of course, it's one of only two coalitions to govern, because the structure of our voting contests creates inherently a two-party system. there are only two, there will always only be two, it will always be the same two, even if the names change. even when there is a complete inversion of the meaning of the parties. the GOP was a progressive party of Lincoln. the south was staunchly democratic. then the southern strategy -- well you know all this surely. so what does it matter what name is on the ballot line R or D. it is not like saying the "social democratic party" or the "communist party" or the "labor party" or "conservative party" -- those carry an inherent, if imperfect, ideological meaning. but here in the USA it's two parties with names derived federalist minutia of the 18th century, not any real ideological implications. they are just blank vessels in which to conduct elections, bucket A and bucket B.
Marx regarded Lincoln and the Republican party fondly as progressive in his day, finding abolition invigorating to the cause of the working-class. but he would surely be aghast at what they have become today. but we don't have to call anyone revisionist, or it a "degenerated worker's party" or counter-revolutionary, or any such thing because the meaning of "Republican" vs "Democrat" empty and fatuous in the first place.
and today, the Democratic party is barely cohesive as an electoral organization, having someone like Joe Manchin in the same "party" as Lee Carter. you can't seriously think what Marx is saying here as "political party" means whatever these two generic electoral buckets are? yes, they control the bourgeois state between them, of course they do!! and they always have and always will as long as we have a two-party system! but the goal of the working class Party is not to win control of the state at the ballot box and legislate socialism into existence. maybe for DemSocs it is, but that wasn't Marx's idea. and in any case, even if he did mean "political party" in the form of the Democratic or Republican parties, that intended to win at the ballot box -- he was clearly addressing European democracies which were and are multi-party parliamentary systems, not a two-party presidential system like the USA. He might have written to the modern USA, "form a caucus" or "form a political committee" or "form a 501c4" though I don't think his meaning of "political party" here is that vulgar or that literal.
look at either party, and you can see fairly plainly each contain caucuses that would be independent parties in a European parliamentary system. for the Dems the blue dogs and centrist problem solvers caucus would be their own party, as compared to the progressive caucus which would be its own party. the same situation in the GOP, the Freedom caucus would be the far-right party, and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" and "Tuesday group" (what fucking names) would be center-right, and so on. there would be at least 5 or 6 active parties if the US were a multi-party system. we are just in a system where there are two parties for elections and bourgeois democracy. that's not going to change no matter how you take Marx's conception of "political party"
i don't even know what you are talking about "privileges of membership"? like a 10% discount at Denny's? if you want to, i dunno, sit on the central committee -- there are open state party elections/caucuses. what can you do then, not very much, maybe vote on the party chairperson? what can they do? basically, dick all. because it's not a fucking political party, it's one of two electoral apparatuses. only the elected officials (as opposed to party officials) really have any power, and that power is both over the electoral apparatus and the state. and all of this is codified into state election law. for example, the state party committee can't meet and decide they don't like a candidate who won a primary, and then arbitrarily replace them. because nominations are not strictly "party business" governed by party rules, but by rather state election law. because it's not a real party! it's just an arbitrary electoral vehicle. one that is a legal construction as much a political one.
i am not sure how it is a materialist perspective to conflate a two-party presidential system with multi-party parliaments if that is even the meaning of what Marx is saying here. i think he means a revolutionary party that also runs in elections as part of a broad organizing strategy. but the corollary in the US two-party electoral system would be running in a primary election. not fighting state law to maybe after a great deal of organizing, get a ballot line to lose on. you might as well forget fooling with the elections entirely at that point, it's not worth the waste of energy.
to the extent this matters at all is, in my opinion, to maybe accomplish some basic social-democratic reforms while we organize long term for revolutionary action, and revolution will not happen within the electoral apparatus. and it can give elected officials a platform to spread a broader socialist message. and to some degree we can use the infrastructure they have developed for elections, to do other kinds of organizing. so maybe you are ostensibly canvassing for a candidate using NGP-VAN database, but you can also have other conversations or leave other literature while you are knocking doors and meeting your neighbors.
and pooh-pooh the leftward shift in the center-of-balance for the Dems all you want. it was Bernie Sanders who reinvigorated the left in the USA, running as a Democrat. sure he was running on a social-democratic minimum program, and not full worker ownership, but you cannot deny there were many of us who went on to become socialists or communists because of him opening that space. it seems so strange to me that we have an overlapping coalition of left-wing orgs like the Justice Democrats, the DSA, even he Sunrise zoomers, successfully following the playbook Marx has described here and in other writings, in terms of running in elections as an explicitly proletarian party (in the US context, a caucus, a political "committee"), and you are shitting on them as if they are sellouts to capitalism because they didn't run with an "S" by their name and crash out at <1% of the vote.
they are mainly DemSocs, some of them maybe are left-libs, they're not communists. but they are using their platforms to get broad left-wing (not just "progressive") ideas into the mainstream. who cares if AOC calls Pelosi a "momma bear" that is meaningless when she is mostly using her national platform to talking about worker ownership or mutual aid. or Ilhan and Rashida calling out Israel apartheid and imperialism. (too many state and local to even statch the surface). do i expect them to achieve socialism in the Congress? that's just absurd, of course not. but you seem to think since they aren't doing that, their work is a failure, they are just propping up a capitalist "party"? if you expect to achieve socialism through revolution, then this bourgeois-democratic work is just playing with monopoly money anyway. it's messaging, it's a show of organizing mettle. and sure, work vigorously within its limitations improve the material conditions of the working class along the way. but it is not the primary vehicle for advancing the working-class.
i just find your perspective so incoherent, it seems driven mostly by a desire to shit on anyone or anything that hasn't suffered abject failure. if someone scores a win, ah well, that must be because they sold out. no true scotsman socialist can ever catch a W.
btw i am not writing at you, just am just posting on adderall bro, getting my thoughts out there before they evaporate.
of course, it's one of only two coalitions to govern, because the structure of our voting contests creates inherently a two-party system. there are only two, there will always only be two, it will always be the same two, even if the names change. even when there is a complete inversion of the meaning of the parties. the GOP was a progressive party of Lincoln. the south was staunchly democratic. then the southern strategy -- well you know all this surely. so what does it matter what name is on the ballot line R or D. it is not like saying the "social democratic party" or the "communist party" or the "labor party" or "conservative party" -- those carry an inherent, if imperfect, ideological meaning. but here in the USA it's two parties with names derived federalist minutia of the 18th century, not any real ideological implications. they are just blank vessels in which to conduct elections, bucket A and bucket B.
Marx regarded Lincoln and the Republican party fondly as progressive in his day, finding abolition invigorating to the cause of the working-class. but he would surely be aghast at what they have become today. but we don't have to call anyone revisionist, or it a "degenerated worker's party" or counter-revolutionary, or any such thing because the meaning of "Republican" vs "Democrat" empty and fatuous in the first place.
and today, the Democratic party is barely cohesive as an electoral organization, having someone like Joe Manchin in the same "party" as Lee Carter. you can't seriously think what Marx is saying here as "political party" means whatever these two generic electoral buckets are? yes, they control the bourgeois state between them, of course they do!! and they always have and always will as long as we have a two-party system! but the goal of the working class Party is not to win control of the state at the ballot box and legislate socialism into existence. maybe for DemSocs it is, but that wasn't Marx's idea. and in any case, even if he did mean "political party" in the form of the Democratic or Republican parties, that intended to win at the ballot box -- he was clearly addressing European democracies which were and are multi-party parliamentary systems, not a two-party presidential system like the USA. He might have written to the modern USA, "form a caucus" or "form a political committee" or "form a 501c4" though I don't think his meaning of "political party" here is that vulgar or that literal.
look at either party, and you can see fairly plainly each contain caucuses that would be independent parties in a European parliamentary system. for the Dems the blue dogs and centrist problem solvers caucus would be their own party, as compared to the progressive caucus which would be its own party. the same situation in the GOP, the Freedom caucus would be the far-right party, and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" and "Tuesday group" (what fucking names) would be center-right, and so on. there would be at least 5 or 6 active parties if the US were a multi-party system. we are just in a system where there are two parties for elections and bourgeois democracy. that's not going to change no matter how you take Marx's conception of "political party"
i don't even know what you are talking about "privileges of membership"? like a 10% discount at Denny's? if you want to, i dunno, sit on the central committee -- there are open state party elections/caucuses. what can you do then, not very much, maybe vote on the party chairperson? what can they do? basically, dick all. because it's not a fucking political party, it's one of two electoral apparatuses. only the elected officials (as opposed to party officials) really have any power, and that power is both over the electoral apparatus and the state. and all of this is codified into state election law. for example, the state party committee can't meet and decide they don't like a candidate who won a primary, and then arbitrarily replace them. because nominations are not strictly "party business" governed by party rules, but by rather state election law. because it's not a real party! it's just an arbitrary electoral vehicle. one that is a legal construction as much a political one.
i am not sure how it is a materialist perspective to conflate a two-party presidential system with multi-party parliaments if that is even the meaning of what Marx is saying here. i think he means a revolutionary party that also runs in elections as part of a broad organizing strategy. but the corollary in the US two-party electoral system would be running in a primary election. not fighting state law to maybe after a great deal of organizing, get a ballot line to lose on. you might as well forget fooling with the elections entirely at that point, it's not worth the waste of energy.
to the extent this matters at all is, in my opinion, to maybe accomplish some basic social-democratic reforms while we organize long term for revolutionary action, and revolution will not happen within the electoral apparatus. and it can give elected officials a platform to spread a broader socialist message. and to some degree we can use the infrastructure they have developed for elections, to do other kinds of organizing. so maybe you are ostensibly canvassing for a candidate using NGP-VAN database, but you can also have other conversations or leave other literature while you are knocking doors and meeting your neighbors.
and pooh-pooh the leftward shift in the center-of-balance for the Dems all you want. it was Bernie Sanders who reinvigorated the left in the USA, running as a Democrat. sure he was running on a social-democratic minimum program, and not full worker ownership, but you cannot deny there were many of us who went on to become socialists or communists because of him opening that space. it seems so strange to me that we have an overlapping coalition of left-wing orgs like the Justice Democrats, the DSA, even he Sunrise zoomers, successfully following the playbook Marx has described here and in other writings, in terms of running in elections as an explicitly proletarian party (in the US context, a caucus, a political "committee"), and you are shitting on them as if they are sellouts to capitalism because they didn't run with an "S" by their name and crash out at <1% of the vote.
they are mainly DemSocs, some of them maybe are left-libs, they're not communists. but they are using their platforms to get broad left-wing (not just "progressive") ideas into the mainstream. who cares if AOC calls Pelosi a "momma bear" that is meaningless when she is mostly using her national platform to talking about worker ownership or mutual aid. or Ilhan and Rashida calling out Israel apartheid and imperialism. (too many state and local to even statch the surface). do i expect them to achieve socialism in the Congress? that's just absurd, of course not. but you seem to think since they aren't doing that, their work is a failure, they are just propping up a capitalist "party"? if you expect to achieve socialism through revolution, then this bourgeois-democratic work is just playing with monopoly money anyway. it's messaging, it's a show of organizing mettle. and sure, work vigorously within its limitations improve the material conditions of the working class along the way. but it is not the primary vehicle for advancing the working-class.
i just find your perspective so incoherent, it seems driven mostly by a desire to shit on anyone or anything that hasn't suffered abject failure. if someone scores a win, ah well, that must be because they sold out. no true
scotsmansocialist can ever catch a W.btw i am not writing at you, just am just posting on adderall bro, getting my thoughts out there before they evaporate.