Here is my problem with Nader (a history lesson for socialists)

[jpgray]

First of all this 1924 essay from Stalin, which ushers forth the theory of Social-Democracy being a "twin" of fascism.

"Some people think that the bourgeoisie adopted 'pacifism' and 'democracy' not because it was compelled to do so, but voluntarily, of its own free choice, so to speak. And it is assumed that, having defeated the working class in decisive battles (Italy, Germany), the bourgeoisie felt that it was the victor and could now afford to adopt 'democracy.' In other words, while the decisive battles were in progress, the bourgeoisie needed a fighting organisation, it needed fascism but now that the proletariat is defeated, the bourgeoisie no longer needs fascism and can afford to use 'democracy' instead, as a better method of consolidating its victory. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that the rule of the bourgeoisie has become consolidated, that the 'era of pacifism' will be a prolonged one, and that the revolution in Europe has been pigeonholed.

"This assumption is absolutely wrong.

"Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie's fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that 'pacifism' signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, 'pacifism' is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront." (Stalin Collected Works Volume Six, pp. 293-5)

What does this mean? While it is correct that social-democracy and fascism are both tools for the bourgeoisie, the distinction between the two is of extreme importance. Any fool can see past the "leftist" camouflage this argument is couched in, that fascists are the same as the opportunist social-democrats because they both serve the bourgeoisie.

Stalin declared that fascism was not the final response of the bourgeoisie to class warfare, because he claimed social-democracy was simply a "moderate wing of fascism". They were "twins" in his mind.

Moving on to Germany. In 1925 Ernst Thalmann ran against Marx, leader of the Center, and Hindenburg, the favored candidate of the Right parties. Marx was supported by the Socialists and Democrats. Hindenburg won the election with 14,655,766 votes against Marx's 13,751,615; Thalmann polled almost 2,000,000 votes, which, if they had gone to Marx, would have been sufficient to defeat the conservative Hindenburg.

The Comintern ushered forth its own version of Stalin's theory in 1928 regarding the German situation.

"In Germany we have a new experiment of the largest party in the Second International, the German Social-Democratic Party, being in power. As a result of their own experiences the German workers are abandoning their illusions concerning the Social-Democratic Party. The Social-Democratic Party has revealed itself as the party which, on coming into office, has strangled the workers strikes with the noose of compulsory arbitration, has helped the capitalists to declare lockouts and liquidate the gains of the working class (eight-hour day, social insurance, etc.). By the construction of cruisers and by the adoption of its new militaristic programme, breaking with all the remnants of pre-war traditions of socialism, social-democracy is preparing the next war. The leading cadres of social-democracy and of the reformist trade unions, fulfilling the orders of the bourgeoisie, are now, through the mouth of Wels, threatening the German working class with open fascist dictatorship. Social-democracy prohibits May Day demonstrations. It shoots down unarmed workers during May Day demonstrations. It is the social-democracy who suppresses the labour press (Rote Fahne) and mass labour organizations, prepares the suppression of the KPD and organizes the crushing of the working class by fascist methods.

"This is the road of the coalition policy of the social-democracy leading to social-fascism. These are the results of the governing activities of the biggest party of the Second International." (The Communist International 1929-1943 Documents, pp. 45-6; Oxford University Press)

Here it is argued that the Social-Democratic government played a vicious reactionary role and was going the path of bourgeois politics. That much is true. However there was no reason to conclude this was a fascist or fascististic government. Reaction isn't fascism. Fascism is always reactionary, but reaction in general isn't fascism. So here the Comintern declares war on social-democracy, at which "the attacks" were "to be concentrated". It's clear in history that this sort of politics actually helps fascism, and makes its defeat more difficult. Only the Stalinists could come up with something so detrimental to their own apparent goals.

A blacker moment in history came for the German Communist Party in 1931. They supported the opposition in Prussia against the Social-Democratic Party, wherein the opposition was the Nazis. At the time, the Communists had agreed on opposition to the votes of the Nazis, but under the pressure of the Comintern adopted a policy of collaboration with them nonetheless. It was claimed that the Social-Democratic government, the target of the KPD's polemic at the time, was much worse than fascism. This amounts to saying a fascist government is better than a reactionary social-democratic one. There could be no greater ignorance of the essence of fascism.

Thalmann, the candidate chosen by the Communist Party to oppose both Hindenburg and Hitler in the 1932 Presidential election, said the following in that year:

"(To win the proletariat the struggle of the German Communist Party) must be directed first of all against the two extremely important counter-revolutionary mass political parties, the German Social-Democratic Party and the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazis). But, even in this struggle, the main thrust of attack must be directed against the Social-Democratic Party. Moreover, it must be made clear to the masses the if the popular influence of "moderate wing" of fascism, i.e. the Social-Democratic Party, is not first overcome, it will be impossible to fight against Hitler's party and government"

The most dangerous blunder of the KPD was the declaration that fascist government would be preferable to that of the SPD, or Social-Democrat Party. Further, they declared that the fascists would not be dangerous, or that further rule by the SPD would be more so. That a social-democracy, however reactionary, is the same as fascism is nonsense. For example, in the Polish Communist Party the distinction was deemed very important, and they recognized a "fundamental hostility" between social-democracy and fascism, and that one had resisted the other.

Spain provides another example. When the workers filled the streets to celebrate the declaration of the republic in 1931, the Communist Party joined the royalists, reactionaries and fascists to shout for the "overthrow of the republic", thereby decisively isolating themselves from the workers. This stupid action probably seems unfathomable, but it is a fact nonetheless. Actions more or less like this were often carried out by the Communist Parties throughout the world, and should remain a lesson for anyone who studies history.

How does Nader fit in?

"After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilise us.'"(LA Times)

It's the same old argument, recognizable from Stalin in 1924. He believes Republican government preferable and less dangerous than a Democratic one. He believes somehow that the partes are the same, and denies the fundamental hostility that exists between the two. He also is blind to the real danger of a prolonged Republican domination of government. He won't enable Bush, and Bush is no Hitler, but Ralph's theory is just as ridiculous when it was created eighty years ago.

[leftyandproud]

1. hmm

I think the goal of Nader and all greens/progressives/socialists is to stand on PRINCIPLE--and this means pushing/pulling the democrats BACK TO THE LEFT. If the dems don't move back to the left, they die a slow death. I for one, applaud progressives like Nader...Their goal isn't to support repukes, but to get democrats to move away from the Republican-lite stances they often take...stand op for their lefty base and they will be rewarded. Act like a wishy washy 'moderate' and lose your power.

I say bravo to them.
flame away

[jpgray]

2. Not by his own statements

That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party". Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. "I hate to use military analogies," Nader said, "but this is war on the two parties."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Pathetic

I shudder for Ralph Nader when I know that God is just.

[mot78]

4. If Progressives Want to Take Back the Party

They shouldn't doing by fracturing it. They have to infiltrate it in the same way the Neo-Cons and Closet-Segregationists have with the Repukes. That means creating think-tanks, cultivating the grass roots (ie. Meetup.com)take back the mainstream media with people who are better orators than Limbaugh and O'Relly, and repetitively push into the public's minds, how the Repukes work. THink about it, the reason why the general (abiet uninformed) public believe Repuke lies and generalizations (big spenders, high taxes, peace-niks) is because they subtley believe it, because it's been shoved down their throats for nearly 30 years. None of this can happen within 5 or even 10 years, but it will take nearly a generation before you can stay Progressives control the party again.

[union_maid]

16. Exactly!

"They shouldn't doing by fracturing it. They have to infiltrate it in the same way the Neo-Cons and Closet-Segregationists have with the Repukes. That means creating think-tanks, cultivating the grass roots (ie. Meetup.com)take back the mainstream media with people who are better orators than Limbaugh and O'Relly, and repetitively push into the public's minds, how the Repukes work. THink about it, the reason why the general (abiet uninformed) public believe Repuke lies and generalizations (big spenders, high taxes, peace-niks) is because they subtley believe it, because it's been shoved down their throats for nearly 30 years. None of this can happen within 5 or even 10 years, but it will take nearly a generation before you can stay Progressives control the party again."

Repeat, rinse, and repeat as necessary. You can't move the country to the left by insisting that the Democrats move to the left. You do it by formulating strategies that A. Support the best and most viable of the progressive politicians and B. Move the public dialogue left. What you don't do is to mobilize the very people that Mr. and Mrs. Heartland find so distasteful that they're willing to be screwed over by the Republicans rather than have to see them in office and help those people to split the left of center vote. You certainly don't do it by doing your recruiting among idealistic college students, many of whom will be tomorrow's conservatives, because there's some mindset that I'm only beginning to try to understand that follows fashion in politics the way some people do with clothing, and Green was in style a couple of years ago.

[mdmc]

5. why pull to the left

if all it will do is lose elections?

Or
If pulling our party to the left harms our party politically, then we should not pull our party to the left.

Popular Progressives

[jpgray]

6. I disagree, we do need to pull to the left

We are far enough right as it is. I disagree with Nader on how it should be done. I like his stances on the issues, but his strategy is historically (and morally) bankrupt.

edit: spelling

[Terwilliger]

7. 1988...group forms...swings right...

wins 2 elections but alienates just about everybody and loses both houses of congress...veep cant win because he isnt allowed to be populist...no opposition in 2002 yet re-lost Senate and still no house...

What's next...a loss to the Idiot in Chimp?

[Clete]

3. Exactly and he has drafted his army

of the gullible who hear what they want to hear, but don't really listen.

[JackSwift]

8. Nader has been quite clear what his agenda is

He believes that there is no practical difference between Republicans and Democrats, that he would rather see Republicans win because that will enhance the contradictions faster causing impetus for change. The inference is that Democrats slow it down lots. Well, kids, Nader has given us the exact same theory as Lenin and Stalin in language tempered for the US. These folks do in fact have such myopic political vision that they cannot tell the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans today are in fact corporate nationalistic militarists: fascists. Democrats believe in one person, one vote. Democratic politics are in fact neither fascist, nor socialist. While individual programs that Democrats sometimes support may fairly be called either, those programs are pragmatically put forward because they advance the principle of one person, one vote. Republicanism in the US today is a desparate effort to keep the masses from using the franchise, and its chief and most effective weapon is the mass media. Greens used to be Reds, but they got smart and changed the name to suck in environmentalists. But make no mistake, they are the commies, and they believe that the illusion of one person one vote is what keeps the masses from being socialists by principle.

Personally, I don't see any difference between the far left of the Greens and the far left of the soviet socialists. In fact the policital spectrum is more an oval, with fascism and naziism further to the right than Republicanism, but eventually joining up with socialism because they become totalitarian and rule through fear of speaking out. The difference between Greens and Republicans is a difference between which elite faction wields the power and state terror. The college PIRGS that the Greens use as a front are an excellent example. They tax everyone, but the reins of control are tightly held by Nadarites and the successors to the old Students for Economic Democracy, a socialist front. When I was in college the campus leader, mistaking my one person one vote pedanticness for a socialist bent actually told me that the SED was "a thinly veiled socialist conspiracy". He was angry that I actually then published this in the school newspaper.

Socialism is not one person, one vote. It is an agenda for an elite making decisions that they believe are for the benefit of the masses. They view taxes as a good thing in and of themselves because they can reallocate wealth.

It may come as a surprise to few here, that I am an anti-communist, and by extension I am against socialism. (Ha ha, I'm anti-social, I get it.) By being a democrat, I am first for the principle of everyone having an equal vote. As a practical matter, representative democracy is what works, not dragging everyone down to city hall every two weeks. But to be free people, we must also have freedom of conscience, the right to control our creative endeavors and choosing what to do with our time. This means the right to own property and do with it to a maximum extent all the way to not infringing on neighbors.

[Clete]

9. I just found this website.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

What do you think? Garbage or some truth? I don't think anyone who busts unions is very close to being a liberal. Labor unions are something that are sacrosanct to progressives. At least that's what I believed all my life. It certainly speaks of someone who wants cheap labor and doesn't want his workers to have bargaining position.

[JackSwift]

40. I'm familiar with that

it comes off as non-violent Stalinism to me, perfectly in keeping with Nader's modis operendi. A less sinister interpretation makes hima narcissist, which is also certainly true.

[jpgray]

10. The system needs work, and socialism does have something to offer

Most modern interpretations generally recognize an "Authoritarian/Libertarian" axis for social stances as well as a "Conservative/Liberal" for economic. So Hitler would likely be to the left of Bush on economics (believe it or not), but higher in terms of authoritarianism. Perfect socialism in its defined form can never work, but many of its ideas have merit. Opportunists can easily hijack a Democratic Republic and put its interests behind for the interests of some few individuals or corporations. This is the problem that has to be solved for our country in the future.

[Clete]

11. Actually what I have been reading about Hitler is that

he didn't have a grip on economics at all. I personally believe in free market for consumer goods. When it comes to the basic needs of people like decent wages, health care and old age retirement, it has to be a socialistic model. Many countries work quite well combining the best of both.

[jpgray]

12. Right, Hitler didn't know what he was doing

The problem that has to be fixed with our system is the ability of opportunists to place the priorities of business and wealthy individuals above the priorities of those who elected them.

[Mairead]

28. Pure socialism works very well

Over 700M people worldwide (1995) are enjoying the fruits of it. If you are a member of a credit union or a co-op grocery or other community-capital/community-profit business, you too are enjoying the fruits of pure socialism.

[leftyandproud]

13. the way I see it..

Regardless of Nader's agenda, the ultimate EFFECT of him running is to piss off the DLC/DNC, and make it obvious to them that THE BASE MATTERS--and they will be hurting if they don't co-opt some of Nader's issues. By presenting a farther left alternative to the dems, and siphoning votes from the dems, he is highlighting the importance of that vote to the party leadership, and they will be getting the message.

[jpgray]

14. I hope this is the case

But if the DLC/DNC can keep winning with moderate candidates, they may not care. It could result in a strange cycle: the left vote denied them is supposed to influence them to the left, but they may do the opposite--there will always be a faction in those groups (especially the former) that believes the problem when an election is lost is that the candidate wasn't conservative/centrist enough. In other words "look at all those Republicans who are winning elections". They'd be wrong, they need to move left, but that's the way many politicians think--they look at success and copy sooner than judge their own failures.

But I would agree that many believe Nader is siphoning away critical votes, and it will be interesting to see what happens. The frontrunners (as far as I'm concerned), are Dean and Kerry. Dean is regarded as a liberal and has cachet with the antiwar people, and Kerry is actually fairly liberal for a presidential candidate. The nominee's actions may show if the Nader-effect has nudged anyone left. Now, I prefer Kucinich's stances on most issues, but I don't believe he will be the nominee.

[blindpig]

21. socialism as defined by corporate capitalism

You need to read some Chomsky on the subject. I'd also suggest Well's outline of history.
Your definition of property rights is death for the environment, at least until our culture develops a sustainable land ethic.
There are things more important than abstract concepts.

[Ardee]

22. Your premise seems faulty to me

I wont deal with the absurdities of linking Nader and Stalin, it is so ridiculous as to indicate the desperation of those who would smear and distort Nader's message.

You mention that Democrats believe in one person one vote yet the leadership of the party seems to believe in one corporation one large cash cow. The ousting of Gore from the race early on for his courageous act of stumping the nation speaking boldly and accurately against the policies of Bush says far more about your party than does your idyllic day dream. Gore endangered the budding relationship between the democrats and the large corporate donor, thus, despite the fact that he would have been ,hands down, the most popular candidate for the nomination he simply had to go.

Your dismissal of the Green Party as a bunch of socialists is based on what, one insult from some college organiser ? Get over it for cripes sakes. Greens come from every walk of life and to say that 'Naderites' control the party is laughable considering that Nader is not even a registered Green.

I find truly amazing the way certain democrats have so readily and easily adopted the tactics of the far right in demonizing those who criticise them. One might expect, from a "democratic" Democrat, that the issues would be the focus of a debate on the speeches and philosophies of the varying political parties and factions. Yet ,again and again, we see that utter fiction replaces debate, that ,rather than citing and quoting Nader accurately, we see him compared to Stalin ( as if any critical thinker wouldnt spew at that thought), wew see his speeches excerpted and posted out of context (one poster in particular did that ad nauseum). We see folks jump on the "I hate him" bandwagon with nary a thought as to the accuracy of the latest diatribe, and why you may ask, why simply because these folks havent the ability or the courage to look inward, to focus on the ills within their own party that has caused them to go down to utter defeat, to become an ineffectual and helpless minority in our government.

Nader did not force so many democrats to support the war, he did not make them vote for the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act, to either support or to remain silent on so many issues affecting our rights, our income and our safety. No indeed, the democrats did that all on their own and now they have been marginalised, diminished and defeated. They and their supporters have been reduced to savage and inaccurate attacks upon their critics...so sad...so silly...so unproductive.

[JackSwift]

42. The Nader Stalin comparison was not a premise

it was an illustration of the dangers of someone who puts himself at a pinnacle of power and spouts the sort of political dogma both Nader and Stalin have been recorded as speaking or writing. Of course I am not alleging that Nader is a direct murderer. I am contending that he is dictator and a demogogue. No one in any Nader organization has any right to challenge his positions, he is secretive, he purges his organizations, etc., etc. Nader is not who he portrays himself as. He does have the luxury of running with a "pure" platform of supposed principle, and I can imagine nothing more dangerous. Pure political philosophies are a lot of dangerous crap. And your assumption about Gore's post-possible candidacy conduct illustrates utter naivete about what a politician's job is. It is not to advance a personal or party set of principles, it is about dealing with real problems, forming real coalitions and getting things done. There is a reason no Green holds any significant office in this country, and that no Green has passed any legislation. It is because they are off in fantasyland staying pure and only attempting to destroy others. Actual politics is about making coalitions and compromising with one's political opponents. You can't go mouthing off like Gore did after he retired and still have an immediate political future.

[Terwilliger]

50. if you're representative of the Democratic party

its no wonder the party has so many problems

You wouldn't know what ideology Nader or the Greens have...you're too busy trying to compromise with Republicans before there's a position to figure what best way to bend over and grab your ankles.

You sir, are an enemy to positive progress. Why don't you retire and leave politics to people with ideas newer than 100 years old.

[Ardee]

54. Jack dont know Jack

Sorry to be borderline rude here, but, as your lack of response to the specifics of the several refutations to your absurdities, replacing literate thoughtfulness with silly repitition of your fairy tale premise calls for little in th eway of polite response.

Your claims re Nader's organisational penchants are simply manufactured out of whole cloth, and your continued support for the "remain silent, solicit money and let the country go to hell" line of the DLC makes me ill, frankly.That you would dismiss Gore's last round of speeches in such offhand fashion ,especially in the face of the complete irrelevance of the democratic party because they refused to accept their obligations to the american people and speak out, brands you as just another DLC stooge and your posts as mere propaganda and calls for loyalty to a defeated and cowardly strategy.

[aneerkoinos]

24. Representative democracy is in crisis

It's become corrupted, commercialized and trivialized, and in many countries including USA it's lost it's legitimacy long ago (less than 50% bother to vote). USA maybe (partly) democratic in form, but in reality is pure plutocracy.

You take granted the money-collecting for candidates, and give praise to candidates who are succesfull raising money which means credibility, donate yourself a lot - realizing and accepting the truth that matters that it's more important to donate than to vote, but never have I seen here a truly critical comment on the commerzalisation of your so called democratic system. One man one vote my ass. Both democrats and repugs in reality put the question that matters as follows: "how many dollars / vote?" They both accept the principle, don't fight against it, and thus sell out democracy to the highest bidder. It is of no importance that current rate for vote may vary according to party, state and candidate, it is the principle that matters and the fact that it is not only accepted but endorsed even by DUers, and that makes me wan't to puke.

But where lies the real, systemic problem, who is the enemy to fight and beat if we wan't to save democracy? Corporate Media!

TAKE BACK THE MEDIA! BAN POLITICAL ADVERTIZING! REPLACE IT WITH AUTHENTIC JOURNALISM and public speach! Put Fox and CNN etc. out of business, out of air, terrorize them, they are the ones against freedom of speach, they are the threat to freedom and democracy. There can be no freedom of speach, which actually means participatory dialogue, with the passivating influence of corporate goebbelsian system of media whores. Violence, harrasment and invation against their material means of propaganda production is justified, this is the only real war that is going on.

[aneerkoinos]

25. representative democracy in crisis, take 2

The whole idea is also being challenged. Lula and Ken Livingstone have introduced participatory democracy and the experiences have been encouraging. I don't know enough about details but we need participatory democracy, for and by the civil society, not for and by the political parties.

We need more educated and responsible people, not more politics of lowest common nominator. We need specialists and bureaucrats, we need to respect and use their expertize, and we need to challenge and engage them in multiple levels of dialogue.

We don't need representatives, we don't need egoistic politico games, we need to listen and share our knowledge and experience and take responsibility.

UGH.

[Mairead]

15. I normally haven't even one good word to say about Stalin

but in this case he was right. Ditto Nader.

Clinton did some very bad stuff to us, yet people here are still totally nostalgic about him. He anesthetised us.

Smirk is also doing bad things, but he has energised us.


It ain't rocket science, folks. No PhD required. If we're smart enough, we can use this episode to ensure that there are no more Bushes or Reagans...or Clintons...ever allowed near power.

But, regretably, we're almost certainly not that smart. I see a lot of people here who would be completely happy to be conveyed into the Pit as long is they are given a lolly to suck on and are led by the hand rather than dragged by the heels. They apparently lack the ability to foresee any except the most loomingly obvious consequences.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi mot78!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jpgray]

30. It isn't a workable strategy

In socialist terms, it confuses and divides the workers. Stalin's theory did immense harm to communist parties throughout the world--look at Japan's Communist Party. Your other premise is just as false, since there is a significant difference and profound hostility between Bush/Reagan and Clinton--though they may walk a similar bourgeois road, I wouldn't need three guesses to pick the two most dangerous out of that group.

Sorry, but using an eighty year-old strategy that led to disaster for those who used it doesn't seem to me a good idea. There are two pits, and if you go too deep into one, it will be a violent and terrible fight before you get out. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Mairead]

47. I think the difference in our perceptions

is: you see Clinton as fundamentally different to Reaganbushes. I don't. I think he's superficially different -- that he kept us going in the same direction Reaganbushes did/do, but in a less obvious way and accompanied by panem et circenses.

Look at the changes wrought by NAFTA, the rise of prisons, the WTO, and 'Welfare Reform'. NAFTA changed the landscape for an entire class of working people, the drugs war and prison industry have made this 'land of the free' one of the three worst imprisoners (and that doesn't even begin to mention the uncounted other lives destroyed at home and abroad), the WTO has partly replaced democracy with a new feudalism, and 'welfare reform' has ended a 70-y.o. entitlement to the necessities of life, returning the US to the classist, anti-humane days of the robber barons.

As Prof. Wolff's analysis demonstrates, the people who did well or poorly on Clinton's watch were the same ones who did well or poorly under Reaganbushes. The wealthy became more so, and the poor took it in the ear. Only the rate of change was less under Clinton, not the direction of change.

[JackSwift]

43. If you consider peace and prosperity to be bad stuff

yeah. But I consider them to be good things. I'll let the socialists, communists, Greens and other scum argue that peace and prosperity are bad things, but the results Clinton achieved by the reforms he brought speak for themselves.

[Mairead]

45. Clinton's reforms certainly do speak for themselves

More wiretaps, more power for corporations and their wealthy-elite owners, more prisons and imprisonment, fewer freedoms, less democracy, a smaller jobs framework, and the end of a 70-y.o. right to the necessities of life.

Great legacy. :(

[QC]

19. Has "heightening the contradictions" ever actually worked?

Some people have advocated that strategy for years, but has there ever been a case of it actually working in the real world?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. In post WW2 Germany

if you like irony.

[aneerkoinos]

27. Hmm, it may or may not work as political strategy

but when you start hearing "let them eat cake", you might realize that heightening of contradictions is inevitable historical force.

If we ask Marx, I think his original answer was that revolution won't happen until there is global imperialist capital domination, and that has not happened quite yet. Probably soon, and sooner it happens the closer the revolution comes. Marx talkss about historical laws, but people would rather think and act locally in time and place. Totally understandable.

Then, there is the question do practical Dem policies actually heighten the contradictions or even them? For Clinton-Blairite 3Way politics the answer is clear, they heighten the contradictions between poor and rich etc. locally and globally, so there is no real difference in the outcome between their Tory-Repub brethren. The only difference MIGHT be that they don't "heighten" quite as fast, so the real question becomes: will I rather take the same amount of pain fast or slowly...

[KG]

23. nader as stalinist.

quite a reach, even by DU nader-hater standards.

[jpgray]

29. His theory is a twin of Stalin's "social-fascism"

The theory was a massive fallacy, and easily recognized as such by socialist and communist historians throughout the world. By his own statements, this is Nader's view: he believes a Democratic government more dangerous than a Republican one. He ignores the hostility between the two and the evil possibilities of prolonged Republican dominance. He believes because Democrats and Republicans are both opportunistic and serve the bourgeoisie, that they are the same thing.

Rather than a one-liner, perhaps making a case and providing counter-arguments would be more effective. Refusing to believe something just because you don't like it isn't a workable approach to life.

[jonnyblitz]

26. nader, unfortunately is a capitalist.

i hate to tell my comrades.... :(

[Terwilliger]

51. the Nader haters dont seem to realize that

he's probably more neoliberal than they are (although he's not a corporatist like they are)

[youngred]

31. The last thing socialists need is a history lesson

they're more aware of history than most others I could name :eyes:

and you're reasoning is invalid because the US and Weimar Germany have different forms of republican government (which we have, a democratic republic). Plus you are mixing revolutionaries, regular socialists, communist non-revolutionaries and a COMPLETELY different time period and frame of mind.

Good try though.

I agree nader is a fool to run again, but smashing on the greens and socialists (who predominantly vote dem anyway knowing the danger of reactionaries) does nothing to aide the problem

[mot78]

32. The Two Differant Socialisms

Facism=National Socialism
(Can't have Facism without Nationalism)

Communism=International Socialism
(Karl Marx's goal was to spread Communism worldwide. Lenin, Stalin, and especially Trotsky believed in this)

They're both forms of Socialism in the sense that there is the rejection of the Enlightenment's pro-invidual doctrine, and in favor of a general will, or a common cause. Governement also controls the means of production in both cases, only Facists are pro-Bourgeoisie (hence the term "Corporate State")

The lef and the right meet up at a certain point, and this is where they meet: anti-individual, pro-big government, totalitarian dictatorships.

[JohnKleeb]

36. well you bring up interesting points

but theres 2 determining factors in what you are politically that is
economics and authoritian/libertarian. A person can be left economically like Stalin but be a dicator yes. but a far left person can or can not be a dicator same thing with the ultimate free market advocate they can be tolerant of minorities and others thats essentily an American libertarian. If you are like me you are very left economically but also for personal freedoms as well. Most people here are in the SW corner of the political compass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. No Nation Has Ever Had

a commnand economy and a democratic polity.

Some nations like Sweeden or even, say Germany have a very well developed welfare system but not a socialist economy.

To create a truly socialist economy you would have to infringe on the liberties of many.

I want no part of it and count me as part of the resistance.

Political ideologies aren't linear. They are circular where the far right and far left intersect.

[Mairead]

49. You should probably check your facts and definitions

They're leading you astray.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. How So

Please elaboarate


What country has had a democrat polity, or bourgeois liberties if you will and a command or socialist economy.

[youngred]

37. not exactly

Fascism is a form of Corporatism (which is still used effectively in European goverance today). National Socialism though it claimed socialism, only did so in order to gain popular support. Mussolini decried his Socialist roots.

with the second part you are mixing up Socialism and Soviet style communism

[JohnKleeb]

39. yes Soviet Communism is different

[jpgray]

33. Sorry, that doesn't address the argument

This isn't smashing on greens or socialists. If you would read the post, this is about a theoretical fallacy and the damage it has caused. Nader's theory is like to Stalin's, since it ignores the difference between fascism and social-democracy, and even believes the latter to be more dangerous. There could be no greater ignorance of the essence of fascism. As I mentioned above, between Bush Clinton and Reagan, no one should need three guesses to know which two are the most dangerous. Nader doesn't agree that there are distinctions between opportunists, and he is wrong.

[youngred]

38. Well it comes across as such

with the typical Dems love em or leave argument. perhaps the arrogant title put me in a more negative set of mind before reading the thread...honey vs. vinegar and all.

That however is beside the point. The fact is there is little difference between the moderate Dems and Moderate republicans...however there are so few moderate republicans left, while moderate dems seem to be going over to the dark side in increasing numbers. However, the basic fact is I would much much rather have a moderate/conservative dem in office than ever a republican. There are key and important differences between the dems and the repukes, and for that we to a certain degree owe the dems votes/support. i wouldn't dream of not voting dem (as a socialist) because I know any dem is not going to be worse than most republicans. Nader's argument has holes in it, and he is another reason i wouldn't go green (i find him to be an egotist out for himself, not the green party and platform). Nader ought to recognize opportunists he is one. But make no mistake about it There have to be significant changes in the country and democratic party. The greens represent a very dissatisfied base for the dems, and that anger isn't going to go away just because Bush is a fascist wannabe.

[jpgray]

44. I agree here completely; sorry if you thought my post was arrogant

.

[JackSwift]

41. In my experience socialists know very little about history

unless it has to do with forcing square pegs in round holes to support their theory. But if you want to put their "scholarship" on a personal pedestal, you may do so with my blessing, that's what freedom of conscience is about. Don't expect me to buy it, I don't.

[aquart]

34. Good freaking grief.

Consider yourselves ALL slapped upside the head.

I was thinking Procrustes but that just isn't enough beds for all of you to get into. Goldilocks, that's the ticket. This bed's too hard, that bed's too soft, ooooooh, this bed's just right.

Trying to crawl in with your isms and pull up the covers.

For shame.

Is the only way you can think the way someone else has thought?

Blah.

[jpgray]

35. ? (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I'm Just Saying This Now

Do people really still use Marx as a guide to history.

I thought Marxism as a guide to history was discredited when communism appeared in Russia; the last place Marx thought was ready for communism.

[MSchreader]

53. History pimp

If all you got out of all this reading you apparently did was that Nader's view on the Democrats parallels the "Third Period" theory of "social-fascism", then you really need to steer away from political thought in general. It ill-suits you.

Martin

[Ardee]

55. hee

Well said Martin. This thread is simply propaganda for a failed strategy. Like most propaganda it relies very little on fact or accuracy, sort of like the tactics of the current administration, yet anohther clue as to the merging of the GOP and the Vichy Democrats.

[MSchreader]

56. jpgray didn't think so

At least, he wasn't willing to say as such publicly. He only PMed me with a snide comment. I sent him back a slew of links to writings by Trotsky that deal with this question from a more Marxist standpoint.

And I've been eating silence ever since. ;-)

Anyway, I have been doing a lot of thought about the next election. However, given the character of DU as of late, I don't think I'll be publicly sharing my comments here. They could very well get me tossed out on my ear.

When the time is right, I may put something on here. Until then, I will skirt around the censors and invite people to PM me, if they wish.

Martin