Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Democrats/Social Democrats don't support Class Warfare and t

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Aug 2011, 09:53
Pioneer
Post 03 Aug 2011, 10:25
Higher Taxes on the Rich/Wealthy is not Class Warfare or a Class Struggle or Socialist since the American Democrats support a Progressive Tax System but not out of a belief in a or and the Class Struggle. The American Democrats and the Social Democratic political parties in Europe support higher taxes on the Rich/Wealthy to pay for their Capitalist Societies. Does anyone agree the Democrats don't like to be accused of Class Warfare ?

Dear U St

Can you quote any prominent Democrat saying he or she is "for income
equality"? It is true that most Democrats favor less extreme income
inequality than most Republicans. Capitalists associated with the Democratic
Party also tend to be more willing to pay taxes. That is because they have a
little more commonsense than their Republican fellow capitalists and
understand that taxes are necessary to keep the capitalist system running
smoothly. For example, if there is no money to repair crumbling bridges how
can capitalists transport their goods? But neither group of capitalists want
to give up their privileges and establish a society based on equality.

Sincerely

Stephen (for WSPUS/WSM)

The logic of Taxing the Rich, and Why Dems are Afraid to Use It


Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Taxing the super-rich is not about class envy, as conservatives charge. It’s about the nation having enough money to pay for national defense and homeland security, good schools and a crumbling infrastructure, the upcoming costs of boomers’ Social Security (the current surplus has masked the true extent of the current budget deficit, but it won’t for much longer), and, hopefully, affordable national health insurance. Not to mention the trillion dollars or so it will take to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is now starting to hit the middle class.

If the rich and super-rich don’t pay their fair share of this tab, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can’t possibly pay it. America’s middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for thirty years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles, and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle-class are in the doldrums.

What’s fair? I’d say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich (earning over $500,000 a year). Plus an annual wealth tax of one half of one percent on net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can’t be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under JFK to the 70 percent range. You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship.

http://robertreich.org/post/257309173
Taxing the Rich is Not Class Warfare

by: Tony Sterle

Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 17:11:07 PM CDT


(Author's Note: If you haven't read Jacob Grippen's article directly below this one, you should. It's awesome and is of the same theme as my post.)

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/...-class-warfare
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 65
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2011, 23:52
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 14 Aug 2011, 00:13
It seems to me the democrat party is afraid to leave the middle and stray anywhere to the right or left, or at least this is what they would like us to believe. I think when people vote for America they have the choice of brutal capitalism or liberal ideas fused with capitalism. No change will come through the ballot in the U.S. The president is just a figure head who bows to corporate interest. The Democrats deny this the republicans admit it. That's the real difference between the two.
Soviet cogitations: 153
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Feb 2011, 07:26
Pioneer
Post 19 Mar 2012, 18:17
No matter who you vote for, your gona have the same capitalist maybe different social issues but they are pretty much on the same team
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 19 Mar 2012, 20:41
I myself am engaged in entryism within the "big tent" of the Democratic Party. So this especially resonates with me. I feel that this article sums up my reasons for participating in both the Democratic Party, and the broad based progressive movement. http://www.theactivist.org/ydsusa/sites/default/files/pdf/Appeal-to-Anarchists.pdf I feel that it is important to preserve the gains of the past, as well as to strive for social justice. I certainly don't expect that systematic social change is going to be implemented from above. Instead I believe that socialism must be built up from a grassroots level, within the private sector, through such institutions as benevolent societies, and intentional communities. I feel that this is the best that can be expected in America, under the circumstances.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 19 Mar 2012, 22:17
Jason24 wrote:
I feel that this is the best that can be expected in America, under the circumstances.


That's kinda defeatist, isn't it?

While admittedly America ain't on the brink of a full-blown proletarian revolution, there are some leftist mass movements going. These progressive, grassroots mass movements needs a bit of help in coming to accept Socialism, but they're starting to question and reject capitalism.

The immediate tasks of American socialism would probably be more on the line of uniting the different factions in the hard Left, building radical, anti-capitalist trade unions and movements, and either taking over the Democratic Party through entryism (IIRC, they've got open primaries), building a single hard Left alternative to the Dems, or a tactical combination of both, like taking over Dem primaries when you can and running against them when you can't.

Of course, the parliamentarian strategy must remain secondary to class struggle, considering that the goal is to smash the bourgeois State and bourgeois power outright.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Mar 2012, 17:58
Quote:
That's kinda defeatist, isn't it?

While admittedly America ain't on the brink of a full-blown proletarian revolution, there are some leftist mass movements going. These progressive, grassroots mass movements needs a bit of help in coming to accept Socialism, but they're starting to question and reject capitalism.

The immediate tasks of American socialism would probably be more on the line of uniting the different factions in the hard Left, building radical, anti-capitalist trade unions and movements, and either taking over the Democratic Party through entryism (IIRC, they've got open primaries), building a single hard Left alternative to the Dems, or a tactical combination of both, like taking over Dem primaries when you can and running against them when you can't.

Of course, the parliamentarian strategy must remain secondary to class struggle, considering that the goal is to smash the bourgeois State and bourgeois power outright.

I consider it to be "the politics of realism", as Michael Harrington refered to it. But otherwise I agree with your assessment. The main obstacle facing the far left, in the U.S.A. , is sectarianism. Rather than having a united front, we have a number of small, weak, parties, if not in some cases political cults, such as the now defunct Democratic Workers Party. So it can be difficult to decide just which organization to involve oneself in, if any. I myself have chosen to identify with the Democratic Socialists of America. However, I have this one friend, and comrade, on Facebook, who's a member of the International Socialist Organization. And I have nothing against her either. It's all about what you feel lead to do. Plus, eventhough I do generally tend to support a number of progressive Democratic candidates, I have also voted Green, in the last gubertorial races, and even for the Socialist senatorial candidate, Dan La Botz. So I'm certainly not a strong "yellow dog" Democrat.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Mar 2012, 21:39
There's a lot of ISO stuff here where I live. Rather too Trotskyist for my tastes though
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Mar 2012, 22:59
Jason24 wrote:
I consider it to be "the politics of realism", as Michael Harrington refered to it. But otherwise I agree with your assessment. The main obstacle facing the far left, in the U.S.A. , is sectarianism. Rather than having a united front, we have a number of small, weak, parties, if not in some cases political cults, such as the now defunct Democratic Workers Party. So it can be difficult to decide just which organization to involve oneself in, if any. I myself have chosen to identify with the Democratic Socialists of America. However, I have this one friend, and comrade, on Facebook, who's a member of the International Socialist Organization. And I have nothing against her either. It's all about what you feel lead to do. Plus, eventhough I do generally tend to support a number of progressive Democratic candidates, I have also voted Green, in the last gubertorial races, and even for the Socialist senatorial candidate, Dan La Botz. So I'm certainly not a strong "yellow dog" Democrat.


In Portugal we also had multiple far left parties running against each other until the day they decided to unite under a single party, The Left Bloc. This party enjoyed an extraordinary electoral success reaching almost 10% in the elections of 2009. The party is represented in the parliament since 1999, year of its foundation but until then the most successful of those little parties (the trotskyist PSR) had only 0,6% of the votes in the elections of 1995. The Left Bloc was formed by trotskyist, maoists, luxemburguists, anarchists, libertarians. From times to times the party has some troubles inside of it due to its ideological diversity but no one can deny that the union worth it in this case. In the last elections they stood behind the Portuguese Communist Party (marxist - leninist), just one of the strongest communist parties in Western Europe.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 48
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2012, 00:16
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 01:32
I'm a democratic socialist and a favor "class war" by meaning the working class and middle class people taking to the streets and demanding something more radical and changing society to benefit the majority not just the rich few...
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 03:06
There is no middle class. There is workers and there is owners. That's it. The proletariat can only advance if it tosses aside the false front of social advancement.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 48
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2012, 00:16
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 03:30
Dagoth Ur wrote:
There is no middle class. There is workers and there is owners. That's it. The proletariat can only advance if it tosses aside the false front of social advancement.


Well there is a "middle class". Over time a middle class developed...
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 03:38
No there isn't. What is the basis of this supposed middle class? Income? That a piss-poor classification. Within the Marxist analysis of class, ie the only scientific one, classes are divided on their relationship to social production. The working class works ( living on their labor) while the bourgeoisie owns (living off the labor of others). There is a small bourgeoisie, and a labor aristocracy, but these groups do not constitute their own class. The middle class only existed back in the feudal era where it was peasants, merchants, and aristocracy.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 17 May 2012, 06:04
Hey Dag.. you can explain these things without being aggressive, ya know?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 06:09
No I can't. Quit oppressing me.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.