Point of discussion RE: OWS for Reds, pinkos, fellow

[socialist_n_TN]

travelers and, since this is a general post, I guess everybody.

I've seen a lot of posts by folks I trust and even some comrades, that are painting any doubts about OWS as part of a RW blowback. But I must confess as a dedicated commie for 40+ years now (I HOPE nobody thinks I'm a hidden fascist just because of this :)), that I have my doubts too.

I'll give the movement props for what it's done. From the beginning it's made the connection between economics, politics, and power, something that the exploiters try to keep hidden. It HAS turned into a movement, thereby showing the deep distrust and dissatisfaction with the way things are. It laid out a list of systemic grievances that would do any Marxist proud. BUT....

In the rush for "inclusiveness" and "consensus decision making", it's hamstrung itself when it comes to any REAL solutions FOR that list of grievances. How can you be so "inclusive" that you allow the very people who have caused the crisis a say in it's solution? Or their toadies which is the same thing. How can you allow the search for "consensus" to block any real steps toward remediating that fine list of grievances? When a dedicated minority can block any solutions, you'll never reach a solution or even formulate a list of demands that COULD lead to a solution. THAT is the problem with "consensus". Isn't a majority good enough? And shouldn't the focus be on remediation of those grievances moreso than on "inclusiveness" and "consensus"?

And even the platitudes of opposition that it has come up with are just that, platitudes. Take "economic inequality" as an example. Who could be in favor of "economic inequality"? I'm certainly not. Hell, even the Ron Paulbots wouldn't be in favor of "economic inequality". But what does that mean? I KNOW what it means to me. It means a worker's democracy where the working class, either directly or indirectly through the people (government) owns the means of production. That's the ONLY way that I see an end to "economic inequality" and economic injustice. To a Paulbot, ending "economic inequality" would be allowing EVERYBODY to have the "freedom" to stand on their own against the ruling class. In their eyes, that "freedom" for each individual would be enough to give everybody a chance at "economic equality".

So what's your take? These problems with specifics is the primary reason I've taken a "wait and see" attitude towards this movement. Until there's a specific program to remedy those abuses that I'm in, at least, somewhat of an agreement with, I CANNOT be anything BUT lukewarm in support. But it doesn't come from any RW, reactionary, or fascist take on the OWS movement. Just the opposite in fact.

[Warpy]

1. My take is that it's absolutely centrist in its list of grievances

but short on solutions because so many of the participants are naive about what's gone on in the past 40 years regarding the chipping away of regulations that would have prevented this stuff. They're totally naive about the role of taxes in impoverishing workers and fattening plutocrats.

I'm not a red, I'm a pinko, an old labor socialist who thinks capitalism works OK when it's heavily regulated and its harsher effects relieved by a hefty dose of socialism and strong labor unions.

But what do I know...

[socialist_n_TN]

2. Yep the part about the naivete I'm in agreement with

These guys seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel and ignoring the lessons of the past in a lot of areas. An occupation, no matter how long lasting, will not actually move the capitalist class from where they are in any real sense. A list of demands that lead to real solutions would probably narrow the appeal of the "99%", but it would also put the focus on SOLUTIONS rather than the numbers of people. And that's what I always look for and towards, solutions.

[Luminous Animal]

47. What list of grievances? There has been zero list of grievances released.

[MrSlayer]

3. I agree.

If this movement doesn't translate into progressive votes then it is just pissing in the wind. I've had people tell me it's "non-political" and we shouldn't exclude anyone but it doesn't make sense to include people whose goals are diametrically opposed to what is needed to fix our problems. What good does it do us to have Paulites there if they're never going to vote for a progressive candidate? We need to regulate Wall Street heavily, they want to remove ALL regulation from everything. We need to raise taxes, they want to eliminate all taxes. What good would it do to get Republicans out there if they are just going to go back home and vote Republican?

So many people believe in the things we need but do not want to be called liberals or progressives, they don't want to vote for things considered liberal or progressive simply because the titles have been so demonized. We need to convince people that they actually are progressives and that it's nothing to be ashamed of. We need to translate OWS into Occupy the Voting Booth for progressive candidates or nothing can get done. Protests are great and are very important but they are only one spoke on the wheel.

[leftstreet]

4. 'Progressive votes' are meaningless without candidates from the Left

Both parties are so far to the right at this point, we'd need a Communist candidate to even pull the Dems center left.

[MrSlayer]

5. Correct. And that is where we come in.

If the teabaggers can get absolute imbeciles like O'Donnell and Angle a hairsbreadth from the Senate after knocking off establishment candidates in primaries, why can't we do the same thing with intelligent 99% candidates? If the teabaggers "took over" the Republicans and made them even more fascist, why can't 99%ers move the Democrats to the left? We already have a good solid base in there, we need to add to their ranks.

[leftstreet]

6. The Tea Party isn't responsible for those candidates, the inert Left is

Voter apathy and disenfranchisement is high because no candidates represent their interests. People overwhelmingly approve of things like Medicare For All, higher wages, taxing wealth...but where are the candidates?

I understand the point you're making, but to move the Democratic party to the left your 99%er candidates would need to be ballz out Communists.

[MrSlayer]

7. I don't think they need to be communists.

They just need to be real Democrats. FDR style, pro-labor, old school Democrats. We already have some, we need more.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. I agree. The rise in socialist and communist parties

in the 30s led TO the FDR "reforms". IOW, the FDR positions were the middle between the fascist right and the communists. That's what we need now. A communist left. Then, once again, the FDR positions would be middle of the road.

Of course, I'm of mixed feelings about that. The FDR reforms delayed a worker's revolution and convinced two or three generations of average, non political folks, that you can "reform" capitalism. Well you can, but the problem is it doesn't STAY "reformed".

[TBF]

18. Mixed feelings -

yup, it's hard to know which way to go.

I'd love to get a group together to take over the current communist party which is doing nothing. But then again, when Romney takes over in 2012 and issues in mass austerity, then those people occupying are going to be really pissed. I'm not sure which would be a better scenario.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. When it all comes down to it though, as always,

I go back to Trotsky. One of the MOST moving things I ever read was when Trotsky was near the end of his life ('37 or '38) and he got into it over whether a Marxist revolution would INEVITABLY lead to a bureaucratic Stalinist takeover that oppressed the working class as much as the capitalists did. I forget who even proposed it, but Trotsky, who at that time had been a Marxist for 40 years or more, of course, he opposed the thought that it was inevitable. But after arguing vociferously AGAINST it, he said that IF history proved it true, he wanted his followers to ALWAYS BE ON THE SIDE OF THE DISPOSSESSED AND DOWNTRODDEN EVEN IF IT WAS AGAINST A MARXIST BUREAUCRACY! IOW, to his core, he was a Marxist because he thought it was going to be the most benefit for the working class, BUT his base motivation was ALWAYS to be FOR the working class against the oppressors NO MATTER WHO THE OPPRESSORS WERE!

I guess that's where I come down. If it benefits the working class I can't be against it. As to Romney ushering in austerity, whether it's Romney or Obama, if it's one of the bourgeoisie politicians, it won't matter. Either one will usher in austerity. It's coming for us either way.

[white_wolf]

20. I actually considered joining the CPUSA when I was first learning about socialism.

The more I read the more disappointed I was. They seem to have became very establishment types.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Yep. Very bourgeoisie............

Yet also still very Stalinistic, at least as far as organizational model goes. A lot more centralized and a lot less democratic.

[TBF]

23. It looks like some of the local groups may be better - Sam Webb does not impress me. nt

[white_wolf]

30. Sam Webb is a complete sell out. Here is a quote from him that says it all:

The notion of the capitalist class on the one side and the working class on the other may sound "radical," but it is neither Marxist, nor found in life and politics. Pure forms exist in high theory, but nowhere else.

Really Webb?! Someone really needs to remind Webb of this quote from the Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

[TheWraith]

14. Third party candidates don't pull. They push.

A third party left-wing candidate pushes the Democrat to the right. And despite what you believe--which is wrong--the Democrats are the left wing party in this country. You may not like that, but it's reality.

[white_wolf]

15. Oh,please. Only a faction of the democratic party could accurately be called left wing.

The most powerful faction of the party are corporatists on the payroll of Wall Street and other business interests.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. I'm not so sure that translating into progressive votes

will do much. This system is SO screwed up that even voting won't save it. ESPECIALLY, as leftstreet said, there are no candidates that are full on economic populists, socialists, or communists. And those folks won't get the backing necessary to get their message out.

For it to work like we think it should, you have to get the money out of politics. But to get the money out of politics, when the present system is the way it is, you won't get the money to get the money out of politics. Catch-22.

[mmonk]

10. In a propagandized society such as ours, it's quite the miracle

they have pieced together the political/corporate connections of the parties, their suffering and the citizens ignored relationship to it all. It will stay as long as no help comes their way and both parties are budget cutting, free trade, corporate interest zombies conning people into pretending they have their interests at heart while living conditions here do not improve.

[white_wolf]

11. I think the movement has a lot of potential.

I think something they should consider doing is running their own canidates for office. Not democrats,but independent leftist canidates. If I had my preferences this new party's right wing would be made up of Bernie Sanders types.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. LOL! I agree wholeheartedly wolf.........

Bernie as the party's RW. :rofl: That would be a sight to behold!

[TBF]

13. I doubt this group is going to lead a revolution, no doubt about that.

At least not in the near future.

But I do think they've opened a path for resistance, and that is something given this country at this point in history (post 9/11, Patriot Act etc). I don't know if there are any changes they could make, or solutions they could offer, that would be plausible at this point. I'm open to conversation on this for sure, but these are my thoughts at present -

If they say "we want to overthrow capitalism" - then we get Blackwater (Xi whatever they call themselves now..)in the streets

If they say "we want socialist candidates on the ballot" - they may be able to accomplish that, but the media is going to go into a tizzy working against that. Same thing with "we want new banking regulations" or "we want increased wealth distribution".

In fact they may be given a few crumbs if they ask for regulations & taxes ... and then they will be expected to go away quietly and be happy with those crumbs.

I dunno, maybe just hanging out and gathering folks in communities is the way to go. Austerity is coming and it's not going to be pretty and it's going to result in many more folks joining those organizers. Pretty soon we're going to have a lot of folks mobilized - and then maybe we can do more.

:shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Yeah you're right. I don't want to go all left sectarian on OWS

and demand more than they can give at the present time. And I have to keep reminding myself that they're still a young movement, in both senses of the phrase.

I'm just ready for them to take some steps towards actually solving the problems they've outlined. And the only way to go is towards the left side of the spectrum. Anything less and they run the risk of either co-option or inaction.

I'm not ready to call for "All power to the NYC assembly" yet. But I'm ready for them to come out with a concrete proposal for getting money out of politics. Like overturning Citizen's United and public financing of elections. That would be a good start.

[TBF]

17. That would be appropos with the election coming up -

I have a feeling everyone under the sun will come up with a reason why that can't happen, but certainly it is something we all should be talking about.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Emphatic K&R to both this OP and the discussion it has engendered. This

thread has to be one of the best I've read in my many years at DU and I come to it as a supporter of Occupy Los Angeles and OWS. Right now, I'm sleep deprived and feel as if I'm babbling to myself. So I will try to get a good night's sleep and respond to this in more detail tomorrow. I would say that OWS has shifted the terms of conversation from the false bourgeois dialectic of Dem vs. Repuke to the true dialectic of 1% vs. 99%. (I actually think that more accurately it is 20% vs. 80% but it's not my metaphor at play:) No matter how how you slice it, that uncovering of a true dialectic has to represent a signal achievement, I would say. When I see working people in my daily walks (far away from OLA) and I or my wife mention that we and they are part of the 99%, we get people shaking their heads in agreement. Absolutely incredible.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Oh yeah, that's DEFINITELY the main prop I would

give OWS. Hiding that connection between economics, politics, and power is probably THE main job of capitalist propaganda throughout the ages. When that's exposed, everything else falls into place. Including the only solutions that will really work. Of course, building support for those solutions will take time too.

Oh and thanks. :) I just wanted folks to know why I (and I'm sure others) have taken a somewhat tepid approach in support of OWS. It doesn't come from a RW or bourgeoisie support place.

[kctim]

25. "Isn't a majority good enough?"

In a direct democracy, yes. In a representative Republic, no.

Even if the 63 milliion who voted for President Obama supported OWS, that would still not be enough to bring about the changes OWS wants. Sure, it may throw a wrench into the works much like the Tea Party does, but it will take a concentrated joint effort by BOTH sides to get real change.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Which is why I favor the (small "s") soviet system

along with proper safeguards against majority overreach.

[kctim]

27. Aside from the fact of that not happening to this country in our lifetime

Can you not see how hesitation to support based on politics is exactly why OWS has not been, and will not be, as successful as it could be?

[socialist_n_TN]

28. It didn't happen in Tsarist Russia either

at least not until the Bolsheviks took control. The soviets were only a quasi shadow government until then. Although, they did have the support of the majority of Russians of the time, which made that a "dual power" set up. And yes, that unstable dual power actually COULD occur fairly rapidly depending on conditions on the ground. Now, mind you I'm not saying it WILL happen, just that there is a possibility of it happening.

And yes, I see exactly that. Hence my OP. But my lack of support (or more properly tepid support) is NOT based on RW positions or as a defense of the 1%. Instead it's based on the lack of a list of, at least, transitional demands that could lead to solutions to that list of grievances they put out their first week.

[kctim]

32. I understand you are not using RW positions or defending the "1%"

I'm just curious how, if you see your partisan "tepid support" as not being beneficial to OWS, you do not favor something that would be much more effective in getting at least something done, instead of nothing done?
Wouldn't a list of demands dealing with corruption, that would be agreed upon by tens of millions, be more viable than a list of progressive demands desired by a few million progressives?

I'm curious, did the Bolsheviks have a large armed citizenry that was willing to oppose them, no matter what the cost?

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I can see how it is possible to sell social-democracy in America I cannot envision a scenario in

which it would be plausible to sell total socialist economy in America. Very few Americans and really very few people anywhere else fundamentally believe that there is anything wrong with making money by selling or manufacturing provided the selling and manufacturing is creating jobs with livable wages along with goods and service that people actually want to purchase. However this new economy isn't doing very much of either. In fact even the Horatio Alger mythology does not even apply to this new economy. Horatio Alger wrote about poor boys who became wealthy manufacturers and merchants through honesty and hard work. The new economy's path to wealth is closer to the Hedge Fund manager model - characters who skipped over the years of hard work and went straight toward marking enormous sums of money through all kinds of financial shenanigans - and they only survived because the rest of the country bailed them out. Basic American mythology remains supportive of the idea of the Horatio Alger mythological character - someone who makes a fortune but does it in a way that seems fair and square - I think the OWS movement and other manifestations of anger against the system is primarily anger against a system that now appears completely rigged, utterly dishonest and does not create very many jobs. Today's new millionaire and billionaire class are not characters out of Horatio Alger novels or even bare the slightest resemblance - no matter how much one stretched it.

The OWS movement may not be fundamentally socialist even if many socialist may be involved. I doubt that it is a movement that fundamentally views capitalism as evil. It is a movement I believe that views rigged, corrupt and unfair capitalism as evil. The vast majority of American will continue to believe for some time that it is okay to make money - even lots of money. Just be honest and decent about it.

Still the OWS movement is the first time that class struggle has even entered the mainstream of public debate in more than a generation. At the very least the OWS movement appears to be putting the issue of income disparity, poverty, and the corruption of the system into popular discussion.

I once heard someone say that Freudianism never cured anything except ignorance. I tend to feel the same about Marxism. Marxism has offered a brilliant approach to analyzing society and even history. It has created opposition movements that lead to the creation of of countless reforms. The New Deal and the Great Society in America and social-democracy in Europe could not have developed without a great deal of Marxist agitation. But I don't expect to see very many Americans ever embrace it as a system in it own right. When all most people want is the chance to make a decent living and are perfectly happy with the idea of some people becoming rich provided the rags to riches stories sound a bit more like characters who provide good jobs for others in Horatio Alger novels than the selfish sordid sleaze of today's money mangers and investment bankers.

[TBF]

33. You lost me at the "honest and decent".

Capitalism is inherently unequal and rewards behaviors such as over-production and greed. Those are your incentives in the system. You are rewarded only for making as much profit as you can - and that is going to involve profiting off labor and resources. In order for you to profit, in other words, you are going to be taking the resources of others (at the lowest price possible) and subjugating others to labor (at the lowest cost possible again so you can profit). How in the world can you call such a system "honest and decent"?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. whether or not it is possible to make money in capitalism that is honest and decent

is kind of beside the point. It is not possible to sell to the American people or very many people anywhere else the concept of a totally socialist economy. There are very few things I can predict with absolute confidence. But I feel absolutely confident in predicting that total socialism is not sellable to the American people or very many people anywhere else.

But basically, I personally don't have any problem with someone running a store and selling computer supplies, pipe fittings or model trains or whatever. Very few people do. If someone manufactures computer supplies, pipe fittings or model trains and wholesales them to stores or distributes. I don't personally have a problem with that. Very few people do.

So far in the human experience all experiments in totally socialist economies have resulted in systems that could not win the confidence of the vast majority of working class people who live under them and could only sustain power through the bludgeon.

Social democracy although far from perfect has created workable models that did win the confidence of the vast majority of working class people and could do so while maintaining the highest degree of freedom and human rights. Although as we see social democracy is under threat from capitalism run amok. This is the type of capitalism I object to. It is the kind of capitalism most people object to.

[TBF]

35. Thankfully for us our young people, as evidenced by OWS, are less concerned about marketing

than you are. They zeroed in immediately on the fact that 1% of the population owns/controls most of the wealth. What system got us there? Capitalism. You can argue that we've had some socialist societies in which there has been violence against citizens, but how do you justify what America is doing to the Middle East currently? Killing indiscriminantly in the name of oil. How do you justify that we have the highest incarceration rate? How do you justify that we may not kill people directly but are fine with letting them die on the street from lack of housing and health care? How do you justify the Patriot Act which has effectively removed many of our rights? Sorry, I don't see much to be impressed about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. I certainly don't justify any of those things and I completely support the OWS movement

Just a couple nights ago I sent them a donation and I look forward to supporting them in every way possible. Opposing American policy in the Middle East is something I have done to the point of exhaustion. The OP said their support is lukewarm. Mine is not. I support this wonderful new movement 100%.

[TBF]

37. That we can agree on -

I support the occupations as well. Conditions will dictate how fast and how much change we will ultimately see, but at least someone is resisting and they have focused the discussion on class. They score big points from me just for the focus on economics rather than getting sucked into myriad other issues. Media and other apologists will try to twist it every which way, but 1%-99% is pretty clear and something average people can relate to and agree with. I am excited to see where this leads and cautioning myself to be patient at the same time.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. yes we can agree.. The OWS movement has made me feel optimist for the first time in a long time ,

[a la izquierda]

31. K & R- I wholeheartedly agree...

and I've got the same concerns.
My other concerns stem from extreme social radicalism on the right.

[blindpig]

39. Thay oughta be sayin' something like this..

This is a speech by Aleka Papariga, GS of the KKE, the Greek Communist Party, delivered a couple months ago.

No more blackmails. We will respond with our actions. No more blackmails. Enough is enough. For too long the people have taken into their account these extortions. The blackmailer will never stop here. If you give him something today, he will come tomorrow asking for more. Have you ever seen a blackmailer to willingly stop asking for more? If we succumb then our People will pay the price. We, KKE, will never allow to ourselves to let the Greek workers succumb who have long traditions in struggling in the factories, in the ports, at the streets and his struggles are now well known through Europe

What type of authority can deny the Debt without punishment and retaliation or what type of government can deal with the retaliation (because it is certain that they will retaliate) by mobilizing all the developmental forces of the country and people's participation? Power of the People and capitalistic ownership are 100% incompatible. We say: Only the government of the People's Power can liberate the country from EU restrictions, from the bonds of Imperialism, from the restrictions of private capitalistic ownership. The socialization and the cooperative production centrally organized together in national scale based on worker's checking of the production from the bottom to the top, will become the propulsive force for a development which will abolish unemployment, the anarchy of capitalistic development and will distribute the working force and all means of production to different branches of production. One part of the social product will be distributed by measuring the time needed for the production of this product and the other part of the social product such as Education, Health, House accommodation, Medicines, Energy, water etc will be distributed according to the social needs.

If we assume that tomorrow PASOK loses the power (something we obviously want) and it is replaced by the government of the self-proclaimed progressive leftist forces who are fantasizing that they can renegotiate the Debt and annul the Memorandum with Troika. If they annul the Memorandum without even touching the ownership of monopolies, they wont succeed anything else but to help Monopolies to regroup and counterattack while the People, unprepared for this event and disoriented, will be demoralized. At that point will will see again the kettle movement. They, the supporters of such a government, should tell us in which country a policy like that managed to win and stopped things from going back. It is one thing to lose the power or not become a government because of negative situations and something else to have the working class quit from the effort of taking the power. The fact that we now are presenting to the people the question of who should take the power, doesnt make us forget the problems of the unemployed, the pensioner and the self-employed. On the contrary, the question of power will help the people to counterattack now, to carry out his struggle as effectively as possible.

The bourgeois class of Greece is preparing with the participation in the new round of peripheral armed conflicts. We are asking: They are preparing. Shouldn't we, the working class, the people, to be prepared, now, fast and effectively ideologically and politically? Or will we let those in power, unharmed and undistracted to overtake their difficulties and make the political system more barbaric, more authoritative and more oppressive? The emancipation of the people is closely related to the struggle for blockading the new measures, no matter if they are of social democratic or liberal origin.

We are calling the people to stop paying the unjust taxes. This is the response to government's threats that we will experience hellish conditions in the next two month. To the “hellish months” that the government is promising us, we respond : We must make the life of the government and Troika a real living hell. We will make the life of the monopoly a real hell. How long the people will have to put up with such extortions: “Pay or die slowly”. Are we going to leave those who cant pay the taxes embodied in the electricity bills or the people who cant pay their loans to lose their own houses or to be sent to jail? We are supporting, we are encouraging and we are participating in an pan-hellenic movement organized by the trade unions, the massive organizations of women and the youth, the people's committees. We are supporting any movement who denies the payment of government's unjust taxation.

We are obliged to fight against our known weaknesses and deficiencies so we can manage to turn the dissatisfaction of the big part of the working class into a decision of organized, planned struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeois power for the benefit of the working class and its allies. Because the people's economy will declare public property all the wealth that our country really has, will exploit all the developmental perspective for the benefit of the people's prosperity without dependences from EU and NATO.

[Imajika]

41. And other than words, what are the Greek communist accomplishing?

They backed protests that have achieved absolutely nothing in the face of deep, massively unpopular austerity. And if the current Socialist party falls, it won't be the Greek communist party that replaces them.

Communism has failed everywhere. It doesn't work and will never work. A social democratic movement with a mixed, well regulated economy is something that actually works and could even gain significant traction in the United States one day. Communism won't - at least not for a few more generations until people perhaps completely forget what an utter failure of an ideology its been in the past.

As for the OP, what matters is if OWS drives/moves public opinion. Nothing else. It's all about votes. If OWS has an effect at the ballot box - even at the margins, it will have been a success. If it doesn't or somehow manages to create a negative reaction to progressive causes, it will have been a failure. There is nothing else, it's all about the votes. Everything else is feel good nonsense.

[socialist_n_TN]

42. Emma Goldman said

If voting did anything, it would be illegal.

[white_wolf]

43. Voting only changes things when a democratic system is allowed to function properly.

It can't function properly under capitalism, capitalism always strangles democracy in the cradle if given the chance. You can either have democracy or capitalism, but you cannot have both. That is the great flaw in Liberalism. You cannot have political democracy without economic democracy.

[Imajika]

44. So your proposing dictatorship?

Which is not surprising considering it is exactly what communism produces. Sounds like your well on your way down that path already.

[white_wolf]

45. Great way to miss the point of his post and Emma's words.

What Emma Goldman meant was that we pretty much already live in a dictatorship, because all of the canidates we vote for represent the elites instead of us. She is saying if voting actually could bring about real change to the system they(the ruling class) would outlaw it.

[Imajika]

48. And? Should people be able to vote for whoever they want or not?

Or do you think a totalitarian government with a Politburo should make all our decisions?

Given a choice, people are not going to vote for your communist policies. It's just not going to happen. The only way to put communism in place is by force and ever increasing levels of coercion to retain the system.

That is the problem with communists. At the end of the day, the only way you can create your utopia is via oppression because the masses won't go for it.

CPUSA is free to run candidates every election cycles - their problem is hardly anyone votes for them. If you don't like the "elites", your free to vote for someone else - and so can every American.

[white_wolf]

49. " If you don't like the "elites", your free to vote for someone else - and so can every American."

Yeah, you are free to vote for them, but you know as well as I do that the system is set up to ensure that only canidates who won't rock the boat too much are elected. Oh, and if you want to see what socialism was as described by Marx himself, look no further than the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat and was far more democratic than our so called democracy.

[Imajika]

50. No thanks to any dictatorship of the proletariat...

...or any other kind of dictatorship.

When people are fed up enough they will vote in major changes. It has happened before and it will happen again. FDR was a good example, and a good model of the kind of Democratic leadership I would like to see going forward. An unabashed progressive who took his fight directly at the bankers and wealthy elite. Democracy with checks and balances is slow to change by design, but when a great majority of people decide it is time for a change it will happen. Just better hope that change is in our direction. As things stand now, I am not so sure the tide of history in this country will be to the left. While I do very much like President Obama and will vote for him again, in some ways I think we might just be in one of those "big change" moments and it is much easier for the right to take advantage of it while someone from the left, albeit very center left, is in office.

Anyway, while I disagree with much that you say, I do want to say I enjoy reading your posts. One of the great things about DU is the different perspectives available here.

[white_wolf]

51. I agree, it is good that we can civilly disagree.

I should point out that I think you are misinterpreting the term dictatorship in this case. Not that it is your fault, it is an outdated term and I prefer the term "Workers democracy" since it is a better description of what Marx meant. Marx never meant for it to be like the Soviet Union, in his view capitalist democracy was a dictatorship itself, it was a class dictatorship. Like I said Marx considered the Paris Commune to be a true dictatorship of the proletariat. As to FDR, he did do a lot of good, but don't forget if people weren't out in the streets the New Deal would never have been passed. All in all, I'm very curious to see where OWS goes. I really hope the succeed. God knows we need to do something.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. What? You like the dictatorship of capital?

Cause that what we've got and it's going to get more blatant as the capialists get farther away from restraint.

[socialist_n_TN]

46. Of the proletariat, the truest form of democracy there is

A whole lot more democratic than the dictatorship of capital.

[blindpig]

52. Social Democrats consistently side with the bourgeoisie.

Communism has stumbled but we learn from our mistakes. It is not surprising that the monumental achievements are blithely ignored by those who would defend the status quo. Capitalism took 600 years to achieve dominance, we're just getting started.

PAME put 700,000 in the streets of Athens last Wednesday, that is how you build a people's movement. What have the ultra leftists to show in comparison? They seem more interested in internecine strife than fighting the ruling class.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. I'm not sure it is the responsibility of OWS to provide 'solutions' or

come up with a 'specific program . . .' By the same token, though, I understand why your support must remain lukewarm in the absence of such a program. Occupy Los Angeles, for example, is only 25 days old today and already its 'Demands and Objectives' committee has reported out a preliminary list of demands, most of which I feel confident you would support 100%.

These first steps are slow, uncertain and faltering, kind of like a baby's first steps. I think it is entirely appropriate to take a 'wait and see' position. But I want to encourage everyone who can to visit one of the encampments in person. My wife and I have found the experience moving in the extreme, almost like we are living through a 3rd American Revolution.