has the "fringe left" decided the parties are different now?

[ButterflyBlood]

many would consider me "fringe left" and prior until recentely, I did believe the parties weren't much different. However * changed all that, and now we have Chomsky and even the US Communist Party endorsing Kerry just to get rid of Bush.

The question is, is this alliance between socialists/communists/anarchists and the Democrats only temporary, or will it last past Bush? And will they, like I realized, learn that the best course of action is to reform the Democratic party, not create a new one?

[Mairead]

1. Chomsky's endorsing Kerry? Really?

Can you give us a cite for that?

[corporatewhore]

3. from what i read he said he would endorse the D's if DK got the nom

[ButterflyBlood]

8. not directly

but he said he would endorse whoever the Democratic nominee is to get rid of Bush. basically he is ABB.

[Mairead]

16. got a cite?

It's just that he said that he'd violate a lifelong rule if DK were the nominee, so it's hard to believe--VERY hard--that he'd do the same for Kerry.

[Aidoneus]

9. Granted that I don't follow Mr. Chomsky too closely these days..

(despite my great respect for him, mind you), I suspect that his position is similar to his position on Reagan:--he'll vote against Bush, but that's not necessarily an endorsement of the contrary.

[corporatewhore]

2. umm its a princple of anarchism not to vote and i know the ISO thought DK

was too conservative

[Aidoneus]

4. Not really

Effectively speaking, at best they represent slightly different approaches to the same ends, or speaking to slightly different crowds in order to get them marching towards the same ends:--the end result is the same. Something else is needed if even the slightest bit of real change is sought;--"reform", phony and superficial as it inevitably must be, merely gives a period of breathing space to pursue similar goals by slightly different means.

The CPUSA has been doing so for decades.. they're effectively useless to the cause they take the name of.

Well, I may not speak for others that you reference but for myself.

[Zero Gravitas]

5. no

Nader still polling at 2%+ and I really think that some would prefer to see four more years of Bush than see ANY Dem in the White house.

Personally my views are pretty far left, but above all I am a pragmatist. I'd rather see a less than perfect Dem in the WH than to futilely tilt at windmills like the Naderites.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Don't lose focus on the long term, BB...

However * changed all that, and now we have Chomsky and even the US Communist Party endorsing Kerry just to get rid of Bush.

Correction: The closest that Chomsky came to endorsing anyone was Kucinich. He has NOT endorsed Kerry -- rather, he has correctly recognized the importance of removing Bush.

Additionally, Chomsky has also stressed that the removal of Bush is, in actuality, just a small part of the overall problem. He goes on to say that we must commit ourselves to the greater goal of rebuilding those viable civil institutions that have been damaged, and building new ones where they previously didn't exist, for the purpose of fostering TRUE Democracy. In this sense, his critiques of the two parties as primarily being vessels for shifting business interests is still pretty much on-the-money.

As for the CPUSA, I can't speak for them, as I've never really familiarized myself with them too much.

The question is, is this alliance between socialists/communists/anarchists and the Democrats only temporary, or will it last past Bush? And will they, like I realized, learn that the best course of action is to reform the Democratic party, not create a new one?

I would disagree with your last statement, because I still believe that the best course of action is to reform SOCIETY, which then can FORCE the Democratic Party to reform. While working within the machinations of such a party, it is important to avoid being co-opted by it. This will only help to perpetuate the status quo, and put you right back where you started.

One of the strategies must certainly be in getting certain blocs perceived as politically powerless to vote in large numbers, because it will only be that way that they will be able to get any of their issues addressed. Why do you think that the Federal Government was willing to spend so much time on drug benefits for Medicare while they blithely dismiss any efforts to institute child care as a necessary ingredient of welfare reform?

And on top of that, there must be a united front of noncooperation in the event that pressing needs are NOT addressed.

[YNGW]

7. No

>The question is, is this alliance between socialists/communists/anarchists and the Democrats only temporary, or will it last past Bush? And will they, like I realized, learn that the best course of action is to reform the Democratic party, not create a new one?

To socialist/communists/anarchists, Kerry and the Democratic party is simply a less scary evil, but is nevertheless evil

I personally believe the Democratic party is going to split regardless, it's just a matter of when. If Bush wins, it will happen sooner as the "fringe left" leave what they already view as an ineffective, corporate controlled Democratic party. If Kerry wins, there'll be the collective sigh of relief from these groups, until the "fringe left" realizes that Kerry is still the face of the corporate controlled Democratic party they hate, and then the old wounds will be reopened and the split will be permanent.

Here's my guess: Look for a third party somewhere between the current Democratic and Republican partys to emerge, a party taking the best of both parties and combining them. A "Centrist Party" if you will. The "fringe left" are not that great in number, they're just more vocal. They'll float to the Greens or somewhere and become marginalized.

But, it's all speculation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Temporary

I signed on to beat $hrub. But since I don't believe in a two-party system, I'm not so much interested in building up the Dem party as building a coalition between progressive dems and progressive others.

[seabeyond]

11. talking to 6 year old

went to a kid calling him a name another kid telling him to apologize to son, he did and son said he forgave him. i told him, so very good you little ones, maybe you can teach adults how to behave.

went into conversation about bush and how he does this and he needs to learn how to treat others, to me being democrat and wanting bush out to dad being republican wanting bush out. he says not all republicans want bush out though

no i say, but wouldnt it be grand that even though we think different if we unite as one, and all of us on all sides tells bush he is out. and we work together to make this a better place for you kids.

not hard for them./

[Fenris]

12. To the more rational of the "far left" or "fringe left"

The last three years have demonstrated and the actions of this administration have demonstrated that the parties are, to a certain degree, very different. They would argue that, yes, the Democrats have a great many faults, and that, yes, for all intents and purposes, they are the lesser of two evils. However, the lesser of two evils is preferable to the greater of two evils. It should be clear to anyone that with Bush's continued mid-level poll numbers and the failure of "progressive" candidates to capture the primaries that the public, and the half that considers itself Democratic, are not overly concerned with liberal ideas. And the percentage that believes George Bush is doing an adequate job (or better) does not care at all about "progressive" causes. With the country seemingly split between the conservatives and the moderate liberals (or Democrats, whatever that implies), there is little chance of a populist or liberal revolution. If voting for the lesser of two evils might help oust the far greater of two evils, it might be rational to vote for the lesser.

There will remain a contingent of "fringe left" people who believe that they cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils, and that their votes should not be cast out of fear of the greater evil. They argue that a vote should be cast for what you want the county to be, not what you fear it will be. Bush is a terrible blight on America, but John Kerry would simply be a softer version of Bush. And thus the "fringe left" person chooses not to vote for the Democratic candidate, but support a third party or simply not vote at all.

An "alliance" between moderates and the "far left" is temporary at best, because the alliance is built on a single issue: The removal of Bush. After the election, if the Democrats are able to win, the "alliance" will break down. The war begins again. It is less of an alliance and more of a pact, and a begrudging pact at that.

[RichM]

13. You misrepresent the argument (& Chomsky as well).

There is no doubt that the parties are "different" - the Democrats are the indirect agents of the ruling class, while the Republicans are their direct agents. The 2 parties work together in complementary fashion, to achieve stable class rule. This holds in place a system which benefits a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else. The problem is not that the 2 parties are "the same;" it's that they serve the same masters, for very much the same ends.

IC & Aidoneus have already corrected your misrepresentation of Chomsky's position.

When you speak of an "alliance between socialists/communists/anarchists and the Democrats" -- of course, it's only temporary (to the extent that it exists at all) because the Democrats are only the lesser evil by a modest margin. But let's be careful of our terms -

First of all, there's a big difference between a Dennis Kucinich, and most of the rest of the Democratic pack. This is why leftists like Chomsky, Parenti and Zinn all endorsed him. Most Democrats are simply a lesser evil -- but the progressive wing (DK, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, & a few dozen others in the House) is significantly better than that.

Secondly, not all socialists, communists etc are the same. You can't just lump them all together. To a Democrat, they might all seem the same, but this is only how things look from a distance. The ISO, for example, which someone mentioned above, is very different from other socialist groups, like the SEP. The ISO endorsed Peter Camejo for California governer. Camejo, though he used to be a socialist, is now a Green - which is a capitalist party.

[dfong63]

14. as John Pilger put it, "choose your favorite pro-war candidate"

link

[info being]

15. It will last until the day Kerry is elected. Then he's fair game.