05-06-2012 09:15 AM - edited 05-06-2012 09:43 AM
I always thought there had been some socialist thought, and maybe communist, that could be better represented by a third party. The Republican and Democrat parties don't always represent "socialist" objectives as well as they could, that is, objectives become either "watered down" or lost- if you take the national healthcare as an example. "Occupy wall street" could be a socialist party for example, and both the Republican and Democratic parties have, at one time or another, been accused of favoring big business. In my opinion, often the issue in politics is about a third party that never formed, and rarely do political discussions devote a part of the discussion to a third party. Maybe too destabilizing? What do you think?
05-06-2012 11:30 AM
05-07-2012 10:22 AM
There is a Socialist Party USA, as well as Socialist Workers Party (Trotskyist) and Communist Party USA. There was a party that fielded a candidate for president in 2008, Party for Socialism and Liberation. To the best of my knowledge, none of these has every managed any significant vote total, not even coming close to managing to compete with the Libertarians.
Did parties above ever take positions on "national healthcare" or the "occupied wall street movement"? It may be that people lacked information about them and could not assemble more politically effective parties. And it could also be that the aforementioned parties simply lacked money, and socialist or communist objectives would be then be taken by either the republican and democratic party for a price(i.e. there might be some bargaining to push a socialist objectives)
Moreover, Communism and Socialism are dirty word in American politics, anyway, and you could attribute their lack of success in our political system for that reason. Maybe all the parties could assemble under the occupied wall street party for example? In general, there has been socialist thinking as well as "socialist acts" passed by congress throughout our history, but no official "socialist party." And it might have something to do with a corporate dominance which, I think, the Occupied Wall Street movement rallies against- but it's hard to say- it seems to lack focus....
05-07-2012 10:36 AM
Oh, excuse me- "Occupy Wall Street" which is becoming "Once Occupied Wall Street", so I hear. So once they're removed- I don't want any complaints about how big businesses are running things in our country. And I have to make a correction- there has been no prominent sociaist party- but maybe an official socialist party.
05-07-2012 02:09 PM - edited 05-07-2012 02:24 PM
Regardless of the name, OWS never gathered the popular support they hoped for, largely due to lack of a coherent agenda. It's very clear what they're against; what they're for is a lot more cloudy.
Although there is widespread support for government supplying certain services (education, police, roads, defense) you won't find large numbers of people supporting a socialist agenda in general under any banner (regardless of how one party attempts to label another) and the existing socialist parties continue to be pretty much on the fringe.
05-10-2012 12:21 PM - edited 05-10-2012 01:09 PM
05-10-2012 05:39 PM