Socialist Equality Party announces US presidential campaign

[RBHam]

Socialist Equality Party announces US presidential campaign

excerpt:
In launching this campaign, the Socialist Equality Party is completely realistic. We understand very well that our candidates will, in the present situation, win only a limited number of votes. But the purpose of our campaign is to raise the level of political debate within the United States and internationally, to break out of the straitjacket of right-wing bourgeois politics and present a socialist alternative to the demagogy and lies of the establishment parties and the mass media. Our campaign is not about votes. It is about ideas and policies.

The Socialist Equality Party will use the elections as an opportunity to develop a serious discussion on the social and political crisis, and lay down the programmatic foundations for the building of a mass movement for a revolutionary transformation of American society.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[youngred]

1. In any other year

I would be looking at them as seriously as any other candidate.

I wish them luck and will see them on the other side of a Dem 2004 win.

Thanks for sharing this, glad to see that class politics isnt completely dead in the US

[David__77]

2. ...formerly the Workers League.

These are Trotskyite sectarians. They are the death knell for left and socialist movements. I'm sure they'll garner all of 2,000 votes nationally. Interestingly, though, I think that Workers World Party candidate Monica Moorehead received considerably more than 1,000 in Florida in 2000.

[Iverson]

31. thanks for the heads up

The last thing I recall about the Workers League is that they were incredibly strident.

[lucidmadman]

3. If....

...on election day 2004 it seems a total shoe-in for the DP candidate I may vote for this guy. I always vote for a Socialist (or sometimes a Green) when the Dem is a fait accompli (sp?). I guess I'm a 'red dog democrat'...or sometimes a 'green dog democrat'.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

4. End of private ownership and Capitalism...hmmm

I must admit, if you like equality, making everyone in America destitute, homeless and jobless is one way to go. :)

Hope your not trying to make the DU look bad here. I'm kinda new but haven't seen anything like this before. The SEP is the kinda party that could turn me into a Repug :( (not a shrub voting one however) :)

[David__77]

5. I think you misunderstand...

The posting does not endorse the "socialist" campaign, it merely points it out--there are many news items posted here. I doubt there are many "Socialist Equality Party" supporters on DU, or in the US as a whole for that matter.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

6. Good to hear

I'm stepping back and taking a deep breath now. sigh :)


I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm a die-hard Democrat, but socialism talk makes those little hairs on the back of my neck do a dance. :)

[IrateCitizen]

8. That's rather knee-jerk of you, don't you think?

What exactly is it that makes those hairs stand up for you? Is it the belief that workers should control their own destiny? Is it the belief that natural resources are a "commons" that should not be exploited for the profit of a few (no matter the long-term cost), but rather be stewarded for use by future generations?

May I suggest that you take some time and read through the following site: http://www.dsausa.org. Granted, we're not talking hard-core Trotskyites here -- but they just might smash some of your preconceived notions about what socialism is and what it stands for.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

10. Not knee-jerk at all

I think the world has seen enough death, destruction, and starvation due to communism and socialism.
Workers can best control their destiny, by having the freedom to change jobs, get a reasonably priced education, joining a union. Not by demanding the right to someone else's property. Remember, the smallest minority in the world is the individual.
Maybe you should google capitalism magazine or Ayn Rand, sorry, don't know how to post link.

The environment in it's only logical context, means a human environment.

[info being]

13. Everything you're describing is Socialism

- Freedom to change jobs (Capitalists would rather use slave labor if they could)
- Education
- Unions

So you're arguing that because of Socialist Policy we don't need Socialism. You see the flaw?

[Wonco_the_Sane]

18. capitalist don't want slave labor, Socialist do.

Unions are a bargaining tool. Capitalist need (promote) competition for the most knowledgeable and productive workforce possible.
Education is your tool to compete. (Private schools are more successful than public) ...almost everything private is better.

[info being]

22. LOL

Look, I took Econ 101 too...but then I experienced the real world. Yes...customer service is oftentimes better when private...but please try to see the bigger picture.

Private = hidden agendas
Public = public will

The problem with our society, of course, is there really is no Public because Private has taken over all of our institutions.

[info being]

23. ..and another thing!

- True education is more than a tool to compete in the workforce. Critical thinking and knowledge for knowledge's sake is much more important in my book.

- Unions are a "collective" bargaining tool. The more citizens unite against private power, the better off we are collectively. Socialist policy is the politics of collective bargaining.

Who are you cheering for anyway? Unless you are millionaire you're rooting for the wrong team. They got you so enthused and confused with this propaganda that you're supporting things that are not in your best interest.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Ayn Rand? You've got to be kidding!!!

I've checked out Ayn Rand. She's a complete nutcase whose followers actively embrace the idea of corporate hegemony. If you're looking to be taken seriously, you'd better come up with a better source than Ayn Rand!

Workers can best control their destiny, by having the freedom to change jobs, get a reasonably priced education, joining a union. Not by demanding the right to someone else's property.

Agreed completely. Perhaps if you had bothered to check out the link I supplied you with (rather than simply dismissing my point without engaging my argument, the very definition of knee-jerk), you would realize that DSA stands for all of these things as well. The problem is, allowing the holders of capital to amass power directly results in an inability for workers to do those things.

The environment in it's only logical context, means a human environment.

Huh? Is it the human environment from which we breathe the air, drink the water, and grow the food which we need to survive? I'd suggest you check out The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki for another view -- one that is more accurate, IMHO. Humans believe that, since we are the only species capable of controlling our environment, that we are separate from it. Quite inaccurate. We are STILL a part of it, and it is a part of us. Whatever damage we inflict on the environment, inevitably we inflict on ourselves.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

25. Last post for me

I gotta go to class. :(

Any system that advocates the destruction of private property, will lead to abuse IMHO. You make some good points and I will check out Suzuki, when I get a chance. For the record I am not a "follower" of Ayn Rand, or anyone else and don't intend ever to be. Some of her books are well written, and I respect her viewpoint as someone who has lived in Russia as it turned more and more socialistic, as well as America. You are right that many protections of workers (and students) have a socialist base. You never addressed however the starvation and destruction that inevitably occur when liberty and property are taken by the government in the name of "the people". It is a tragic and well documented history, that's what makes my hair stand up. I'm happy to live in a country that still respects property, and my right to whatever success my talents will bring me as an individual. To much war and waste is done in the name of the masses.

I wish you luck and happiness, but gotta go for now.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Now it's starting to come together.

You say you have to go to class right now. How old are you then? How much information have you absorbed outside of your standard educational environment?

I'm 30 now. When I look back to when I was in school, I can honestly say that I have learned 20 times as much about the world around me than I did during my years in college. And the vast majority of it was learned on my own.

If you hang around here long enough, and are willing to have an open mind, something will click for you that will make you reconsider everything you once believed to be true. For me, that happened about 3-4 years ago and I haven't looked back since -- except to wonder what in the hell I was thinking back then! :D

[info being]

32. Exactly...

He reminds me of myself when I was his age. I'm 29.

[info being]

30. And another rebuttal just for kicks

- Socialism does not advocate the destruction of private property. Now you're just making stuff up. On the other hand, capitalists advocate the destruction of the earth and the livelihood of people and cultures for the purpose of property. And what is property anyway but a concept made up by the European ruling class? The Native Americans had no concept of the ownership of land...and when you think about it...that is the logical position. How can a human own the earth? We're all in this together and we have to figure out how to get along.

- I like your sense of independence...but we are all followers of something. You are spouting the words of your textbooks and your economics professor...so sorry I have to call you on that one. I have an MBA (from a great Public School by the way) so I know something about the propaganda that goes on in business school.

- There's a balance to things. You cannot succeed in isolation...you owe a little gratitude to everyone who helped you and worked with you along the way...teachers, parents, taxpayer. Let's put you in the middle of the wilderness with nothing and see how much success you enjoy.

And so it is only natural that you owe SOMETHING back to society when you have taken so much and used it to your own advantage.

[ret5hd]

17. And we haven't seen nearly enough death, destruction, and starvation...

due to capitalism and fascism, right?

The Ayn Rand utopia of exploitation and death to the unfit is what "raises the hair on the back of my neck" (oh wait, they are raising right now, and have been for years).

and anyone that believes ayn rand is a viable candidate for their personal philosopher makes my nose hairs curl.

[info being]

20. I think Rand, or Econ 101 for that matter creates so many loyal followers

Because it puts a sort of theory behind what we see happening in our society...and so suddenly everything makes so much sense. But later in life one learns to think about causality...because those in power believe in these priciples, they create a society that adheres to these principles...there's nothing inevitable or universally true about it. But for someone who's never spent time outside this country, how would you know the difference?

That said...I believe in free markets with socialist policy as a sort of referee.

[info being]

12. I echo that.

Everything we consider good about this country is Socialist...equal rights, equal opportunity, decent work standards, it goes on and on. Socialist policy as a response to raging Capitalism is what made this country great. Strong Socialism vs. Raging Capitalism creates an ideal balance. OK, I'm just making this shit up.

[cryofan]

11. you've been well-programmed!

(((pats Wonco on head)))

[Wonco_the_Sane]

15. Programmed??

I won't be condescending to you, we just disagree. That is all. History is filled with the graves of group-think socialist. Capitalism is the only wealth creating system ever. It's not perfect, needs help, but works the best in the long run.

[IrateCitizen]

19. And therein lies its eventual death-knell...

Capitalism is the only wealth creating system ever.

That's all well and good if the creation and accumulation of wealth is your foremost concern. It is not for me. There are many things I would place above it, to include:

1. Stewardship of natural resources for future generations
2. Helping each member of society to maximize his/her own potential
3. Creating a society in which cooperation is encouraged over cutthroat competition
4. Creating a society in which the well-being of people is valued before financial profit

History is filled with the graves of group-think socialist.

It is also filled with quite a few victims of capitalism, as well. For some examples, I'd suggest you read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. For a more modern version, you can read some of former USMC Commandant Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler's work, which you can find HERE.

I apologize if you feel that people are being condescending to you, but there is a tendency among us to pounce on those who repeat the age-old catch phrase defenses of unfettered capitalism without engaging in a deeper debate. Your best defense is to prove them wrong by showing an open mind and actively discussing the evidences that some of us (myself included) have brought to your attention.

[info being]

24. Or in short...

Quality of life vs. Standard of living

I don't care if have 10 cars if my quality of life sucks.

[David__77]

26. Capitalism is not the only wealth-producing system.

That's simply not true. The Soviet Union certainly produced wealth, as does Cuba today. Many would argue that these examples are actually capitalist, but that's a small faction. The question I think you're getting at is that of which economic system produces most efficiently. That's different. I think that I have little use for the terms "socialism" and "capitalism." We certainly don't have pure capitalism--a large percentage of our GDP is public sector. Markets are controlled not let run wild in this country. People get as imbued in "capitalist" and "market" mythology in this country as people did in "socialist" and "planning" mythology in the former Soviet Union.

It's dogma just the same.

[TSElliott]

16. Agreed...

Socialism where everyone is equally miserable.

[IrateCitizen]

21. Which, after all, is so much worse than unfettered capitalism...

... in which almost everyone is thoroughly miserable except for a few who do extraordinarily well.

Sorry, but I'm a big believer in the philosophy of MLK, when he said, "I cannot be what I ought to be until you become what you ought to be. Likewise, you can never become what you ought to be until I can become what I ought to be."

TRANSLATION: Individual humans can never truly prosper (in a complete sense) unless they are willing to cooperate together to advance their collective cause.

[TSElliott]

27. Well then I am doing extraordinarily well...

And I do not want to trade that in for misery thank you.

[IrateCitizen]

28. While I see you addressed by sarcastic generalization...

I notice you did not touch my MLK quote with a 10-foot pole. Care to comment on it at all, or do you not have anything with which to come back.

BTW -- while you may be doing extraordinarily well (as am I), our "capitalist" system does not work without the keeping-down of literally billions of people in developing nations around the world upon whom we depend for cheap labor and natural resources.

[TSElliott]

33. I did not touch the quote because I do not agree with it.

I have no obligation to ensure that everyone is equal when it comes to income. Matter of fact it's my obligation to make as much money as possible so I can help support my government. 50% of my income currently goes to taxes thus the more I make the more money goes to help others.

Capitalism will help developing countries through supply and demand of workers. Yes if there is only 1 sweat shop in a country they can get away with treating employees however they want, but soon there will be more sweat shops and they will have to compete for employees by offering better salaries, benefits and perks.

[IrateCitizen]

34. I really don't know where to begin with you

I have no obligation to ensure that everyone is equal when it comes to income.

This statement evidences that you have absolutely no idea what the quote was about. It's not about INCOME. It's about a recognition that we, as individuals, cannot achieve the maximum of our potential unless we are willing to work cooperatively and help each other out. Income has nothing to do with it. Ensuring that the basic necessities of life are provided for all while providing opportunity and reinforcing a caring attitude toward each other IS a large part of it.

Matter of fact it's my obligation to make as much money as possible so I can help support my government. 50% of my income currently goes to taxes thus the more I make the more money goes to help others.

Actually, approximately 50% of your federal taxes goes directly to the military or to the interest on past wars. So, while this money may directly help military contractor shareholders, it really doesn't produce any positive benefit for those on the receiving end of the weaponry. Additionally, a significant portion of the money you contribute in taxes goes directly to programs that more greatly benefit the already well-off. For example, the biggest portions of the transportation budgets go to constructing and maintaining roads in more affluent areas, while public transit is left to whither on the vine.

When you get down to it, it is actually a quite small percentage of your tax dollars that go toward helping the less fortunate.

Capitalism will help developing countries through supply and demand of workers. Yes if there is only 1 sweat shop in a country they can get away with treating employees however they want, but soon there will be more sweat shops and they will have to compete for employees by offering better salaries, benefits and perks.

Do you really believe this? Do you ever look at how uneven trade relations are between the North and South? We dump our subsidized agricultural products, which undermines their farmers -- but we insist on tariffs on their products. We force them to accept financial market liberalization, which causes big profits for Wall St. but causes their economy to eventually collapse. We preach fiscal austerity to them while doing the exact opposite. Your statement on this issue belies a true ignorance on it. If you would be interested, I'd be happy to recommend some books and/or web sites to help clarify your understanding of the details, which is, after all, where the devil is.

[economic justice]

7. SEP, formerly Workers League = Political CULT <eom>

[Kanary]

9. I'm angry enough with the Dems I could consider it

There are probably about 25 people here at DU who have concern about issues affecting poor folks, and it has yet to be an issue in the Dem presidential campaign.

Since that means I've lost anyway, no matter what happens, my vote for a Socialist candidate is about as beneficial for *ME* as a vote for a Dem.

Don't bother to flame me. I've posted many times about poverty issues, and if you couldn't bother to reply to that, then you don't need to get out your flame thrower.

Kanary, just saying it like it is and like thousands of other poor folk see it.