Saturday, January 10, 2009

The Democratic Party

The Democrats are to the Republicans what Vichy France was to the Nazis.


  1. Now there we go calling the Democrats "french" again... ;)

  2. They really do suck total fucking ass. Buncha lily-livered craven asshole fuck-ups. They're not even any good at being powerhungry bougie scumbags. They're embarrassing to watch. At least the Repubs were somewhat effective at destroying and pillaging for the benefit of their oligarchs. The Dems can't even do that correctly.

  3. I think you're wrong, Comrade. The Democratic party exists to give "bipartisan" legitimacy to the basic principles of the Republican party. The whole Democratic/Republican split is a good cop/bad cop manipulation strategy.

  4. Dude, I think you're wrong. I don't buy that there is a conspiracy between the Dem and Repub parties. I think the Dems really do want to exert power. They just suck at it.

    Hey, question for you: I'm reading a fascinating biography of Nathanael Greene, and it's got me thinking about how it was the wealthy people in the colonies who wanted to revolt against England for economic reasons, but it was mostly poor fuckers who were? soldiers. Do you know of any good books that analyze the American Revolution from an economic class perspective.

  5. A conspiracy has to be secret. There's no secret at all about the Democrats being in bed with the Republicans.

    Do you know of any good books that analyze the American Revolution from an economic class perspective.

    The best I can do off the top of my head is Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy by Bob Avakian. It's not about the revolution per se; its more about the foundation of the early history of the US as a slave state.

    Avakian's style is a bit... prolix and jargony... but he makes some deep points.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Comrade: yeah i think that it is safe to state that USA was founded by fascist bourgeoise capitalist, business-men (Jefferson, Washington, Benjamin Franklin) and they had a goal of creating an oligarchic-republic with some little crumbles, checks and balances for the masses. They did not intent to create a real people's democracy for the people by the people in favor of the people, but a sort of type of humanized oligarchic capitalist plutocracy where the wealthy bourgeoise elites would be checked out and controlled by the US Constitution, but still they didn't create a real humanist democratic republic, just an oligarchic republic like USA has been all the time.

    But i don't think that we can blame the US liberators, because you have to apply historical-materialism and evolution and in the 1700s the socialist equality ideas where not so developed as today.

    So I think that Jefferson, Lincoln, Madison etc, were not evil like today's leaders like Clinton, Bush and Cheney.

    hahaha sorry to compare the dirty drug-smugglers of Clinton, Cheney and Bush with US founding fathers. it is a disrespect to their honor and dignity to compare US founders with mafia-thugs like Clinton, Bush and Obama.



  8. marxist-socialist directs our attention to S. Brian Willson's 2007 essay, 9/11 & Bush are Distractions from a People's Revolt from Below:

    The ugliest truth is that our civilization is built on three unspeakable holocausts, each justified by a White racist ideology, causing the murder of millions, each committed with impunity: (1) acquiring free land at gunpoint while systematically brutalizing hundreds of Indigenous cultures; (2) acquiring free labor by force from ancient Indigenous cultures in Africa by violent removal of those who survived capture; and (3) acquiring cheap resources, labor and markets through thousands of overt and covert interventions at gunpoint into more than 100 countries.

    MS also directs our attention to Dustin Eric Buehler's review of Empire of Liberty:

    By examining United States foreign policy between 1783 and 1809 in their book "Empire of Liberty," Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson put the myth of Thomas Jefferson under fire. Tucker and Hendrickson's central thesis is that Jefferson's statecraft wavered between two contradictory principles of liberty and empire. While president, Jefferson often found himself torn between pursuing a foreign policy role that provided examples of liberty, and a role as an "active crusader in international affairs." Tucker and Hendrickson claim that Jefferson tried in vain to accomplish both of these conflicting goals. The aim of his "new diplomacy" was to pursue the traditional ends of security and prestige while renouncing the traditional means of entangling alliances and wars that had been constantly used by European powers in the past.

    See also Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy by Bob Avakian.

    Unfortunately, MS has reproduced these works in full and I can find no evidence that the authors permit wholesale copying of their work. I've therefore deleted MS's earlier comment.


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.