New Political Party Just Dropped

Well, for full disclosure in the conversation I am a self-proclaimed Fascist-Technocrat. I believe in the centralization of society for its maximum output and its maximum potential. Or in American laymens terms, even though the position is Third Position it has become annoyingly known as "far right". I just wanted to lay that out there in full disclosure and honesty. So when it comes to the lawyer or the doctor, some(many in fact) may run private practices and therefore, in those cases they actually do own the means of production and aren't necessarily "workers" per se.

(Or rather, there's a difference between what is termed as upper middle class, and lower.) Maybe serfs are the ones who are under the rug, whereas workers with some autonomy are 'higher' per se. Whilst arguing over these definitions is fun, I think the important factor to consider is that while the company owner may not be doing the physical labor, he has brought the space(land) in which the work is being done, as well as the ownership of the corporate brand/company.

Theoretically, workers could own this but could they own/afford the costs? Are they going to pay themselves for their own labor? Outside of this, the biggest factor is that Socialism and the Karl Marx struggle demands, necessitates conflict for its own existence. This conflict feeds of itself and prevents a greater merger of society to me and thus eventually the rippling fractures would undermine the society and keep it from flourishing.

 

The dude has no appeal and nobody knows who he is. This will go nowhere.

 

~ They should just bring back Ralph Nader and the Green Party.

 

Most people who speak English know that "forward" is a relative direction.

How many times have you said "forward" that wasn't in a socialist context?

 

The Green Party didn't go away
https://www.gp.org/

Try this sometime.
https://www.google.com

 

I understand the Libertarian party does not do well on the national level. However, they don't do well on the local level too. Which makes it extremely hard to build anyway. As I said, many libertarians run as Republicans like Sen Rand Paul or Sen Lankfort, for instance.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are basically big tents. It just so happens that both parties are battling extreme elements within their own party, which is one of the problems of our political system. It isn't perfect but it definitely has problems, especially in the last decade or two.

Depending on where I have lived, my district has had a Libertarian to run for office on the local level. It is not rare, but it is not common either. And occassionally I have voted for Libertarian because I did not trust at all the candidates from the two major parties. But that is par for the course nowadays with most voters.

The general population has never gone for "radical" ideas. Of the minor parties I listed, they get even less votes in local, state or national elections than the Libertarian or Green Party.

Never argued that, but you missed the point. Because the newer democracies are not hinged on the political system of their former occupyiers, like Ukraine for instance, you see more and more minor parties have success compared to the US or even the UK, France, Germany, or Israel. That was the point Blues.

 

I think there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with both major political parties, so I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this one.

 

I hope this party gains traction. If they make it they will have my support. Right now I park my support with the Libertarians. I really have no wish to go back to the GOP.

 

I’m not familiar with your self(?) described political philosophy, so I’d have to do some research before I could engage much on that; assuming you wanted to.

Yes, many doctors and lawyers do own their own practices. This would make them B even though they also provide labor. They are still workers to some extent. Marx had more specific terminology for individual situations like this, but I can’t recall them at this time. If their practice were to employ people they would need to set their business up like a co-op. They wouldn’t be entitled to the products of other peoples’ labor. No more than anyone else is entitled to theirs.

Is there any owner of a major company that built up that company single handed? No, absolutely not. They employ people. That’s how they grew. They wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t need to.

Worse though is the owner who’s only contribution is owning capital. No man, simply by virtue of possessing wealth, should be entitled to build that wealth on the backs of stealing the value that workers produce.

There are a good theories about how businesses can be established. I’m not an expert on this particular topic though. My understanding is that federal and local governments can establish lending funds for the establishments of businesses. This would differ from current systems where financiers would provide capital in exchange for a stake in the business. As far as pay goes, companies’ workers would democratically decide on their wages with respect to the value provided by their labor. In a lot of ways it wouldn’t be too different from how things are currently. Workers would just be entitled to a larger percentage of what they produce and the general direction of the company.

Those who have much and profit off of those who have little create massive inequalities in our current system. People can barely afford to even pay their rent, let alone buy their own homes. I don’t know about you, but I’d say that looks a lot like conflict; conflict that this system depends on. Socialism wouldn’t be without strife among the people The P would have to take back what is theirs from the B. It won’t happen without a fight in one form or another, buts it’s a worthwhile fight.

 

Their best bet would be to try and pick up some senate seats. If they can hold the “balance of power” then they become a force

 

LOL... naw.. Political folks know what they mean when they use "Forward". You can't BS your way out of this one. And usually, it's gayly forward because "straight" is offensive... JK

 

Or maybe they lean one way on one issue, and the other way on another issue. I see lot of people wanting to be 100% one or another out of fear of being labeled, and when a new issue pops up, they wait for their party's opinion before declaring their "view" (adopted party view). It does not require any thinking of their own.

Of course the GOP will label them 'left' if they support universal health care, and the Dems will label them 'right' if they support 2A. That's expected. Such labels are silly, but the new party will have to learn to live with it.

It says "former Republican governor of New Jersey." New Jersey has had a number of Republican governors including Chris Christie.

Democrat lite on some issues and GOP lite on others.

Its not about him.


Clearly party loyalists are against this as we can see from the comments. Some go as far as opposing it because they don't like the name. In the end it will be decided by the silent majority, the independents, who represent 41% of American voters (GOP = 28%, Dems =28%)

 

I thanked you for your honesty

 

I know.

 

I wish Ron Paul was 30 years younger.

 

Yes. I voted for him several times. He spoke from the heart and didn't care what his party thought about it.

 

I voted for Biden because Trump was unacceptable.

 

I honestly think if there was ever a moment in history where a 3rd party has a chance, this is it. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have gone to far on their spectrum's and we truly need a party that governs from the middle. I'd truly support that... However, to your point, many will be too afraid that if they don't vote for the (D) or (R), the opposing faction will win so they will vote party line..

 

Why?

 

Yes, I think lot of people like the idea of a 3rd party, but will continue to vote for "R" or "D" out of fear of seeing the party they dislike the most winning because of the 3rd party.

 

Why so cynical? Have the two parties made you so jaded that you can only see politics in terms of grifting and conning people?

The unfortunate thing is that every independent and third party is viewed as a spoiler in our elections because we're conditioned to see them that way. This winner-take-all model with a lack of infrastructure to provide financial support in particular to such candidates and parties has made it practically impossible to have a third choice in national elections that is viewed as viable. As much as people pine for a third party, come election day the vast majority will still vote for the "lesser evil" between the ruling two, most especially in the presidential race.

 

Exactly. Our system needs to be changed at this point because voter psychology has the country locked into supporting the (D) and (R) grifters.

 

I cannot vote for someone I would not permit in my home. Beyond that:
Betrayal of Afghanistan
Attempted destruction of NATO

 

Personally, like George Washington, think parties should be removed and you merely vote on merit of the person. If that were the case, capital hill would look VASTLY different today.

 

there always has been, especially in the last 10 to 20 years or so. But the main problem is the alternative political parties. Some are worse than what we currently have and others have no support among the general populace because they are single issue parties.

Because of what Ross Perot did, by withdrawing from the Presidential Race three months before the election, most of the older general populace is not going to trust a third party. Ross Perot basically made sure that GHWB was not going to get reelected. And that started the pendilum to swing where no substantial new political third party will have a chance.