"Our Revolution", "Justice Democrats", "DSA" and the Democratic Party by Li'l Joe and David Moros 11/24/2018
16:48..."So now we have 7 Justice Democrats going to Washington D.C. we have 13 people from the progressive groups going to Washington D.C. ...there's 42 Democratic Socialists of America wins when you go national, state and local and for Our Revolution there are 70 wins when you get to national state and local and then we haven't even brought up the ballot initiatives where...the left crushes on ballot initiatives over 80 percent of the ballot initiatives end up going in a left-wing direction"...
Yeah, Democrat Party politicians got elected, whoop de doo, big fuckin' deal.
17:32..."when it comes to fighting...I'm not ideologically rigid so I don't say 'my way or the highway, fuck off'"...
Which party or groups take this "ideologically rigid" 'my way or the highway fuck off' position?
17:42..."if you're more apolitical and you want to organise"...
Yeah, if one is apolitical and/or ignorant of politics and history one can join the Justice Democrats, DSA, Our Revolution and be sucked, unawares, into a ruling class political party to work against your own working class political/economic interests.
17:57..."I don't begrudge Nick Brana...upsetting to me was...he does seem to be disparaging what we're doing with Justice Democrats and from inside the party...I'm trying...to not begrudge people...who agree on the goals and I just wish he would do the same."
You should be able to use your "math" and "data" to refute Nick Brana's "disparaging" critiques.
21:27..."I'm here to really represent the people... for us to get these programs...policies that we want implemented...obviously the more people...in Congress who agree with us...the better"...
22:07..."I wanted it and I wanted it now...the best way to do that is to take over the Democratic Party for a variety of reasons ...when you look at how many seats the Green Party has in...DC ...they have none in the house..none in the senate...zero governors...zero upper house state seats ... well that's probably not the best way to go and I did the math and ...I think we're better tryin' to take over the Democratic Party "...
I'd like to see your "math" and "data points" and hear the "variety of reasons" you choose the Democrat Party over the Green Party. Let's see the hypothesis, calculations, supporting data, results.
23:09..."there's a giant institutional bias against third parties ... it is flat-out rigged against third parties in this country we don't have a parliamentary system ... we don't have proportional representation ... we don't have rank-choice voting we have a winner-take-all system ... we don't even have ballot access... these guys aren't even allowed in the debates ... I'm sympathetic to your philosophy Jimmy because I'm a guy who, I don't wanna call myself extreme but I don't like compromising I like to do it and do it the right way and do it my own way so this idea ... of doing a third party and creating it out of nowhere and somehow getting power and getting everything implemented ... that's not gonna happen ... even if it were to work which ... I think it's rigged against that so it wouldn't work but we're talkin' at least three or four decades before we can do it so basically the idea for me was I guess I have to bite the bullet and go the route that I'm uncomfortable with which is takin' over the Democratic Party but ... the good news is ... there are so many data points in our favor ... the data points are all in favor of the better candidate" ...
Yes "a giant institutional bias against third parties" by ruling class institutions like the Democrat Party.
"I'm a guy who ... don't like compromising I like to do it and do it the right way and do it my own way"
So "the right way" is "my own way". The "right way" is Kyle's way.
"I'm a guy who ... don't like compromising I like...to do it my own way"
But you said you weren't "ideologically rigid", that you're no 'my way or the highway' kinda guy?
How did you determine that it will take 3 to 4 decades to build a viable Green Party? You must have also determined the time it will take for "progressives" to "take over" the ruling class Democrat political party? How much time is that?
26:17.."I wanna force the Democratic Party to bend to our philosophy because I think it has the best chance of working ... we're starting to see those successes now...examples where, that are counter to everything I've said so far is that Joe Manchin is a magician and...Kyrsten Sinema ... a corporate Democrat ... outside of those two everything else I see is just overwhelmingly positive for us and our philosophy."
Who is included in "our" Kyle? "Our philosophy". Who's, which, what philosophy?
28:18...(Kyle)"Ben Jelous ... (Jimmy) the Democratic Party abandoned him (Kyle) that's the point is ... when you're a Justice Democrat you're literally making a point saying I'm not gonna be corrupt and I'm gonna walk the walk and not just talk the talk so we're not gonna take any corporate PAC money" ...
29:05..."there are systematic disadvantages against the candidates that we all like ... a direct result of the Democratic establishment ... trying to stab this political revolution in the back and we have to try to overcome that"...
Your strategy is to take over a ruling class political party even when they abandon your candidates and "stab this political revolution in the back"? This is naive at best, calculated treachery at worst.
32:34..."we've now gotten more lefties into the Democratic Party and now into Congress because those people are going to Washington DC they're proposing stuff like that ... automatic voter registration"...
You self-styled "progressives" should study the history of the term Left as it applies to politics 'cause you're using it, purposely or not, incorrectly.
"By the 29th of August, we were beginning to see who we were: those of us attached to their King and their Religion positioned ourselves to the right of the presiding member, in order to avoid the shouting and the indecent language coming from the other side. There were about 150 members of the clergy, as many from the nobility, and eighty from the Third Estate [the French bourgeoisie and working class before the French Revolution]. Several times I tried sitting in different parts of the room, in order to be more the master of my own opinion, but I absolutely could not sit on the left. If I sat there, I was the only around who voted as I did and so was subjected to the mockery of the galleries."... Journal of the Baron de Gauville, Deputy of the Nobility to the Estates General from March 1789 to July 1790 http://www.indiana.edu/~b356/texts/Gauville.html
So the "right" (conservative/reactionary) represented in this context the Church and the nobility (Feudalism) while the "left" represented the bourgeoisie and the nascent proletariat. After the French Revolution, the proletariat represented the revolutionary class (the Left) while the bourgeoisie became conservative/reactionary (Right). The bourgeoisie and proletariat in France went from allies (fighting against Feudal ruling classes) to diametrically opposed foes (producers vs owners, labour against capital). The Democrat Party represents Capital not Labour. Thus the closest the Democrat Party has come to the Left is reformist policies. Reform is not revolution. Reforms are used by ruling class parties to ameliorate material conditions workers are organising to change e.g. FDR's New Deal. Reforms become counter-revolutionary. Revolutionaries challenge the current existing property relations.
34:20..."when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, when it comes to Ro Khanna ... people...gaining a voice in the media and you see more articles about them now and their gaining more prominence and they are now gonna set the tone and ...policy direction for the left wing of the Democratic Party and we're gonna force that to be the mainstream ... I want them to make this argument ... I want them to tie in ending the wars with a new New Deal"...
..."gaining a voice in the media and you see more articles about them now" ...
Which media and articles? I ask 'cause I've observed through the decades that if bourgeois media (in this country e.g., CNN,ABC,CBS,FOX,NYT,WSJ, etc) begin to cover someone or some thing in an apparently objective and favorable or even sceptically favorable way this could be because they don't feel threatened by them/it and can use such a person or thing to promote their own agenda. For example, when a "white" cop kills a "black" man, it's wall to wall coverage all over the bourgeois media but cops kill all colors of people regularly but all police killings of citizens are not covered alike. Focusing on "white" cops and "black people" divides the working class in the USA along racial categories, get's the working class at each other's throats instead of at the throats of the bourgeoisie (capitalists, bankers, building owners, landowners). The ruling class confuse the issue by making the subject race instead of class. If one looks at police shootings from a class perspective a representative of the state ("special bodies of armed men") with authority to kill killed a citizen (a proletarian).
44:08..."I have a message ... we need a new FDR ... I mean a New Deal style Democrat"...
51:20..."everybody who actually agrees on the goals should not step on each others work"...
Yeah, FDR "saved Capitalism" in the USA! Is that what you want Kyle? You want to save Capitalism? Is that one of your "goals"?
Kyle Kulinski & Jimmy Dore Talk Midterms & Progressive Strategy
"Our Revolution", "Justice Democrats", "DSA" and the Democratic Party
by Li'l Joe and David Moros - 11/24/2018
The Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party is at its core an experienced cadre of well-connected operatives of well paid professional operatives and financiers inextricably fused and mutually dependent. The Party cannot exist as a disciplined cadre of operatives that function through elected federal, state and district offices without hundreds of millions (billions) of dollars of finance.
"Our Revolution", "Justice Democrats", "DSA" are Democratic Party candidates who show off on the Internet as opponents of the "establishment" Democrats, also called "corporate" Democrats. During the Party's primaries the existing members of congress were denounced for accepting funding from "corporate" PAC and/or Super PAC campaign contributions. Establishment/Corporate Democrats were accused of selling out constituents to instead serve the "corporate interests" of the campaign donor. As if that were the only monetary connection between capitalist finance and the Party of which they are political representatives. The Democratic Party is itself a political organ of capital through year round financing. The Party, i.e. the bureaucratic apparatus is financed by capitalist's to pay for its day to day operations. Financing is an investment the same as investments in financial institutions, industry, agriculture or in distribution by big merchant enterprise; in other words, capitalist's want returns from those political investments. Finance, industrial, agriculture and distribution capitalist's expect returns in the form of interest and profits.
The interconnection of the Party apparatus of paid professional operatives and the ruling class is the financial umbilical cord through which money feeds the beast. This is the root of the matter; period. Party members that campaign as politicians, campaigning to win or hold office, whether being financed by PAC, Super PAC and/or a great deal of small contributions is nothing but a show. The connection of politicians and "constituents" is illusory just as democracy is illusory. The real power behind the Senators, the Presidency and the judicial branches of government are the powers of Big Capital operating through financing of the Party's bureaucratic apparatus __ of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Capital profit's from investments. In politics, investments of financing the operations of a political party is also expected to turn a profit. Capitalist's want returns on investments in the form of economic favours and services. Investment requires obedience to the capitalist class as ruling class. Economic power, in the form of money, dominates politics and determines the behavior of elected political sycophants and lickspittles who grovel at the feet of the capitalist "donor".
Party officials connected to finance agencies are the central core of the Party. By way of analogy, the "core" at the centre of the Party bureaucracy is compared to that of a super-massive black hole of concentrated (dense) mass the intensity of gravitational force having the power holding rings of stars together constituting a spiral galaxy. Within the galaxy are a number of different kinds of stars and other kinds of matter, gas and dust which have gravity and thus interact. The Hubble Space Telescope has observed star formation in interstellar nebulae/molecular clouds (e.g. "Pillars of Creation") revealing the birth of stars and also the death (supernovae) of massive stars that produce fresh elements which enrich newly forming molecular clouds - which Carl Sagan called stellar nurseries. Stars are born and stars "die". But the galaxy remains.
The same as this analogy of galaxies and super massive black holes is that of the political party and in particular it's elected officials in federal government seemingly at the edge of the spiral arms of the Party - viz. "progressive Democrats", "Justice Democrats" and "Our Revolution" and "Berniecrat Democrats". These "progressives" will, over time, become merged with and dependent upon the party bureaucrats, it's apparatus and/or it's money. "Progressives" will be required to "get their mind right" ("Cool Hand Luke") and will do so the same as Bernie Sanders did and does ever since he bowed to the DNC and became a full time party functionary. Ever since repenting to the Democratic Party and becoming a sheep dog for the party he has remained on the fringe regurgitating the Party policy regarding "Russian interference" and denuclearizing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He serves the interest of capital in domestic affairs and foreign policy. Members of Congress who get out of line concerning fundamental government policy will be politically destroyed and replaced. Only research the name Cynthia McKinney.
Cynthia McKinney was a political superstar among Democratic Party's progressives and was one of the organising members of the Democratic Party's congressional "Progressive Caucus" and also a member of the Democratic Party's "Black Congressional Caucus". But so soon as she spoke out on behalf of the visibly oppressed Palestinian people, and denounced Israeli blockades on Gaza she became in Congress and outside it a persona non grata. When Cynthia was attacked by Democratic Party members and television news, no one came to her defense other than Palestinian supporters. She finally left the Democratic Party and she briefly associated with the Green Party as its presidential candidate. She isn't a dead star (white dwarf) but is a smoldering red giant. As stars live and die, without affecting the galaxy, so elected politicians come and go without altering the class character of the Party. The Democratic Party is a capitalist class partisan formation.
At it's "feeding core" is the "event horizon" of big money capital. Big money though has the power to pull political opportunists into it's orbit. Ditto the Republican Party. Democratic and Republican parties feed from the same trough. Of each of these political parties there is a power-dependence relationship among its paid membership and salaried employees of rank because it is capital-money which sustain each of them. Capitalist financial investment is used to pay employee wages and the salary of the party bureaucracy. Orders from the core emanate through the Party rank's from top to bottom down hierarchic dominant-subordinate relations.
Party bureaucracy consists of hundreds of thousands of paid employees all over the country. Not only that. The Democratic Party as a Party has local, district, city, county and state offices and headquarters as well as federal offices, headquarters __ paid office employees and salaried staff across the country as well as central headquarter employees in Washington D.C. The day to day operations of the Party at the district, state and national levels has staff that are equipped with advanced telecommunication systems, transportation money; the building's rent, water, electricity and gas bills also have to be paid to keep the lights, heat, air conditioning, etc, on in each building. Where does the money come from? Capitalists. Capitalists not only fund political campaigns and lobbyists, which are the same thing, capitalist "big donor" money in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars also purchases the power and the obedience of the Democratic Party bureaucracy to use that power efficiently.
Not only the "military-industrial complex" but also the gas, oil, pharmaceuticals, industrial, financial, that is the interests of US capitalism as a whole, dictate domestic, foreign economic and finance policy of the government. Big oil had Obama invade Libya as it had Bush invade Iraq, big steel had Trump slap on steel tariffs and big agriculture demanded money from the government to compensate from China economic retaliation hitting the soy sector in the US economy. Agribusinesses are paid for the surpluses engendered by China's retaliation to Trump's tariffs in order to keep prices up. Congress did nothing to oppose the invasions of Iraq or Libya - rather, its parties authorised these wars! Nor is Congress posing any opposition to the Trump administration's internationally reckless tariff policies.
Democrats and Republicans in office aren't there to represent the "constituency" which voted for them, or rather who were duped by symbolism and show. Certainly politicians in election campaigns flatter their "constituents", their so-called "base". Politicians are charismatic demagogues. Always smiling. "Don't trust a man who smiles to much", -Khore, Klingon.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won as a "progressive" Democrat. It was nothing but another election of another Democrat. Whoop dee doo. It was nothing but a show (Hegel). Ocasio-Cortez's participation in a protest against Nancy Polosi is also show. Actually, Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Polosi are Party comrades. Democrats. Similarly, Democrats that wore Black hoodies, Trayvon Martin costumes, in an act of solidarity with black men in hoodies was also show. Trayvon Martin wasn't a Democrat and not a member of the Democratic Party or member of Congress. He was working class. Self-described "Congressional Black Caucus" politicians are members of the Democratic Party. That is all.
Pigmentation and morphological characteristics are used by politicians and media pundits to make it appear as though genetic determinations are essential for political representation and insight. Although natural this is nothing but appearance and used as an organic mask. In Hegel's Science of Logic Volume II is a discussion of Appearance, Essence and Show. Appearances are real. But, to exploit appearance, the colour of skin and shape of nose of a face is to negate its true essence as the "forth shining of reality" (as stated by Hegel in Volume I) and use it as a masquerade. A Mask. Democrats did this masquerade in the former slave states resulting in Jim Crow legislation against blacks along with racial segregation, discrimination, the Ku Klux Klan, rapes and lynching without legal consequences. Martin Luther King Jr was a student not only of the Bible, but of Hegel's "Phenomenology" and "Science of Logic" (dialectical ratiocination). In the fight against the false consciousness resulting from racist language and behavior of politicians King spoke to and convinced young whites as well as blacks that they must learn that "a man is to be judged by the content of his character and not by the colour of his skin". An objective identity of subject and appearance, that is the person and his or her colour is the Notion, the basis for working-class unity and the King led March on the Government to End Poverty and War. One must internalise critical thinking to negate the negativity of colourist culture. The ideas of the ruling class are the dominate ideas, whether truth or lies, written into the fabric of the culture. The Black Panther Party understood this and acted on this basis. Only look up the speeches and writings of Fred Hampton and George Jackson.
Democrats as well as Republicans reveal the content of their ugly, negative, opportunistic character as they regurgitate ideologies of racism and identity politics in the interests of their respective political party in the material interests of the capitalist master class. Democrats are political personifications of the material interests of capital: the ruling class. Racial identity politics is essentially politics of show. But we learn from science, math as well as from Hegelian logic that the negative can be negated and once negated the positive emerges - negation of negation is affirmation: (-) (-) = (+)
The first negation of the negation is self-conscious affirmation in the form of stubbornness. (Hegel's Phenomenology chapter on Master-Slave) Most people don't vote. "What is a rebel"? asked Albert Camus "A rebel is a man who says no [enough's enough, I will not obey]. But his saying no does not constitute a renunciation". Positive self consciousness only exists when these self-conscious rebels take the next step, again a negation of negation the affirmation of which is not just rejection of all the false and divisive politics and ideologies by recognising on the one hand "the ruling ideas" in class dominated American culture of race hatred come from ideological and political agents representing and are the political personifications of the ruling classes. But also understanding how those classes which appropriate and exploit labour power and foreclose on homes and that it's only in their political/economic interests to keep workers and poor surplus populations divided and competitive, as presently against immigrants. Thus, workers understand the need for class unity and sociocultural solidarity including with the immigrants and Muslim workers.
Insomuch as most people don't vote, the Democrats and Republicans had to establish new tricks and to more thoroughly exploit old ones. So, to re-encourage working class and poor folk to get enthusiastic about election cycles of deception again, the Democrats use it's partisan media to push identity politics of sex and race along with creating "progressive" Democrat formations, ostensibly opposed to "corporate Democrats", to suck up the angry and otherwise demoralised citizens into the lower rungs of the Democratic Party.
The two parties are completely dependent on capitalist donations to finance their party's material infrastructure and to pay the wages of its employees and daily operations. Each party's respective apparatus is stratified in structures of dominant -subordinate relationships so that the "new comer" into the Party __ e.g., "Tea Party Republicans" on one hand ostensibly to join and take the Republican Party from "RINOs"and on the other hand "Progressive Democrats" recruiting people into the Democratic Party, ostensibly to "re-take" the Party from "corporate" and/or "establishment" Democrats. Yet, the capitalist class owns both Republican politicians and Democratic Party politicians because they own both parties: lock, stock and barrel.
"Justice Democrats" is nothing but an oxymoron. Kyle Kulinski brags that 'progressive' Democrats who won elections didn't receive "corporate" money; those Democrats that won primaries as "progressives" and seats in legislatures as Democrats. But members of legislatures come and go whereas the Party core has remained the same since its founding on behalf of slave holding planter capitalists. Having seats in legislatures is not taking the Party from capitalists. Kyle failed to address how so-called "Our Revolution", "Justice Democrats" and "DSA" are going to displace this capitalist core and financial sources and put end to the power-dependence relationship of the Democrats dominated by finance capital, industrial capital, agricultural capital and merchant capital. Without going to capitalists for money how will "Our Revolution", "Justice Democrats" and "DSA" displace the existing bureaucracy and finance a new one on a national level, with branches in every state, county and large cities of the country? How are they going to disassociate the party from its membership among the hierarchical bureaucracy in the "deep state" and the military brass?
Democrats who call themselves "progressive" and reject PAC and Super PAC donations are essentially Democrats putting on an act. A deeper analysis of party and class reveal the Democratic Party is dominated by capital. Rhetoric about being"independent" and symbolic behavior is nothing but show __ i.e. "the unessential, masqueraded as the essential"(Hegel). The only existing network capable of challenging capital and defeating it is Labor. Labor unions have the numbers and national structure, and money from its employed members to form national and local political structures financially based on the unions and socially in the working class as a whole. Just as worker's wages and profits of capital are inversely related so the class interests of workers and capitalist parties are mutually exclusive! Workers need a self-financed social party, a Labor Party.
3:01..."Progressives are supposed to be one half turn of the screw away from being a radical."
The word radical can mean a sharp shift to the political left or towards the political right. There's the "radical right", remember? Maybe reactionary would be a better term to describe "radical right" policy. The "Reagan Reaction" instead of the "Reagan Revolution". But really it should be called the Reagan Counter-Revolution. Reactionary policy (owners) is the polar opposite of Revolutionary policy (producers).
5:27..."I wish I knew Amanda Terkel so I could send her a text 'hey why do you keep calling these guys progressives? Why do you keep misusing that word? ... I don't think you know what that word means'."
Inasmuch as "progressive" has no concrete definition as far as it applies to policy, e.g. some Democrats and Republicans support so-called "progressive" policies but neither ever supports socialist policy. Some Democrats might support Social Democratic policies but this is very different than socialism in the Marxist sense. Under a Social Democratic government, for example, society's productive forces don't change hands ("the property question") while socialism is an economy in transition wherein society's productive forces are being expropriated by the producers.
8:29..."You know how you get more young people to the polls?"
Yeah, the Democratic Party anyway has groups like Our Revolution, Justice Democrats and the DSA to do this work for them.
This might sound like nitpicking but revolutionaries should be clear in our word's and concept's 'cause the bourgeois have muddied the waters as much as they can on issues related to classes, class struggle, socialism, revolution, etc. and we working class can get caught up in bourgeois way's of thinking.
Millionaires Running Democratic Party Meet In Secret
LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe