2016 will go down in history as the beginnings of a fundamental.........

[socialist_n_TN]

realignment in bourgeois politics. Without a sharp left turn by the Dems, there will be an alternative to the Democrats by the left wing of the populace. This will be offset by neo-liberal Republicans moving to the Democrats further solidifying the Democratic Party as the "pro-business" wing of the bourgeoisie. The Republicans will keep the 15% of the population that is proto-fascist. The strains have become too great for the current 2 party system to hold.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[snooper2]

1. So you are saying where the far left and far right meet in the political circle, a party will ARISE!

Correct?

I guess if the far left and far right can agree on some basic things..like- Who gets to use which bathroom, or- are taxes required

[alan2102]

5. political circle

1. No, he is not saying that the far left and far right meet in the "political circle".

2. The "political circle" that your image depicts is an old Libertarian-inspired spectral conception, that does not correspond to other models. In other words, there is plenty of room for alternatives to your "political circle" as depicted.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Truth to Power!

[HooptieWagon]

3. I agree.

Both parties have veered sharply right. With Trumps nomination, the GOP has now entered Fascism. The Democratic Party establishment has embraced Reaganism. This leaves a vast space to the left for a new party to grow.

[jwirr]

4. And that leaves those of us who support Bernie to start our

own party. I'm with them.

[PasadenaTrudy]

11. Me too! n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

19. It needs to be a working class based.........

party of labor IMO. Which of course, being class based, will speak to the needs of especially oppressed minorities too. AND have an anti-imperialist foreign policy. I think that would cover it.

[GulfCoast66]

27. You better get to work

With minorities cause they aren't buying what you are selling.

They know from experience that socialist economic belief does not necessarily make a party an automatic ally.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. There will be work to be done anyway and with everyone.......

But whoever wants to stay with the Reagan Democrats that make up the current Democratic Party, they'll do so.

[GulfCoast66]

34. I got news for you

Reagan Democrats are now voting for Trump. I know because back then I was one. I now share the goal of a European style Socialist Democratic government. But its going to take some time. No matter what you think, most Americans will not vote for such a program right now.

And as a southern white man I am really inviting well-deserved ridicule, but the history of progressivism in this country has not always favored African-Americans.

I am the first to admit we really have no super strong candidates. But the Republicans seem determined to self-destruct.

If we throw away this great opportunity looking for the perfect one we will regret it for decades

[socialist_n_TN]

37. That's because progressivism in this country has always been populist.......

cross-class and based strictly on economics, but NOT led by the working class. Bernie's campaign had and has this problem too. It's a fault of populism. It doesn't take into account special oppression and super exploitation that leads to super profits for the owners. Marxist DO acknowledge this dynamic.

There will eventually be a mass opposition by labor and the oppressed because the capitalists won't let-up on the class war until they are forced to. This will lead to an inevitable dialectic of resistance. The question is whether this resistance will be organized or not. That organization could be found in a workers' party.

"This opportunity" is to elect a neo-conservative, socially moderate candidate to the right of Reagan. That's not progress, that's STILL the lesser of two evils. And that "lesser of two evils" dynamic at work is what has led to the current state. In November we have the choice of voting for a socially moderate (not even liberal), neo-conservative who's in favor of continuing the policies of the last 35 years or a faux-fascist opportunist. What's the next choice? A "left" fascist and a "right" fascist?

[alan2102]

6. You may be right

As I see it:

Hillarian DP = substantively fascist (in terms of actual, accomplished policy/actions), but usually fanatically opposed to fascistic rhetoric

Trumpian GOP = rhetorically fascist, but not so much substantively (variable)

New Party (?) (or Greens + + + whatever) = social democratic alternative

..........................

This schema assumes that the fascist DP is unreformable, which seems likely.

[socialist_n_TN]

20. I actually wouldn't call the Dems fascist yet.......

Even the Republicans aren't really fascist, although they, and especially Trump, are playing with those social forces in an opportunistic fashion. The Dems are neo-conservative for sure, in that they have the neo-liberal economic platform backed up by an aggressive foreign policy supporting the empire.

To be truly social democratic the new formation would need to be labor based though.

[alan2102]

22. I would ;-)

Trump's rhetoric conforms to Roger Griffin's "Fascist Minimum", namely, palingenetic ultranationalism. The DP is fascist in a different way, a substantive way, stripped of all rhetoric and symbol evocative of fascism.

Why does social democracy have to be labor-based? Is it in scandinavia? Mind you, I would LIKE it to be so, I'm just asking why you think it MUST be so.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Well, social democracy arose in Europe with the support of labor......

because labor is the only class big enough and with enough potential power to break the power of wealth. Anything less than a labor based social democracy won't be up to the job of wresting even mild social democratic gains from the bourgeoisie. Popular fronts won't have the power in society to be able to make it happen.

[NuclearDem]

23. I don't think you know what fascism means.

Especially if you think Hillary Clinton is one.

[dawg]

7. Our Constitution inadvertently leads to two major parties.

Third parties rise-up, but they either fade away or supplant one of the existing major parties, leaving a new duopoly to take the place of the old one.

I do agree, however, that we are seeing the early stages of a re-alignment. I'm not sure exactly how it's going to play out, but I suspect the Republicans will move to the left on most economic issues while the Democrats will move to the right.

[socialist_n_TN]

17. I agree that one party will be supplanted.........

eventually. I don't think it will be the Dems though. The Democrats will replace the Republicans as the "pro-business" party and the new formation will arise to the left of the Dems. There's too big of segment that's currently to the economic left of both parties for it to be any other way, IMO.

The political center has moved too far to the right of the actual center on issues for the Republicans to stay a factor, which leaves it to the Dems to take that spot absorbing the neo-liberal Republicans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. 2016 is the year it became beyond obvious

[socialist_n_TN]

15. Yep.......nfm

nm

[GreenEyedLefty]

10. It's been beginning for a long time now. We're just now reaching the breaking point.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Agreed. nfm

nm

[Odin2005]

12. I'm in 100% agreement with you.

This will be offset by neo-liberal Republicans moving to the Democrats further solidifying the Democratic Party as the "pro-business" wing of the bourgeoisie.

This is my biggest worry right now. The Dem Establishment seems determined to drive all genuine Leftists out of the party and then consolidating the purge by pushing for closed primaries to silence left-wing independents. Bernie absolutely terrified them.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. Yep..............

There will be plenty of room on the left for a new political formation because it's obvious that neither the Dems or the Repubs will get off that Reagan, neo-liberal economic line. I hope it's a workers' party myself, but it could be something "leftish" and cross-class like the Greens. In fact, since they're already set up in all states, I expect that THIS election, the Greens will have their biggest vote ever in presidential politics.

Unfortunately, a "popular front" cross-class formation won't hold for long because it has no chance of being won to revolutionary politics. An American labor party, although almost assuredly bourgeois in nature (no break with capitalism, IOW) could be won to revolution with the further heightening of the class war.

[CanadaexPat]

28. I agree and Trump will cause it.

Hillary will run an anti-Trump coalition campaign and tack a bit to Republicans with the excuse that we have to do everything possible to stop Trump.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. That would have happened anyway.........

That's the famous Clinton "triangulation" and it should have been expected by everyone whether they support her or not.

[maxrandb]

16. Can't we be Pro Business and Democrats as well?

Hell, it worked pretty well right up until St. Ronnie Reagan "Peace be upon him".

Of course, that was back when business actually realized that "what was good for their employees was good for business", and "employees understood that what was good for business was good for them".

That all changed when Lucifer in a Grandfather Mask turned America into a "cutthroat, screw-you, I got mine" greed driven paradise of the 0.0001%

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Sure you can. I'd even argue that the Dems have ALWAYS been........

pro-business. Even the FDR reforms were pro-business in that they "saved capitalism from itself". Unless the very existence of the bourgeoisie is at stake, workers don't get squat and the Dems support that in every way. The Democratic Party began as a bourgeois party and never changed that orientation. In some of their more populist moments, they've claimed to be a party for all classes, but when push comes to shove, they vote with the bourgeoisie.

You can't serve two masters. Class struggle is a zero-sum game. When workers win, owners lose. And vice versa. The Dems make sure the owners win, one way or another.

Oh yeah, and don't mistake the goals and aims of the petit bourgeoisie with the big bourgeoisie. They have different class needs.

[Katashi_itto]

18. They arent even pro-business. They are Corporate Socialists. Everyone must bow to the Oilgarchy.

[LanternWaste]

21. Realignment of the US party system is both standard and historical.

Realignment of the US party system is both cyclical and historical.

First Party System: 1792–1824 (Federalists and Democratic Republicans, the former strong government, the latter states right)
Second Party System: 1828–1854 (Democratic Republicans transform into Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs' favoring policies of modernization and economic protectionism)
Third Party System: 1854-1890s (Republicans taking economic policies of Whigs and abolition and Bourbon Dems, a mix of business-oriented Dems, Copperheads and Angl-immigrants)
Fourth Party System: 1896–1932 (retention of parties, major shifts in the central issues, reacting to the Progressive era)
Fifth and Sixth Party Systems: 1933-present (Dems morph to New Deal Coalition, Repubs pick up Dixiecrat)


(Arthur Schlesinger, History of U.S. Political Parties)

[Trust Buster]

26. I couldn't disagree more. Trump's win has signaled a shift in the direction of Fascism IMO.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. So what's going to happen with the the large proportion of the populace.........

that's to the left of Trump and Clinton? Do you think they're going to stay in political groupings that don't represent them?

[maxsolomon]

29. One thing that's wrong with your plan

Inertia.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. It's not a "plan", it's an observation and prediction.........

based on my reading of social forces and conditions.