New Political Party Just Dropped

If you don't want to be stuck in the duopoly, then try to change people's attitudes about how to vote and get rid of the name-calling in politics. Yes, that is a hard task, but not impossible. Most people in the US vote what that letter is behind the name. Jesus Christ can run as a Democrat and I will be Greg Locke and others like him will call him a communist. And the Apostle Paul can run as a Republican and the Democrats will call him a fascist. And yet 95% of the people will believe either story as if it is actually true without doing any type of research on what they believe or who they actually are. Just what any of the media they listen to tells them, like a monkey whose hand is caught in the cookie jar and can't get it out.

 

Actually, since we're discussing political philosophy and in attempts not to strawman the argument I want to engage this in a civically, philosophically sound manner. So I presume we're on the same page that I can come at this the right way? Okay, acting under that presumption the reason there hasn't been a 'true' socialist country lies in the contradiction of 'workers owning the means of production'.

It is not possible for a 'worker' to 'own the means of production' and remain a lower class citizen. The more someone owns the means of production, the more wealth that they earn they naturally raise higher in the socio-economic status, and therefore in a higher status of a party or organization. In other words, even after neatly distributing the wealth in accordance with some ideal of equality there will inevitably be someone doing the redistributing, and there will be those who are at the upper echelon. As you note, China has Xi. Russia had Stalin.

The only way the reproduction could take place, without the worker achieving a higher status as a result of owning the means of production would be if the class system is ran without a political-centered focus. That is, of a bipartisan, independent, totally neutral body who only cares for the self sustenance of the citizens of a country.

 

Will he be another Ross Perot:

 

Okay, so they weren’t Nazis. They just appointed a Nazi sympathizer into the leadership. You win? I guess?

 

We can’t civility politics our way out of a duopoly.

If you’d like to know why we have a duopoly Freakonomics radio did a good episode about it.

 

Let me put it to you this way. If more and more people said "no" to the name-calling by major political parties and if people look more at the candidate instead of the letter behind the name, then minor political parties will have a better chance in developing and really challenging the two-party system. Otherwise, it's all for not.

 

Don't steal.......

 

Former gov of NJ? So basically a democrat then? Pass

 

They only exist to hurt one party or the other.
Soooo … who has the most to gain?
I’ll bet big money from the “Big Everything” sector is buying the democrats by promising to dilute the anti-democrat vote. Anti- trust is after them, and they are already in the democrat camp.

And as a voter, shut-up. You don’t decide the elections anymore because your information flow is corrupted. Garbage in, garbage out. That ship has sailed.

 

I appreciate you approaching the discussion in good faith.

I believe you’re conflating worker with lower economic class or poverty. This isn’t the case. A doctor or lawyer, while in many cases paid quite well, are still workers.

How much money someone earns really isn’t the point. The class struggle between the Proletariat (workers/laborers) and the Bourgeoisie (capital owners) (P and B respectively) is. Socialism calls for P to take control of the means of production away from B. The idea is that the people who do the work should receive as much of the products of their labor as possible, and that capital owners should not be entitled to any of it.

Socialism doesn’t aim to evenly distribute resources. There’s a big difference between the value that a receptionist brings to a company vs that of an engineer. It’s natural that their pay would vary on that basis. What socialism does is introduce democracy into the workplace.

I believe federal governments have a place under socialism, but I don’t believe there is any necessity that they control the means of production. Though I could see arguments for control of vital industries such as healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

(Side note: I am far from being a theory wonk. I reserve the right to be proven wrong by someone who knows better. )

 

Let me put it to you this way. As long as people, rightfully, believe in voting for harm reduction there will always be a duopoly; unless we have ranked choice voting. People should be able to vote their conscience without having to contend with the reality that it results in a vote for a candidate that is even further out of line with ideals. I would love to vote third party, but with our current system, any vote that isn’t for a Democrat is for a Republican.

 

Ranked choices isn't going to work. People are still going to look at the letter behind the name FIRST before anything else based on how the district is outlined. In a conservative district, you can guarantee that it will still be a republican even in a nonpartisan primary, like in Louisiana. This sounds nice, but in reality it will fall on its face.

 

I think it will be democrat lite more then anything. Personally I doubt it will hurt the voting republican party much.

 

I hope this party works. We desperately need a political party that isn't full of progressives or Trumpers. If they have a decent candidate in the next election, I'll vote for them.

 

You could have easily just been describing Donald Trump, so it's safe to say that it's hardly disqualifying. And no, I don't mean to deflect to Trump, but rather to point out that vague and lofty rhetoric gets people elected all the time. Trump is just one of the biggest examples.

 

Yes! I thought. A third party is finally getting serious. Then I saw that it was chaired by Andrew Yang and I knew better. You know he only got like 2% of the vote when he ran for President? (I voted for him by the way.)

So, the next most likely chance we have to break the two-party stranglehold is ranked voting. Unfortunately, Republicans are unlikely to try any more voting experiments after Trump lost. And Dems, well, I heard they recently got a green party candidate to drop out. So, no as well.

 

Don't forget the Prohibition, Socialist Labor and Socialist Workers parties!

 

Similar to the progressives more then likely

 

You’re not making an argument here based on anything substantial. You’re just assuming a disinterested and uninformed voter base and as such it can’t work. I have more faith in the American people than that.

 

You may want to get Aurthur Jones, a self-identified Neo Nazi in Chicago. Even the local and state GOP tried to not get him to run but failed to do. But eventually he received 26% of the vote. I don't think there is 26% of the vote that identify as Neo-Nazis in that district. So, why did he get that much. The letter behind his name. This is one example, but there are many others as well.

It is not faith that concerns me, it is the realistic probablity that has convinced me. I'm old enough where incivility was rare and uncommon with most people ignoring it. Not today. And it has been brewing and growing since the 1990s when GHWB ran for reelection. In the old days, very few people voted straight party line vote. It was extremely common for a voter to vote Democrat a general congressional election but Republican in the general Presidential election, Like what Pennsylvania did in the 80s and 90s. Nowadays, both major parties will now say if a Governor is Democrat then that state is Democrat or vice versa. This is the same for President, Senate or a majority of the Congressional seats. Hogwash.

 

Christin Todd who voted for Biden and Yang who is definitely Democrat. They may have the establishment at their table but not the heart and soul of American people.

 

I didn't particularly think Trump was highly qualified but he had dealt on an international scale, he did have a good idea of how the economy works and while not the most conservative certain more than this guy.

 

as a candidate andrew young was the only candidate who supported money for liquid thorium reactors, a newer technology in nuclear fission totaly divorced from high pressure steam vessels and all the bad old nuclear tech... this in my opinion was the single most important topic among our candidates, unfortunately it appears to have gone over the heads of the die hard citizenry hung up on arguing social issues to death

 

We already have a third party I think most Americans values align with.

Fiscal conservatism and social moderacy.

Libertarianism.

 

Well they CERTAINLY don't do well on the high office level either do they. I have seen far more local and state and they should build on that instead like the last few years embarrass themselves in the national stage.

The national party has simply gone over the top with their platforms nominee's and that's where they put their efforts and more important money.

I have voted Libertarian in the past but they have not put up anyone since I can remember on local ballots here.

And I IMHO would give them the same advice else they will remain small minority parties. Of course I doubt that the general population is going to go for their radical ideas anytime soon.

Well we are not a parlimentaty system like those other countries either. But we have seen parties come and go throughout our history. And at the rate the Dems are going one could pop up and split the party into the radicals and the moderate leftist.