRONG position that the working class needs it's own political party, a Progressive Worker's Party, if you will. Until that happens though, we've got a pretty bad choice to make. Democrat or Republican and in this choice, I ALWAYS come down Democrat.

BOG PERSON

(2,916 posts)
11. Friedrich Engels, writing in 1892
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:52 PM
Sep 2012

There is no place yet in America for a third party, I believe. The divergence of interests even in the same class group is so great in that tremendous area that wholly different groups and interests are represented in each of the two big parties, depending on the locality, and almost each particular section of the possessing class has its representatives in each of the two parties to a very large degree, though today big industry forms the core of the Republicans on the whole, just as the big landowners of the South form that of the Democrats. The apparent haphazardness of this jumbling together is what provides the splendid soil for the corruption and the plundering of the government that flourish there so beautifully. Only when the land — the public lands — is completely in the hands of the speculators, and settlement on the land thus becomes more and more difficult or falls prey to gouging — only then, I think, will the time come, with peaceful development, for a third party. Land is the basis of speculation, and the American speculative mania and speculative opportunity are the chief levers that hold the native-born worker in bondage to the bourgeoisie. Only when there is a generation of native-born workers that cannot expect anything from speculation any more will we have a solid foothold in America. But, of course, who can count on peaceful development in America! There are economic jumps over there, like the political ones in France — to be sure, they produce the same momentary retrogressions.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/letters/92_01_06.htm

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
12. Pretty prescient and a pretty sharp analysis of the situation.......
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:03 PM
Sep 2012

that still holds true today. Both of the major parties have tendencies, but consist of several different constitutiencies, sometimes with different and even contradictatory goals. The article on Immigration delved into that a little more deeply, at least on the Republican side.

Of course, my generation is NOT a generation that didn't expect anything from speculation. Otherwise a bunch of us wouldn't have become Yuppies in the 80s. However, with the current stratification in wealth and income, that generation has come or is, at least, in sight. Back to the speculation by Roberts, this also dovetails nicely WITH that speculation in that, with nothing left to gain from capitalism (or speculation as Engels put it), the system crashes for the last time.

A Progressive Worker's Party will probably be the mass party manifestation of this "...cannot expect anything from speculation anymore..." generation.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
6. Noted and agree. HOWEVER.........
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:09 PM
Sep 2012

This particular article was focused on Paul Ryan who is a Republican and not a Democrat.

There was a part that was edited out that talked a little further about how opposition parties (the Dems here and the "Socialist" parties in Europe) have bought into the whole neo-liberal agenda and are, effectively, not even opposition parties anymore. IOW, I tried to bring out (in the edited out part) how the entire capitalist political class have the same agenda, they just approach it differently. More of a difference in degree rather than kind.

More generally, I'm of two minds on this situation. On one hand, I don't want to make the mistake that the German Communists made in the late 20s and decide that the social democrats are a bigger enemy than the fascists were. We see where that mistake led. OTOH, I don't want to let the Dems off the hook for believing the same as the Reps on economic policy.

There will be another article for the international market that will explain in a little more depth about the election this year and what it all means. I expect that article, whether written by me or one of my other comrades, to be more balanced in it's treatment of both parties and their belief in that neo-liberal agenda. Look for it by the end of the month or early in October.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Article on Paul Ryan is u...