Skip to main content

"Bipartisan" or "non-partisan" efforts, like seeking change soley outside of extant political "process", just holds us back.  We need more polarization, and complete suppression of counter-revolution, by clear popular democratic mandate.  

Anarchy does not mean "anything goes", or chaos.  It means real democracy: Self rule, in the social sense (NOT bourgeois ultra-individualism).  

Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary concept.  All Power to the People!

The biggest and most dangerous potential setback of an Obama/Biden victory is that many people will either become so disillusioned with the lack of sufficient change and progress that they will just give up on politics, or join the defeatist "radical" cynics now calling for a boycott of the whole process, or will turn to further splitting the vote with a proliferation of third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates.

You can bet that the Republicans (and Blue Dogs) will do everything in their considerable power to make sure those things happen, in order to maintain their present stranglehold on "American" politics.

The fact is, the more progressive Democratic caucuses in the Congress, and on down the ladders of political power, will remain, for a time, an isolated and relatively powerless minority, for the most part, due to continued low voter turnout and focus, which is the sole reason for Republican and Blue Dog dominance.

It's going to take at least a couple, maybe several, more election cycles to fully repair the damage that has been done by relentless massive commercial media propaganda campaigns and COINTELPRO-style infiltration of movement groups, all aimed at discouraging or defusing voter participation.

Of course, those who go into any "election" thinking that bourgeois liberals are going to deliver revolutionary change are just setting themselves up for burnout.

You have to look at it stategically, and consider an Obama/Biden victory as nothing more than somewhat of a tactical advantage for continuation of the revolutionary struggle for justice and peace, to save the planet.

Right now, progressive Democrats simply do not have sufficient plurality to force thorough investigations and prosecution of the traitors, let alone for impeachment, nor to block right-wing filibusters against the more or less progressive social, economic and environmental changes that we so urgently need, to even survive.

Until progressive Democrats have a super-majority, capable of completely crushing the machiavellian weaseling oppositionalist resistance and sabotage of the Republicans (and Blue Dogs), the political process will remain mired in the swamp of bitter partisan bickering and half-stepping vascillation, over every issue.

The Democrats (read Blue Dogs) continue to focus most of their energy on "winning over" that tiny sliver of the population designated "swing voters", those who are too stupid or unprincipled to make up their minds between a Republican and a Democrat.  Like we need more Blue Dogs and "Reagan Democrats" in the Party!

Their rhetoric and programs continue to ignore the real majority in this country, who refuse to even register to vote, or to cast their ballot when they do register (ie: about half or less of the eligible electorate registers, and about half of those actually vote).

As things now stand, with about 25% of the eligible electorate participating, and that vote being pretty much split down the middle, the "winner" receives about a 13% "mandate".  If they "win" the direct vote of 14 or 15% of the population, it's called a "landslide".

It's going to take more than traditional pathetic Get Out The Vote efforts, which, at best, have tended to increase turnout by just a few percentage points.

The Right tends to turn out almost all of their hard-core support base, which, at the very most, amounts to somewhere between 10- 20% of the population.  

But the other 80-90%, most of whom tend to despise the Right and everything they stand for, are in disarray, with most either boycotting or splitting the vote, and thus the Right prevails.

The truly broad mass of Americans who are allowing this to continue are not stupid, nor are they happy with the status quo.  They know when they are being jerked around, and many are, understandably, refusing to participate in an obviously corrupt, bogus, contrived electoral scam.

It's not because the American peoples are too ignorant, venal, degenerate, brainwashed or coerced to be trusted.  Contempt for the masses will get you absolutely nowhere.

The problem is that the counter-revolution is very rich, and very strong, and totally unprincipled, and has launched an all-out full court press to attempt to reverse the revolutionary tide of the 60's and 70's, including huge propaganda campaigns and infiltration, aimed at discrediting, discouraging or diffusing electoral participation any way that they can, by hook or by crook.

But absolutist idealism will also get us nowhere.  We have to get real, and take what we can get, while we press forward on every front, to convince people that now is the time to call off the boycott, and to stop splitting the vote, and to really begin working to actually seize power in this country, which must start with purging the Republicans (and Blue Dogs) from all levers of power, at every level, including locally.

While that will not be the ultimate solution, it is the next step.

Hitler, Nixon, Reagan. Gingrich and Bush, et al, did not prove to be "good for the revolution", in terms of provoking more determined mass struggle.  They relentlessly and viciously suppressed all opposition, and set back the struggle for years to come, in each and every instance, and millions died, as a direct result.

The only reason any of them prevailed was because the Left refused to unite, even tactically, to "support" those liberal bourgeois elements who actually had a material prospect of blocking the worst fascists from power.  

In each case, the Left chose instead to wallow in unrealistic absolutist idealism and sectarian struggles for hegemony, calling for electoral boycott, or advocating splitting the vote with guaranteed losers.

Turning this around is not going to happen overnight, but it can happen pretty fast, if enough people begin demanding genuine democracy, for real, and quit merely moaning and groaning about the profound lack thereof, and the symptomatic consequences of that lack.

Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary concept, and we have to start demanding it, in rhetoric and practice.

It's the only real solution, and needs to be a much more explicit and integral point of address, in addressing the laundry list of various urgent pressing issues that we organize around.  

A broad, massive popular democratic mandate is the only legitimate material basis for revolution, anywhere.  The counter-revolution must be suppressed, democratically.

You have to start somewhere...and as the link below shows, we have come a long way, in the last 30 years.  

We have, indeed, won over the hearts and minds of a substantial majority in this country, who now consider it to be "politically incorrect" to be a racist, sexist, eco-raping corporate ripoff imperialist pig.  

In case you haven't noticed, the right has been screaming bloody murder about that, for years now!  And they are getting more and more hysterical and draconian in their reaction to this unavoidable reality, which has continued to grow, in spite of everything they have done to try to reverse, discredit, or co-opt it.

Futile gestures of protest and defiance are...futile.  We must seize the power, and that is going to take more than some Blue Dog "savior", or just a few more progressives to give us "some representation" or "a voice".  

We need a progressive super-majority in both houses of Congress, and on down the ladders of power nationwide, including locally, and we're going to have to work our asses off, to accomplish that.  

Again I say, while that is not the ultimate solution to all our problems and issues, it is the next step.

Expect the extreme right to really come out of the woodwork with an Obama/Biden victory, just like they did under Carter and Clinton.   They recognize that even the pretense of a move toward genuine democracy will ultimately, eventually, spell death to capitalism, and it's moribund form, fascism.

Aryan Nations, et al will once again be running amok, calling for civil war "against the government and the left", with hate radio and Faux news "pundits" egging them on.  It has already begun.

It could get very ugly.  Look around you, and choose your allies carefully.  Those "radicals" who sound just like the extreme right, demonizing the Democrats and everyone else on the left, slagging the unions, liberals, and progressives indiscriminately for not being "revolutionary" enough...those are the COINTELPRO dupes, and outright undercover pigs, seeking to suppress and diffuse electoral participation...which serves only to benefit the Republicans, and fascism.

The "lesser evil" is, in fact, somewhat, more or less, "better" than the greater evil, in terms of how many more millions will have to die from a much greater lack of social services, justice and peace, at home, and abroad, even as we continue the revolutionary struggle.

What good are "revolutionary principles" that hand over power to the worst available fascists, and thus condemn millions more to die horrible deaths, just because the material alternatives are somewhat less than ideal?

Tactically "supporting" bourgeois liberals (like a rope supports a hanging man), in order to block the worst fascists from power, is not necessarily a sell-out.

This need not be about any huge diversion of movement resources, nor about jumping on the bourgeois electoral bandwagon like naive fools.  

It's a simple matter of merely making some slight adjustments in line and political education, to call off the electoral boycott and discourage vote splitting, in order to give the Democrats a super-majority and purge the Republicans (and Blue Dogs) from all reins of power, tactically, while we continue to organize for genuine democracy, as the only real solution to (whatever your pet issues may be).

It's about cutting people a little slack, for survival, while we continue the struggle for justice and peace, to save the planet.

Take a deep look at the following, for some encouraging food for thought:

Originally posted to radical def on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:06 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    great diary

  •  Good diary. (0+ / 0-)

    So where is the YSA, et al, re Obama?

    •  YSA? Perhaps you mean Young Socialist Alliance? (0+ / 0-)

      I tried Googling YSA, and the most immediate relevant listing was their website, which is OK I guess...they had some good quotes on their home page.

      But the last point on their 10 point platform includes "We reject support to the capitalist Democratic and Republican Parties and to any other capitalist electoral formation."

      Like most formal "socialist" and many other Leftist groups, they take a hard line against any collaboration whatsoever with bourgeois electoral politics...even tactically, to block the worst fascist Republicans from power.

      While I understand their position, and relate to a lot of what they say on their website, I strongly disagree with their position on that point, which historically, in practice, has led only to fascism.

      Most such "communist" formations tend to be extremely centralized, hierarchical, elitist organizations, which ultimately have no real faith in the masses to be able to decide democratically for themselves how to coordinate the production and distribution of goods and services...

      I think they make a fatal error, in that regard...

  •  Uh, right now as I, totally alarmed and pissed (0+ / 0-)

    off at the thought of a McCain/Palin victory that I will start making phone calls next week for Obama (my wife and I have already donated money and will send MORE soon even though things are getting tighter for us)--right now I don't need to hear put-downs (in the old revolutionary language) like "bourgeois liberal."
    Barack deserves a lot better than "bourgeois liberal" as he goes after these racist motherfucking Christianist assholes.

    •  Agreed: off the racist motherfucking "Christians" (0+ / 0-)

      Indeed, I'd urge you to support Obama as much as you can.  He's a brave man, and deserves it.

      I'm not attacking Obama, just correctly identifying his present political role.

      I hope he proves to be more than that.  

      But I was pretty disappointed with his abandonment of Rev. Wright.  I felt he should have offered a lot more articulate and thorough explanation of where Wright is coming from, and defended him, rather than "throwing him under the bus", even if he did feel a need to distance himself.

      Nothing I saw of Wright's remarks were all that far off...except to hysterical right wing pundits and their idiotic followers.

      Obama also should have counter-attacked with more a pointed critique of the right wing fundamentalist swine who were screaming bloody murder over Wright.  It doesn't really look to me like he's "going after them" much.  He backed off his "bitter gun and bible clutching rednecks" remarks pretty fast, heh.

      But, we'll see what he delivers, once in power.

      As for "old revolutionary language", I have to admit, I am an old revolutionary, lol.   I do believe in using precise terminology.  Just because the terms I use may be  more or less loaded, traditional, scientific, and revolutionary terms, doesn't mean they're "wrong", lol!

      I would just point out that some elements of the Bourgeoisie can, and should have a role in the revolution...

      But ultimately, someone who makes millions of dollars a year, or even hundreds of thousands, is just not "one of us", in the sense of really being able to understand, in the here and now, what the average poor and working person is up against, in terms of day to day survival.

      Even if they were once one of us, they no longer are, as part of a relatively very small and elite minority, and are hence somewhat substantially removed from what I'd consider to be an ideal, genuine, popular democratic representative.

      But then, there's nothing more "radical" than a "middle class" worker who has gotten his nose open to the prospect of eventually reaching the lofty realms of a relative degree of wealth, and then had it snatched from under his nose, heh.

      I'm not down on Obama...I think that if he survives, and prevails, especially, that it will be good for "America", both in terms of our own self respect, and in terms of international relations.  

      I just think we need alot more than what he seems likely to be willing or able to offer, or deliver.  

      But. oh well...he's still way better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick from the Republicans.

      •  Finally saw your long, thoughtful reply. (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks. At this stage of the game we won't be able to elect a Noam Chomsky or Saul Alinsky to President of the United States. I'd settle for a new FDR frankly, which would thrill me no end. But I like Obama for lots of reasons, and he's the man RIGHT NOW. If McCain/Palin win it would tell me that this country would need an economic collapse for the right and "values voters" to give up their stranglehold on this country. That's how bamboozled the nation is after thirty years of rightist propaganda.

        •  McCain/Palin won't have a chance... (0+ / 0-)

          if there's a truly massive voter turnout...I think they're dead meat.  

          I'm not convinced that bamboozled is the right word for the national situ.  

          While it's unavoidably true that many, too many, are confused or taken in by the rightist propaganda, I don't think it's anywhere near the levels they like to think, or brag about.

          I don't know if you read the piece linked at the end of this diary entry, but it's really excellent, and indicates that, despite the all out efforts of the right to "bamboozle the nation" into thinking there's been a "swing to the right", long term analysis of nationwide polls proves otherwise.

          The problem, as I see it, is the boycott of elections by so many of the most informed and concerned elements of the eligible electorate, who are (understandably) so totally disgusted over the Blue Dog treasons against the fundamental precepts of the Party.

          To the extent there is bamboozlement going on, I think the most insidious is that which I strongly suspect is being directed at movement activists by COINTELPRO style infiltration and manipulation, to encourage the continued "radical" calls for boycott (and "alternative" splitter parties) even in the face of the harsh realities of the inevitable results of such practice.

          The more "radical" they are in that regard, the more likely they are to be fkn cops, or directly under the unwitting influence of cops, historically.

          I might add, economic sabotage, to bring us to the brink of collapse, is a likely prospect from the Republicans and their patrons, as a means of cutting off Obama and a Democratic Congress at the knees, and trying to terrorize the nation back into the rightwing stranglehold.  

          They are already, even now, ripping and plundering as much as they can, at the last minute, before they get thrown out of office, with the intent of leaving Obama with a crisis situ that they can then point to as his "failure" down the road.

          But, ultimately, I think we will prevail.  As bad as it looks, and as dangerous as the situ is, I remain optimistic, because, as Lincoln (?) once said, "you can't fool all of the people, all of the time"

  •  No, I'm pretty sure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that anarchy means "anything goes" and chaos.

    •  Is that just smart ass snark, or what? (0+ / 0-)

      I guess it depends on who you're talking to.  Anarchy has many currents and threads, like any political tendency.

      It's basically a communist, collectivist tendency, historically, that eschews the need for an elitist hierarchical "Party", and advocates genuine democracy now, rather than someday, maybe.  

      We don't need or want an "interim socialism" of elite Party rule, we are ready now, to take control over our own lives, in the social, political sense.  

      But only the elites, the bourgeois media, police provocateurs, and their dupes, really think anarchy is about chaos, and "anything goes".

      Democracy has always been attacked by elitists, as inevitably leading to "chaos", by which they mean a lack of control by the elites, lol.

      It's a real eye opener to read some of the polemics of this nation's "founding fathers", about the prospects of real democracy, which they feared and hated more than anything else, incuding the monarchy.

      Actually, capitalism is anything-goes chaos, in blind pursuit of profit, ultimately against the public interest.

      True anarchists seek to suppress capitalism, and it's moribund form, fascism, by coercion, via popular democratic mandate.

      Historically, police provocateurs have always infiltrated and steered opposition movements, attempting to discredit and set them up for military suppression, and many dedicated revolutionaries have fallen prey to such twisted influences.

      It always dismays me to see so many people caught up in trying to emulate the false definitions and identities attributed by our worst enemies.  It's almost like they rationalize "if that is what the enemy is so afraid of, then I'm going to be exactly that, to the max"...without understanding that it's all a bunch of  contrived bullshit.

  •  I take offense at your comment: (0+ / 0-)

    "that tiny sliver of the population designated "swing voters", those who are too stupid or unprincipled to make up their minds between a Republican and a Democrat."

    Sometimes principled people have different principles than either party. Even a basic familiarity with the basic 4-axis spectrum of social order versus social freedom and the spectrum of fiscal conservative versus fiscal liberal shows that there are more than two poles.

    "Four More Months!" And counting... down.

    by JPax on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM PDT

    • intent to offend, but if the shoe fits.. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm offended that anyone would vascillate between the Republicans and the Democrats.  The fact that it can even happen, is an indication of how totally skewed the Party is by the Blue Dogs.

      Polarization is good.  I liked it better back in the 60's and 70's, in some regards. when virtually all of the right wing racist, sexist, eco-raping, capitalist war mongers migrated en masse to the Republican Party, more or less up front.

      Ever since then, they've been pimping that polarization, and decrying it at the same time, trying to muddy the waters any way they can, to confuse people.

      I think it's time for the Democratic Party to finally affirm that polarization, and to purge the Blue Dogs, and to quit living in denial and co-dependency.

      Acknowledge the polarization, be proud of it, brag about it, and hold it up for the world to see!  Live up to it!  It's the best thing that ever happened to this country, because it indicates that the lines have finally been clearly drawn.

      "Principled people" do NOT have "different principles" when it comes to justice and peace, to save the planet.  Principled people show solidarity, and work together in mutual aid and cooperation, to destroy capitalism and it's moribund form, fascism.

      Fools and swine, who either haven't got a clue, are being led by the nose, or who have self-serving ulterior motives, try to play both sides, or think they can manipulate both sides, from outside.

      Sit on your four axis spectrum and spin, if that's what turns you on...but don't expect any respect from me, if you cant make up your mind between the fairly explicit and profoundly different rhetoric and programs put forward by the Republicans and the Democrats.

      It's all relative, and nothing is absolute, especially in politics, but there are big differences between the two parties, and those differences need to be widened, not narrowed.

      •  It's the abandonment of the center... (0+ / 0-)

        that leaves the people in the center out of the parties. Yes, I appreciate your point that there is only currently two choices from which to choose in the real world, and so I choose. But in the real world, those in the center are bitter at both parties for being disenfranchised.

        The shoe does fit, both of them, a left and a right.

        "Four More Months!" And counting... down.

        by JPax on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL...fair enough! Thanks for not being Too Mad (0+ / 0-)

          at my polarizing rhetoric.  

          It can be a tricky thing, to "draw the line" such that someone can be convinced to cross over it, to your side, rather than to feel excluded, or driven  to the other side.

          Usually, among any three people, even of the same general political tendency, there is likely to be a left, right and center position represented.

          To the extent that "center" means trying to be reasonable, to avoid irrational extremes, I can dig it.

          But, in fact, I must object to any notion that the majority of the nation is either right, or center.  As the link at the end of this diary (from Mediamatters...really an excellent, in depth analysis, which I picked up on from a reference seen here on dk) indicates, in fact, that the general population is considerably left of center, and is steadily moving further left, year by year.

          Lines do need to be drawn, and I can't say that I can really comprehend how anyone with any real principles that I would recognize as legitimate, meaningful principles, would ever even consider voting Republican, as things now stand, and have stood since the 70's.

          I think all Republicans should be arrested.  I'm not saying drag them out into the street and shoot them out of hand...they should get a fair trial first.

          If they are willing and able to submit to re-education and rehabilitation, accept revolutionary justice, and can willingly participate, without dragging their feet and sabotaging everything, and join in and materially contribute to building the revolution, then they should be encouraged to do so, if their personal crimes against the People, and humanity, and the earth, have not been too heinous.

          If they persist in counter-revolutionary agitation, sabotage and criminal activities against the public interest, then they should face harsh sanctions.

          If they resist militarily, they should be suppressed militarily, and destroyed.

          I'd definitely prefer to see individuals won over with incentives, rather than coerced, whenever that's feasible.

          The only way any of this could possibly be reasonable and just, is if it were to be defined and practiced by popular democratic mandate (as opposed to, say, my own personal dictatorial whim, or some elitist Party decree).  

          I don't know if this shoe fits, lol, but I've found so-called "Libertarian" Republicans to be among the most conflicted people on earth.  

          Some (not all, of course) are gay potheads, who are Republicans to the core, in most economic and political analysis, yet the Republicans won't have them, for "social" reasons. Despised commie collectivist Lefties may be willing to welcome and embrace them socially, but a clash over economics and politics is inevitable.  

          It must be maddening.

          How anyone can call themselves a "social liberal", favoring "freedom", and then turn around and subscribe to the callous social darwinist economic perspectives that Republicans tend to embrace, is really, totally, beyond my comprehension.

          I doubt if you can explain it to me, but feel free to set me straight...

          •  I agree somewhat... (0+ / 0-)

            but without knowing all the policies and positions you might promote, I can't say that I could agree with all of them blindly. That sums up why some moderates vote republican: fear of the unknown. They may fear of how far left democrats might go. This fear appears justified to them because the left seems like a group of non-united, sometimes contradictory, liberals. They never seem to know if a given democrat is for moderate increases in regulation of industry or a more radical collectivization.

            I think this happens for several reasons. The systems of governance and commerce have become more complex and that makes it harder for people to divine the truth of how they are getting hosed. Moreover, even a moderate attempt to understand leads most people to assume the differences are indistinguishable and won't make a difference anyways. I think this is because moderates believe in the basics of capitalism, but just don't understand how it's being gamed against them. Then, they also think that the cure is worse than the disease, especially when you mention revolution and militarism.

            I haven't seen the data, but I suspect the "center" is adjusting to the left socially, but not as much commercially with the exception of social security and healthcare.

            I think the biggest issue is the most simple: The republican voters are more emotional and the democratic voters are more intellectual in their approaches to issues. (Meanwhile the moderates/centrists are less emotional and less intellectual and more physically driven. A distinction I've developed in a political hypothesis that suggests a tripartite psychological/sociological construct.) Sociologically, this makes the republicans and would-be republicans potentially more cohesive. Like a non-newtonian fluid, they solidify when struck hard, but can be manipulated when handled gently. Democrats, I think, are more of a coalition of interests that can shatter when hit hard.

            The republicans may shrink in number over time as the center moves towards the left, but some of those ties, such as religion, can draw some centrists back to the right if hit hard. Moreover, those who consider themselves the center (even admiting the center has moved left) do not see themselves as democratic leftists, but as allying themselves with the democratic left. I think this is an important distinction. They are not unprincipled democrats, they are non-democrats, and democrats can either accept them on their terms into a coalition or they can hope to beat the republicans on an election of base support only. Any candidate from either party may try to get centrist support, but if it becomes an election of bases, the democrats still seem to work towards the middle more often while the republicans try to actively discourage the center, or "racking" and "cracking" writ large.

            "Four More Months!" And counting... down.

            by JPax on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site