Can The Democratic Party Be Moved To The Left?

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
March 25, 2005

You Ain't a-Goin' Nowhere
Can the Democrats be Moved to the Left?
By LANCE SELFA

Perhaps the closest a movement has come to transforming the Democratic Party came in the 1930s with the eruption of the industrial union movement in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The Democrats were revived as an electoral vehicle and a tool for capitalist rule as the Roosevelt administration, in the depths of the Great Depression, devised a program to save the system.

The new labor movement quite quickly became an appendage of a pro-business party--one that helped get out the working-class vote while burying or watering down working-class demands in the interests of "party unity." Until the civil rights movement, that meant unity with the right-wing Dixiecrat rulers of the U.S. South, who hated organized labor almost as much as civil rights for Blacks.

This logic affected almost all the main labor leaders of the era--including United Auto Workers (UAW) President Walter Reuther, who once confessed that the UAW could have taken over the Michigan Democratic Party, but refrained from doing so because it wanted to keep the party's middle-class and business supporters. So for years, labor remained the Democrats' most loyal backers, but got little of its agenda--from national health care to repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act--considered.

No one can realistically compare today's PDA with the CIO of the 1930s and '40s. But that's precisely the point. If the most powerful working-class movement in U.S. history couldn't transform the Democratic Party, how can a few thousand liberal activists--whose preferred 2004 presidential candidates (Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean) couldn't win a Democratic primary--hope to?

http://www.counterpunch.org/selfa03252005.html

[davidinalameda]

1. the left has no place in the Democratic Party

The so-called leadership of the party from Dean, Reid, Pelosi on down have sold us out.

They're willing to trade basic civil rights, the party's traditional defense of the environment, education, etc for votes. And we've all seen what becoming Republican lite has done for the party--it's led to two straight presidential losses; loss of House and Senate seats

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vpigrad]

3. The republican-lite party will never be powerful

When you don't give people a reason to vote for you, they're not going to. There's no surprise there.

[adwon]

4. Not to the author's left

Nor should it be. The Democratic party is not, nor should it be, a vehicle for pleasing the Socialist Worker. I'm not saying this as knee-jerk reaction, I'm saying this because the vast majority of communists and socialists continue to view the world through 19th century glasses. While some of their ideas can be valid, their overall viewpoint is not. The failure of socialism has nothing to do with incentive, it has to do with safeguards. Socialism is incapable of setting proper safeguards necessary for any kind of freedom. One purchases economic security at the expense of political freedom. That's too much to ask.

[Itsthetruth]

5. Not Really

Is that what's going on in Venezuela? I don't think so.

And if you check the past history of authentic socialists in the United States you will discover they have been among the foremost advocates and defenders of democratic freedoms and our Bill of Rights. They have also been among the first victims of those right-wing forces that have subverted and attacked our liberties and freedoms.

I'm not writing about Stalinists and neo-Stalinists who falsely proclaimed and in many cases believed that the old Soviet Union and China under Mao were somehow "democratic" socialist governments. They were not.

[adwon]

6. Not quite

One of the great tenets of socialist thought, historically, has been that all will be free to do anything: except question the revolution. That's the most dangerous of tenets for any ideology to hold.

I'm skeptical of Chavez's claims for the simple fact that he's playing an old game in Latin America. He uses the US as a foil to point out the virtues of his revolution. This is an old story that all Latin American demogogues use at some point or another. Will Hugo do something positive for his country? One can hope, though, historically speaking, it's a triumph of hope over experience.

By the way, if Huge does transform Venezuela into a 'worker's paradise,' it will be because of the historical accident of oil reserves. With those resources, he can afford to play the socialism game.

The problem with democratic socialism is that it ignores the fact that the two traditions exist in permanent tension. The essence of a democracy is competing interests balanced against each other. This is a very good thing. If the interests are balanced somewhat equally, then it becomes very difficult for one to impose its will on the other. Socialism does not balance interests. It supercedes them and sets one faction above the other. This is inherently tyrannical, no matter how benovolent.

I'm not saying don't use certain socialist ideas. I'm saying don't buy into the whole program. Obviously, they come up with winners sometimes. I haven't forgotten that disability and old age insurance were platforms of the US Socialist Party in the period before WW1. I am just inherently suspicious of giving any group of people complete control over anything, no matter how well-meaning.

[Itsthetruth]

7. Not Accurate

One of the great tenets of socialist thought, historically, has been that all will be free to do anything: except question the revolution."

I have never considered that to be tenet of socialist thought, much less a great one!

And the socialists I have known never wanted complete control "over everything". Rather than that they have proposed that the great majority of people ought to be in direct control of the economy and goverment via democratic institutions.

Your entire statement is a vulgar and crude misrepresentation of what democratic socialists have believed and have fought for. Perhaps you just are not familiar with that history.

Perhaps who want to find out what traditional and authentic socialists stand for and their history are advised to go the source for that information. Anti-socialists cannot always be relied upon for objective and factual information in that regard. Who can explain what socialists believe better than socialists?

And as you probably understand, I'm not suggesting that people will find out the truth about socialism from those who have defended and justified the repression of workers and democractic rights in the misnamed "socialist states" like the old Soviet Union and People's Republic of China.

[adwon]

9. I am familiar with it

Ok, let me be clear.

It depends on which socialist tradition we're talking about. If we're talking about the Marx-influenced tradition, that one is morally bankrupt. That is the tradition that's inherently tyrannical because of its emphasis on retribution and bloodshed.

There is the other non-Marxist tradition that dates back from the late 18 century, I believe. That line of thought was a little weird, from my perspective, but not inherently violent. This one I am not as well versed as I'd like, but it has never been important enough (for my purposes) to study.

Let's assume for a moment that America became a socialist democracy. Would this address the underlying problems of inequality in America? Not likely. Socialists address economic problems at the expense of political freedom. Would such a government allow patries in favor of capitalism to form freely and run for office? I have to doubt that because, unlike capitalism, socialism is a combination political/economic ideology. It requires mastery over both arenas in order to function. In order to gain such mastery, the inhibition of certain freedoms seems likely. Why? The fact that there will be resistance to the nationalization of private property. The fact that American law will require a wholesale rewriting in order to accomodate such a regime. These are not idle concerns.

I'd be curious to see examples of authentic socialists. The only group I can think of off the top of my head was the old Labour party in Britain. There was no doubt that they were socialists, but not of the Lenin-Stalin-Mao stripe.

[Selatius]

13. Capitalism cannot exist without the state enforcing property law

There is a difference between personal possessions and capital. Capital would be the things you own to generate profits. It's the factory that you own, or it's the mineral resources or timber land that you own, or it's the farm land you own to grow crops and sell for a profit. It's the rent you charge people for using a home you own. Personal possessions would be more like your clothes, car, and house, stuff you use for your own utility, or it's the land you use to grow crops to feed yourself and your family.

You have a right to personal property, but you have no right to own capital at the expense of everyone else. There is no point in arguing that a person who, for example, owns 1,000,000 acres of land as his own personal play place has a right to do so.

Is it justified that the resources that everyone should have access to belongs to only a few who charge the rest for it? You think it's fair that the radio waves were sold off to the likes of Clear Channel? You think it's fair that only a few corporations get to control the majority of the television stations in the US? In my opinion, that is not fair. That is exploitative, and it is a form of tyranny.

You are confusing state socialism with anarcho-socialism.

The kind of socialism I advocate is not along the lines of Marxist-Leninist state socialism or even bona fide authoritarian socialism but of libertarian socialism (aka anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism). One term to make it clearer is "voluntary socialism" or "laissez-faire socialism." That is, in the absence of the state or the capitalist system the state props up, socialism will inevitably emerge as a natural consequence.

When two or more people come together and pool their resources under the mutual agreement that this is for their survival or wellbeing without any outside authority forcing them to (Stalinism or Maoism) or any of the involved parties forcing the others to do so through terror or intimidation or physical violence, that would be a form of libertarian socialism. It is socialism without the state or the dangers inherent with the state: Namely the concentration of decision-making power into the hands of the few as was seen in the Soviet Union.

Anarcho-socialism or libertarian socialism is the democratic administration of resources for the benefit of all by all involved in a highly democratic manner. State socialism be it democratic or authoritarian is the administration of resources "for the benefit of all" according to the few who hold decision-making power, and I put the words in quotations because that's not necessarily true, and it's even less true if the people with decision-making power are not elected. One need only study the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Stalinists, and others throughout history to see why.

The point is without the state enforcing property law on the people, capitalism as a system would collapse. It cannot exist without the state imposing its will. If a person came up to you and said that he wants to start a business that'll generate 100 dollars an hour and he wants to give you 30 while he keeps 70, would you take the offer if given the choice? No, you probably wouldn't, especially if someone else came up to you and wanted to split the profits with you 50-50. It is a crude example; I know, but I hope it demonstrates the point. With the state enforcing property laws and corporations and private policing entities actively working to prevent organization of the people against capitalism, you have no realistic choice. Either you take that lop-sided offer, or you starve and have your home and possessions taken away.

You can go here and read about libertarian socialism:

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

A more in-depth view can be found here. Here you can read about examples of anarcho-socialism arising despite state repression or fascist or communist terror:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/anarchic

This star in my signature represents libertarian socialism.

[adwon]

16. I'm curious

Why is there no point in arguing that someone who owns 1m acres as a 'personal play place?' That seems like a silly argument.

Let's say I own 1m acres as my personal 'play place.' The odds of me occupying every square inch of it and putting it to some kind of practical use are nil. Further, let's assume that since I am unable to actually, as opposed to constructively, possess the entire parcel, other people move in, unknown to me, and claim parts of the land for their own. If I miss this intrusion for a certain period of years, guess what? I don't own the parts they took anymore. It's called adverse possession.

The radio waves were claimed by government, but were not owned by anyone. Fiat is what made them government-owned, not natural right. This is the same reason that the US government owns all the rivers in the US (except in Texas). The law said it was so because it deemed to be good for public policy. The law could be repealed overnight and it would be legal as hell.

The assumption that capitalism, which is practiced nowhere except black markets, is propped up by property rights is correct, but the distinction between personal property and real property is spurious. What of money? Money, in the modern era, is the real capital. Money is what makes investments possible. Does this mean that no one has a claim to money since it can be used to make more money?

The idea that socialism can flourish in the absence of law is also spurious. There always has to be an entity to resolve the inevitable disputes. Socialism is not inevitable in the absence of law. Anarchy is the much more likely result.

The example of 70/30 and 50/50 is overly simplistic. If someone offers me 70/30 and I work significantly less than 50/50, I just might take the 70/30 so that I have time for other interests. I might take the 70/30 because it exposes me to less personal liability. For a true hypothetical, many more facts need to be present to make an honest evaluation.

The assumption that corporations are inherently evil is also overly simplistic. Even an anarcho-socialist regime would require some means of organization to carry out the designated wishes of the electorate. The limited liability corporation is not a bad means of organizing large scale ventures. It is just a tool. As with any other tool, be it socialism or democracy, it can be abused and put to bad use.

I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the history of commune-style communities in history. They generally have a short life span and are gone within a generation. Why is that? I don't pretend to have an answer, but this was true even in the 19th century. Even then, when it was still possible to literally get away from it all, communes collapsed under their own weight.

[Selatius]

39. This might take a while. We're talking past each other.

Why is there no point in arguing that someone who owns 1m acres as a 'personal play place?' That seems like a silly argument.

On reflection, it is silly after all, but the question is could you justify one person owning such a huge amount of land for any purpose? Do you need that much land to live?

Further, let's assume that since I am unable to actually, as opposed to constructively, possess the entire parcel, other people move in, unknown to me, and claim parts of the land for their own. If I miss this intrusion for a certain period of years, guess what? I don't own the parts they took anymore. It's called adverse possession.

A real life example is Ted Turner who owns roughly 1,600,000 acres of land across the states of Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and South Dakota as his own personal ranches. As far as I know, he has no problem holding onto that land, much less have problems marking the land as private property. Your argument is only true if he does not mark his territory or even patrol it for any length of time such that trespassers and squatters would be able to claim adverse possession after several years of being unnoticed by Turner himself or his staff.

The radio waves were claimed by government, but were not owned by anyone. Fiat is what made them government-owned, not natural right. This is the same reason that the US government owns all the rivers in the US (except in Texas). The law said it was so because it deemed to be good for public policy. The law could be repealed overnight and it would be legal as hell.

While all this is true, I don't think it's fair that only a few firms are allowed to dominate the air waves at the expense of diversity of opinion.

In my mind, I believe there is a difference between a government directly run by and for the people in a democratic manner and a government where all you can do is give someone else the decision-making power by electing them and hope they don't go against the common interests of the people. I grow weary of electing people only to see them represent big business interests instead. I favor a method more along the lines of the people themselves making the decisions through consensus building, the people having the decision-making power. Those elected or appointed by the people would be given only the power to carry out the mandate given to them by the people (as in a delegate), not have the power both to make the decisions for others and carry it out (as in a trustee). I advocate some form of government along libertarian principles, not chaos or anomie.

The assumption that capitalism, which is practiced nowhere except black markets, is propped up by property rights is correct, but the distinction between personal property and real property is spurious. What of money? Money, in the modern era, is the real capital. Money is what makes investments possible. Does this mean that no one has a claim to money since it can be used to make more money?

Actually, there is still ongoing debate within the libertarian socialist community over the nature of property and what it means, and there are those who do believe the difference between the two is indeed spurious; however, the abolition of money is pretty much a near given at this point, since it is the gateway to the concentration of wealth to begin with. In examples where libertarian socialism has arisen, there were cases where money fell out of use as a form of compensation or exchange in favor of shades of mutualism. Very crudely stated: "I provide you with a service in exchange for you providing me a service in return as payment." This was true in certain parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War in areas under libertarian socialist control and during the brief Hungarian Revolution in 1956 against the Soviet Union and is most likely the predominant case with the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico today.

The idea that socialism can flourish in the absence of law is also spurious. There always has to be an entity to resolve the inevitable disputes. Socialism is not inevitable in the absence of law. Anarchy is the much more likely result.

I should've been more clear from the beginning. When I said, "absence of the state," I meant the state in its current republican form that we all know and deal with, but it's a force of habit from talking with people who usually understand what I mean. I apologize for the confusion. More clearly stated, in the absence of property law or enforcement of property law, capitalism would fail, and it did in certain times throughout history, especially within the last 200 years.

I would argue that libertarian socialism can arise in periods of lawlessness as during the Spanish Civil War, but I would qualify the statement with two conditions: 1. The people themselves must be educated about democratic principles as well as what socialism is, and 2) the people are free to effectively organize together without intimidation or systematic programs of repression. This is why I value popular organization and education highly.

The example of 70/30 and 50/50 is overly simplistic. If someone offers me 70/30 and I work significantly less than 50/50, I just might take the 70/30 so that I have time for other interests. I might take the 70/30 because it exposes me to less personal liability. For a true hypothetical, many more facts need to be present to make an honest evaluation.

As I said, it was a crude example. It was an attempt to try and illustrate the economic inequality in our current order. It is near impossible to bargain in a position of weakness, especially if you are isolated from everyone else or unorganized.

The assumption that corporations are inherently evil is also overly simplistic. Even an anarcho-socialist regime would require some means of organization to carry out the designated wishes of the electorate. The limited liability corporation is not a bad means of organizing large scale ventures. It is just a tool. As with any other tool, be it socialism or democracy, it can be abused and put to bad use.

Did I say corporations or the idea of limited liability is a bad idea? Workers can use it to their own advantage as well. The Mondragon Corporation is a great example.

I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the history of commune-style communities in history. They generally have a short life span and are gone within a generation. Why is that? I don't pretend to have an answer, but this was true even in the 19th century. Even then, when it was still possible to literally get away from it all, communes collapsed under their own weight.

Some communes in the 19th century were small-scale in nature and were barely sustainable by themselves given the level of technology as well as the limited number of people. If a few of them got sick, they were in trouble. If some of the equipment broke down, there could be trouble in repairing it, especially if there are few repairmen around.

However, I would assert that libertarian socialism on a large scale existed in Spain during the civil war. It is perhaps the largest example of functioning libertarian socialism to date. Entire swaths of countryside were under worker control as many business and factory owners simply fled the countryside and left workers to fend for themselves. Farmers collectivized on their own, and even hotel and restaurant workers collectivized. George Orwell wrote about some of this in his experiences fighting in the civil war. They were eventually crushed because of attacks by authoritarian socialists supported by the Soviet Union and by fascist forces supported by Nazi Germany. As history shows, the fascists won in Spain.

Another example of oppression was with the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. People were tired of Soviet domination and simply stopped taking orders from Moscow. For a time the socialist economy was run by the people themselves in a democratic manner. Huge sums of money were donated to the fighters, but the money was left out in the streets for days without being touched. Farmers supplied workers with food in return for services and protection. It was on a voluntary basis. No money was needed. It was mutual survival. Of course, the Soviet Union eventually crushed them and executed and deported many people.

Modern day working examples of libertarian socialism of different variations is the Zapatistas in Mexico and Freetown Christiana, which covers a quarter of the city of Copenhagen and was established in the 1970s and still exists today.

[K-W]

17. Absolute property is a myth.

Property is a construct, a rule, it is codified in law and hypothetically could be adjusted in any number of ways to achieve true material freedom, but the rule would be changed over the dead bodies of those who would not give up lives built on the backs of others.

So we all just pretend that the current property distribution makes sense.

[adwon]

26. You're right

It is a myth. There is no such thing as an absolute right to property (well at least not real property). If you don't protect your rights regarding a parcel, someone can adversely possess it and you lose title. If someone's parcel is landlocked from a road, they can claim an easement of necessity in order to get a right of way. If someone is carrying on hazardous activities in an area unsuited to those activities, there's always recovery in tort.

True material freedom? What is that? Is that giving each person their own tract to do with as they please? That's no less arbitrary than giving it all to one person. In the end result, the people would own the property by virtue of a decision of law, not by right.

I think the definition property that you use is incomplete. An old professor of mine, I believe he was an anarcho-socialist, used the ideas of Gramsci to make his points regarding the different kinds of capital in society. I'll name as many as I can remember off the top of my head: financial, social (networks), intellectual, physical. The distribution of these kinds of capital is arbitrary at best. After all, no newborn asks to be wealthy, strong, smart, or well-connected. The problem was not the arbitrary division, but how to reconcile those divisions so that they didn't persist indefinitely.

In essence, this professor and I used to argue over the means of creating a meritocracy, not over whether it was a good idea. I argued that the first way would be to end the distinction between schools, on every level. You want arbitrary? There's absolutely no reason that there should be a difference between Harvard and any flagship university of a state system. None. It's absolutely indefensible and should be abolished by means of coercion and subsidies. There's no reason for large estates to be passed on to heirs, either. I can cite both Adam Smith and Theodore Roosevelt as support for that contention.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but oh well. I'm not sure how the last paragraph relates to the rest, but I'm not worrying about it for now. Enjoy.

:shrug:

[K-W]

31. True material freedom is giving everyone access to enough material

to live good lives. To have good quality of life.

And the fact that you and your professor examined the construct of property does not negate that property is a construct. I didnt try to define any specific construct of property, I simply pointed out that it is a construct.

[adwon]

34. The phrase

'current property distribution' is one that historically lends itself to a reading of 'real property.' Land redistribution was often phrased the same way, so that's how I read it.

Access to enough material to live good lives? Define access. Define enough. Define good lives. Don't take this as sarcasm, I'm serious. A generally accepted definition, with some precision, is necessary to judge the merits of the argument.

As I've said somewhere in this thread, everything is a construct. Law itself is a construct. The fact that it's a construct doesn't detract from its usefulness. The basic idea of inviolable property rights is not disserved by adverse possession. It's actually made stronger because it becomes more difficult for anyone to hold onto large tracts and do nothing with them.

Declaring something to be a construct does not make it wrong. At base, a debate between different conceptions of societal organization is artifical because it's a description of abstract ideas, not necessarily tied into physical reality. Some tools are physical, some are not. Tools are neutral. The argument is not whether the tool has an agenda, but what agenda a particular use of the tool serves.

[K-W]

36. Current property distrubution means the distrubution we currently have.

A good life would be a life that is good rather than bad. Enough, I should elaborate on. I meant enough to ensure a good life. Access just means access, like in the dictionary.

What qualifies as a good life is a judgement call of course, one that we would obviously have to make if we were to ever to have a population that wanted to dedicate itself to shared prosparity rather than competetive hoarding.

[adwon]

38. Good rather than bad?

That requires definition as well. Some claim that peace is the absence of war. Others claim that it's a particular state that has its own intrinsic properties. Without a functional definition of war, and there's a very hard definition to pin down, or peace, the arguments tend to fly by each other with little attraction.

Access has multiple definitions. Which particularly do you mean?

This isn't meant to be rude, this is exactly how my professors ask me questions. I guess it's rubbed off.

Judgment calls require definition. Is there to be a subjective or an objective standard of a good life? Is this measure to be done solely by material means or will other means be taken into account?

It's not that there needs to be a blueprint with exact specifications, but there has to be enough to at least make a work order.

[K-W]

15. Liberalism has hands just as bloody as Communism.

There were two sides to the cold war and they were doing remarkably similar things. One pretended to be liberal, one pretended to be communist. One was a tyranny the other an oligarchy, both were empires, both had exploitive economies.

Why dont you stop trying to discredit ideas with guilt by association. It is no more valid with ideas than it is people.

[adwon]

18. I didn't

I made a clear distinction between the two traditions of socialism. I said that one had a brutal history and the other didn't.

Any political system requires a certain amount of coercion in order to support itself. This coercion can be covert or overt, but it is always present.

The argument about the Cold War I'm just not going to touch. That's just inviting a flame war and I have no intention of getting involved with that.

[K-W]

19. You grouped marx with people he had nothing to do with.

Marx's philosophy is not linked inherently to anythig. That is guilt by association. He didnt get to determine from the grave who used his ideas anymore than Thomas Jefferson determined that Bush could use his ideas.

And you are severely mistaken if you think denying US involvement in atrocities in central america and the middle east during the cold war is going to cause a flame war on this forum.

[adwon]

20. There's another side as well

Marx also wrote of the bloody revolutions necessary to purge the capitalists. From these writings, people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao took their instructions. And Marx was writing about economic liberty, of sorts, not political liberty. He never defined his communist utopia, only the necessary things to be destroyed and the theories underpinning why capitalism was wrong.

[K-W]

24. You are lying about Marx.

Marx's revolution was to follow a series of capitalist crises, one larger than the one before it until finally the entire system collapsed under its own weight and workers around the world all organized themselves into communities, where they used the technology developed during capitalism to allow everyone to live rich lives of thier own choosing.

Politics and economy are not destinct spheres.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao didnt take instruction from Marx, they took attractive ideas from Marx. Just as many people have taken attractive ideas from many philosophies and religious texts to pus thier own agendas. Bush takes attractive ideas from liberal philosophy to push his diabolical agenda, doesnt he?

[adwon]

27. If you say so

I have no desire to continue this particular argument. You can be right and I'm just done.

[K-W]

32. No, I dont say so, Marx said so, try reading his work

Instead of spouting off commonly accepted lies.

[Itsthetruth]

22. What Is A Non-Marxist Socialist Tradition And History?

There is no such thing as a non-Marxist socialist tradition. ALL socialist movements (unless you're thinking of "primative communism" have their roots in the first international socialist movement which was led by Marx and Engels. Don't deny the historical roots of all socialists! It started with them but it didn't end with them.

We could no more write a history of auto manufacturing while denying the role of Henry Ford than writing a history of the socialist movement while denying the role of Marx/Engels in building the first international socialist movement.

Now of course the socialist movement did not remain static with dogmatic adherence to everything Marx and Engels wrote. It evolved and changed with the changes in capitalism. The founders made some major errors in their predictions and policies as did later leaders in the late 20th century and 20th century. That evolution of "socialist thought" and theory hasn't stopped. That would be dogmatism. It continues today. And the President of Venezuela, Chavez, says that today we need to open our minds and develop a new socialist ideology and program that is democratic and humanist.

Where it will lead and what it will lead to I can't predict, nor can you. Remember the Czeck revolution in 1968? They called it "socialism with a human face".

Any socialist movement cannot build a mass base and majority support in the United States, Canada or Europe unless it clearly stands for building a democratic economy and government based upon the rule of the majority. Anything less than that would not be accepted and followed by the American people.

[Selatius]

41. Utopian socialism predates Marx; it's in the history books

There were socialists before Marxism was on the scene. Robert Owen comes to mind. He established a commune in 1826 in Indiana called New Harmony. Another utopian socialist is the French Count de Saint-Simon.

[applegrove]

8. Nader's anti-global trade, anti-corporate thing got 2% of the vote or less

Even the liberals in Canada are fiscal conservatives. The United States is strapped into the dance it does with world trade or people will live in the dark ages.

The wealth we had in the 20th Century was based on no competition from Europe after the wars, no competition with the Soviet Block and no competition from the Less Developed Nations.

It was a bubble. Anyone who tells you we can go back is a liar.

That does not mean corporations, the elites & their power, and campaign and voting reforms don't need to take place. It just means we will be starving our asses off in the near future.. unless we can get really, really cheap foot and goods and tax advice and stuff from the emerging middle class economies. We have to trade with them to have any wealth whatsoever. We are Mature in the West.

The vast majority of voters in the west know that corporations are the only way to be able to safely (sort of) invest in the economies of Brazil, India, China & Russia who will together be 10 times greater in size than the West is today.

It is not black and white. But that is no reason for not making your world norms about universal health care, no nuclear proliferation, multilateral interventions in genocidal states, and an income tax system that makes it impossible for the elites to get away with paying not taxes (internationally).

[K-W]

10. Seriously the party will move if we can beat the right. It really will.

We are talking about symptoms here, not problems.

The reason the Democratic party isnt perfectly progressive has very very very little to do with anything about the party itself.

The reason the party didnt go all the way left is the same reason nothing went all the way left and the left didnt win, and a backlash movement was built on the wealth of the powerful to try and destroy it.

They cheated thier way into office to keep us from getting a head of steam whilest they changed the fabric of society to marginalize us and destroy and degrade our organization and capabilities until we could no longer even win our own primaries because even democrats were scared of liberals.

We can win the party if we can win the battle against those who want to see liberalism destroyed, that needs to be our goal, if we do that, the party will fall into place, just as it currently falls into place for wealth and power.

[UTUSN]

11. How Much More Left Can Left Go? n/t

[BillZBubb]

12. More importantly, can the nation be moved to the left?

America, is, at it's core, strongly conservative in many ways. The country tends to be mildly liberal in expressed beliefs, but conservative in action. For instance nearly everyone claims to want environmental protection, but a majority consistently vote for candidates who are clearly and by far the worst on the issue.

The DLC recognizes this and hence the call to tack rightward for votes. For them, it's a realization of where the voters are. Ie, we have to go to the voters.

The progressive side of the party says no, we need to fight and make the case for liberal policies--we need to bring the voters to us.

So, the real question is can the country be moved leftward? Or would a more left leaning Democratic party find itself beaten over and over by right wing nitwits like Bush using wedges like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, "socialism", and taxes?

[Selatius]

14. Education is the answer

The problem is our education system is failing, and the news media, which is supposed to keep the people informed, is failing.

If they covered the environment as much as they covered Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson, and Terri Schiavo, people probably wouldn't be making the decisions they're making when they buy SUVs when they don't need it or voting for anti-environment corporatists, at least not in as many numbers.

[K-W]

21. Bingo

People just dont want to face the facts that more of the country is Hard right, moderate right, and moderate left than is liberal, and that the liberals are being constantly held down, marginalized and villianized by the right to the point that even the moderate left and yes, even the liberals participate in marginalizing liberal ideas.

We have to convince them and the deck is stacked against us, that is the problem, that is the source of frustration, that is where we need to attack.

[Itsthetruth]

23. Yes!

Masses of ordinary people have moved to the left before under difficult conditions and it will happen again.

[BillZBubb]

30. Under difficult conditions--yes

I agree with that. But doesn't that, then, put us at the mercy of conditions? We'll have to wait until conditions make our more progressive message find resonance among a currently docile or frightened population.

We can talk about all the good that a progressive agenda will do, but if it falls on deaf ears until the corporatist charade collapses, it won't do us much good in the meantime. We are doomed to be the ones trying to pick up the pieces after a catastrophe.

[Fescue4u]

25. Its going to have to move to the left

If we ever expect to win an election again.

The problem we have now is Democrats trying to act like Republicans.

Sorry, but a Democrat acting like a Republic will NEVER beat a republican acting like a republican.

The party needs to move to the left and fast. There's still time for the 2006 elections and certainly time for 2008.

[spindoctor]

28. Unless the Democrats manage to distinguish themselves...

....the people will go for the real thing.

What's the point in voting Republican-lite?

There are things that need to be changed radically in this country for the sake of ALL people. Healthcare and education jump to mind. The Democrats should not be proposing half-assed compromises but present a plan based on the actual needs of the people.

Sensitive subjects should not be avoided. Screw the "religious right" or whatever demagogic minority we're supposed to be afraid of. They are just that, a minority. Unless we distance ourselves from these people instead of trying to appease them, nobody is going to bother with more of the same.

Over and over, we let the Republicans frame the debate and let them define the issues. Why do hordes of Americans vote against their economic interests? Because we do not distinguish ourselves. We are the Republicans who support gay marriage.

[K-W]

33. The democrats will act like whoever votes for them wants them to act,

if you dont like them, talk to the other potential and actual democratic primary voters, not the democratic politicians they elected to represent them (or allowed to be elected through inaction).

[spindoctor]

35. Allowed to be elected. That's cute.

It reminds me of a Southpark episode where the town has to vote for the new school mascotte. Thanks to a little joke of the boys, the choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

The one kid who refuses to vote ends up being bannished from town.

[LoZoccolo]

29. Counterpunch: a favorite of the unmasked FReeper troll seventhson

Usual splinterist bullshit. It's where he got the Haitian male breasts story.

If you want to move the party to the left, work on moving the people there. Any other whining and complaining is so much vain bullshit.

[w4rma]

37. If you want to move the Democratic Party to the left, quit talking about

moving the Democratic Party to the left and talk about SPECIFIC ISSUES, rather than the abstract. This "left" "right" BS is just wasting time that you could be educating folks on a better working position.

[Dr Fate]

40. We dont need to move right or left- we just need to fight these bastards.

And as others have posted- focus on some specific issues.

[LittleClarkie]

42. If it wants to be

but not artificially by those on the left who would wish it so.

I suspect if things get much worse the party will bounce over in that direction on its own.

I can't help but remember Moveon.org's declaration that they were talking over the party or somesuch. What was the actual wording? That they'd paid for and now owned it?

Seemed somehow anti-democratic to me.

Nobody likes the hard sell. Kind of like a kid who's been asked to cut the grass a dozen times. He'll do it when he gets ready, and the more you nag the more he'll resist just to spit ye.