President Forever 2008 + Primaries: Policy Planks

[TNF]

Abortion: Left
Balanced Budget: Center-Left
Business Tax: Center-Right
Education: Left
Energy: Center-Left
Environment: Center
Gun Control: Center-Right
Health Care: Far-Left
Homeland Security: Center-Left
Immigration: Center-Right
Iran: Center
Iraq: Center-Left
Outsourcing: Left
Personal Tax: Center-Left
Same-Sex Marriage: Far-Left
Social Security: Left
Unions: Left
War on Terror: Center-Left

Far-Left: 2, Left: 6, Center-Left: 5, Center: 2, Center-Right: 3, Right: 0, Far-Right: 0

[TNF]

Let's see if this has changed any since April.

Abortion: Left
Balanced Budget: Center-Left
Business Tax: Right (moved from Center-Right to Right)
Education: Left
Energy: Left
Environment: Center
Gun Control: Center-Right
Health Care: Far-Left
Homeland Security: Center-Left
Immigration: Center-Right
Iran: Center
Iraq: Center-Left
Outsourcing: Far-Left (moved from Left to Far-Left)
Personal Tax: Center-Left
Same-Sex Marriage: Far-Left
Social Security: Left
Unions: Left
War on Terror: Center-Left

Just two position shifts. I have moved towards favoring a total abolition of corporate taxes on value-added manufacturers that build here in the United States, while also favoring the implementation of a 'social tariff' system against corporations that outsource jobs.

Far-Left: 3, Left: 4, Center-Left: 5, Center: 2, Center-Right: 2, Right: 1, Far-Right: 0

[TNF]

Abortion: Left
Balanced Budget: Center
Business Tax: Center
Education: Far-Left
Energy: Right (We are better off investing in natural gas exploration and expanding nuclear power usage than wasting money on wind farms or solar panels)
Environment: Center
Gun Control: Center-Right
Health Care: Far-Left
Homeland Security: Center
Immigration: Center-Right
Iran: Center-Left
Iraq: Center-Left
Outsourcing: Far-Left
Personal Tax: Left
Same-Sex Marriage: Far-Left
Social Security: Left
Unions: Left
War on Terror: Center-Left

[TNF]

Abortion: Far-Left
Balanced Budget: Far-Left
Business Tax: Far-Left
Education: Far-Left
Energy: Left, assuming that includes nuclear power/natural gas
Environment: Left
Gun Control: Far-Right
Health Care: Far-Left
Homeland Security: Left
Iran: Left
Iraq: Left
Outsourcing: Far-Left
Personal Tax: Left
Same-Sex Marriage: None of these really fit my position, but the closest one is Far-Left
Social Security: Far-Left
Unions: Far-Left
War on Terror: Far-Left

[TNF]

Abortion: Left
Balanced Budget: Far-Left
Business Tax: Far-Left
Education: Far-Left
Energy: Left
Environment: Left
Gun Control: Right
Health Care: Far-Left
Homeland Security: Left
Immigration: Far-Left
Iran: Far-Left
Iraq: Left
Outsourcing: Far-Left
Personal Tax: Left
Same-Sex Marriage: Far-Left
Social Security: Far-Left
Unions: Far-Left
War on Terror: Far-Left

11 Far-Left, 6 Left, 0 Center-Left, 0 Center, 0 Center-Right, 1 Right, 0 Far-Right

[TNF]

Gun Control: Right

What's it like living in your fantasy land where the "GUN RYTES" movement doesn't march in lockstep with fascists, survivalists, dipsh[inks]s who idolize George Zimmerman because he got away with shooting a black kid, and lots of other horrendously evil groups?

There are plenty of folks on the actual left that support gun ownership. I support gun ownership because (1) I do not believe that I should not be armed for self-defense when the exact types of people you mention (fascists, racists, etc.) are armed; If the far-right is going to arm itself and use those arms against the far-left (which would be a given in any revolutionary crisis or situation), then I'm going to arm myself and defend myself against them, and I would hope that my comrades on the far-left would do the same.

(2) I really, really don't trust a state that spies on me, organizations that I associate with, and causes that I support with a monopoly on force. I don't trust that government with a monopoly on force, I don't trust it's courts, it's police, or it's army, and if they attempt to liquidate me or others on the left (which they have in the past, be it during the 'Black Scare' against anarchists in the 1880s, the First Red Scare of 1920s, the Second Red Scare of the late 1940s, or the campaign against the Black Panthers in the late 1960s), I'd like to think that there's at least some possibility of resistance to such undemocratic attacks upon personal liberties.

(3) I am a revolutionary socialist, and do not think that, ultimately, socialism will be enacted in a democratic or peaceful fashion. Given that, I think it's a good idea for revolutionary socialists to be armed and prepared for any potential crisis that gives us the opportunity to participate in a revolutionary remaking of society at-large.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, except that's never been the case historically. I could point out a ton of examples: the Freikorps in Germany, the Klan during the Civil Rights revolution, armed scabs and company thugs during the 1930s in the US, etc. The far-right will certainly be deputized and used to terrorize and destroy leftist groups if the opportunity presents itself. There's far more proof for what I am asserting than what you are asserting here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that, time and time again, unorganized, guerrilla and militia forces have pushed back and defeated superior military forces. What happened in Vietnam? What about the American Revolution? Without armed slaves in the South, the Union would have had a much harder time of destroying slavery and defeating the Confederacy there, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

George Zimmerman (a white supremacist) killed Trayvon Martin, not a gun. The Sandy Hook kids were murdered by a mentally ill young man. As the recent mass stabbings show, these kind of events are going to happen, whether guns are involved or not, so long as a large segment of your population suffers from neuroses. The answer to mass shootings is not gun control, it's not more cops, it's more health care. It's ending the barriers on accessing mental healthcare by establishing universal, not-for-profit, free-at-the-point-of-use, single-payer health insurance. As awful and oft-repeated as it is, it really is true that guns don't kill people; people do. And in the case of the United States, disturbed and/or racist (as in the case of Zimmerman) people do.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is laughable for the exact same reason right-wing lunacy about guns being the final defense against liberal tyranny is. You are trying to rise up against the most powerful armed forces on the planet. They have tanks, planes, drones, EVERYTHING. Pea-shooters and old rifles will not save you here. You are going to lose.

As we know, no insurgency against a superior force has ever succeeded. Vietnam isn't a real place.

Yes, but then those guys were willing to march 50 miles a day and subsist on mostly rice, which I doubt you latte socialists are jumping at the bit to do.

Latte socialist? That's an awfully big term to throw around at someone you don't actually know. The one who sounds like a 'latte socialist' here is the one apologizing for the present state of affairs and actively going after those of us who actually think that revolutionary socialism is possible and desirable. The fact that I work in fast food and have previously been active in union politics doesn't really back your claim up so much as it shows your ignorance of who it is you are arguing with. I've been out in the streets, I've done actual political work on working class issues; if that's what you deem "latte socialism", then so be it.

[TNF]

abortion: far-left
balanced budget: center-right¹
business taxation: far-left²
education: far-left
energy: right³
environment: center
gun control: right
health care: far-left
homeland security: left
immigration: literally none of these⁴
iran: far-left⁵
iraq: left⁶
outsourcing: none of these⁷
personal tax: left⁸
same-sex marriage: abolish marriage
social security: far-left⁹
unions: far-left
war on terror: far-left

¹the national debt is a transfer payment from the bulk of the population to a small number of extremely rich individuals.
²special snowflake position: nationalize industry, replace business and other forms of taxation with a system structured around surplus value.
³focus on natural gas, geothermal energy, and nuclear power, especially the latter. throw insane amounts of money at developing thorium-based reactors and fusion reactors, etc, etc.
⁴none of these positions come close to what I would consider workable as an immigration policy. first and foremost, assuming the continuation of a capitalist politico-economic system, I believe that immigrants should be defended against racist or xenophobic attacks and should be given full citizenship rights. I am opposed to the idea of a guest worker program and oppose entirely the concept of 'open borders' which is a utopian fantasy under capitalism and not workable in any real sense until capitalism as a world system is overthrown and replaced by socialism. likewise, in the extant deformed workers states, I would probably not favor 'open borders' in that this would likely lead to the emigration of highly-skilled persons necessary for the construction of a more advanced economic system in said countries and would in all likelihood be in favor of strict controls in order to prevent a general brain-drain.
⁵the nuclear deal was a massive -up on Iran's part, given that it will likely result in penetration of the region by American imperialism to an even greater extent without some form of opposition on the ground. nevertheless, I support the right of all powers to develop and maintain nuclear arsenals, especially the remaining deformed workers' states of china, north korea, cuba, laos, and vietnam.
⁶end all offensive operations against ISIS, remove all foreign troops from the region.
⁷see my entry on immigration. in the here and now, I am opposed to protectionism as an economic policy, as well as the so-called 'free trade' agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, which are in actuality instruments of economic domination by imperialist powers relative to their weaker competitors. ideally, I would favor free trade, and insofar as free trade expands the number of the international proletariat, I am certainly in favor of it. In a socialist context, I would obviously support a state monopoly on trade.
⁸see 'business taxation.' eliminate all forms of personal taxation in favor of the state requisitioning a portion of surplus value and/or ground rent.
⁹womb to tomb welfare state

[TNF]

corporate income tax: in terms of business taxation i was thinking more along the lines of abolishing redundant 'corporate income tax' and shifting towards taxing things like land value and dividends more. in any case small businesses and/or cooperatives certainly should not be taxed like multinational corporations.

well ideally i think the economy would be mixed and would consist of large, state-owned and managed industries (the 'commanding heights' of the economy), cooperative industries specializing in consumer goods, and small businesses (for niche markets), at least during the transition period away from capitalist production. in terms of taxation, i agree with you about taxing the land, which would ideally be under common ownership and then the state could just collect ground rent on it based upon the kind of economic activity you were engaging in on it/state enterprises were using it for, etc.

also obviously one thing that would be different would be that everyone would be required to be a union member and the unions would be responsible for finding you work if you were out of a job, managing the shop floor, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really have an opinion as far as present-day immigration levels are concerned. as I am opposed to the bourgeois state, I don't feel it particularly necessary to give it advice on how to administer labor markets, given that restricting propaganda and agitation to that would be an immense waste of time and effort. demanding open borders is demanding the impossible within capitalism, because the bourgeois state exists to promote capital accumulation within a given geographical territory, and anything which might potentially complicate the ability of the bourgeois state to provide stable conditions for capital accumulation (i.e. mass inflows or outflows of immigrants) is a non-starter for those at the helm of the state.

likewise, demanding immigration controls from a government that depends upon cheap labor is not going to happen anytime soon, or at least, in any effective form. and ultimately, legislation that aims at controlling immigration typically becomes 'anti-terror' legislation or is used to police labor markets by arresting striking workers, busting up unions, etc. you can't win with the bourgeoisie on immigration, so there's no point in advising them on how best to exploit the working class, be it on this side of the rio grande or the other.