CAPITALISM SUCKS !!

LIBERTARIANISM IS A CRAZY IDEOLOGY !!

SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY SUCKS !!

AND ANARCHISM (COMMUNISM) CAN WORK BUT IN THE FAR FUTURE, NOT NOW !!

ONLY SOCIALISM: WHICH IS THE NEXT STAGE IN HUMAN AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT CAN SAVE HUMANITY. BUT SOCIALISM WILL NOT COME WITHOUT THE WILL OF THE WORKING CLASS AND POOR PEOPLE !!

BY THE WAY: DON’T COUNT ON THE MIDDLE-CLASSES OF AMERICA, BECAUSE THE MIDDLE-CLASSES ARE ECONOMICALLY STABLE, AND AS LONG AS YOU ARE ECONOMICALLY-STABLE YOU WILL HATE SOCIALISM WITH A PASSION, AND DEFFEND CAPITALISM WITH A PASSION !!

.
.

Very well written…I googled a portion of it and I’ve seen either you under a different handle saying the same thing in a different forum or it’s someone else.

Submit that if it’s yours…Harlem Globe Trotters/Washington Generals? Brilliant!

No worries for the Obamas then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8001255.stm

We live in a police state.

i don’t know if nader is on left or not but he is for ending serial gefeindschaften [enemyshiphoods] and for healthcare. he’s not even, as far as i know, for free education or against separatist education.
my ‘god’ {oops, i mean, my devil} the man is almost fascist! tnx

Aren’t the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the “lesser evil;” they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can’t be properly understood if one’s study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are “less evil?” If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it’s easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.” Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn’t the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches et al “prove” that the Democrats are progressive? No. The “Kuciniches” are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types — but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a “Left decoration,” simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the “lesser evil” (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.

Can Progressives “Take Over” the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to “take over” the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly “taken over” by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid ’60′s, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.

But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party’s character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960′s, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930′s. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party’s progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930′s, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60′s. The party’s “progressive period” was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word “progressive” refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight’s name — “class warfare.” Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, “By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!” This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly “make all boats rise” over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth — and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

Just once will you answer that? Otherwise you have nothing more to offer this than the so-called “hand-wringing left (aka progressives, liberals, PDA, Huffpost, daily kos, golly gee witikers crowd).

What we’ve got is a very selfish nation. Pictures of people worried about their ‘children’s future debt’. Assholes don’t know that that horse left the barn ages ago.

But what revolting (and I don’t give a fuck if you want to call them snoop dogs or grass-hoppers) is that AMERICA is KILLING – MURDERING CHILDREN IN IRAQ, supporting KILLING OF CHILDREN IN GAZA, KILLING CHIDREN in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere.

Any you Deadbeat are worried about the LEFT. Fuck the left. Are these CHILDREN we are killing LEFTIST or RIGHTIST? WHO CARES!!!!

I ASK YOU WHO CARES? And who is NOW the commander in chief ordering these murders?

So, if you think it’s frivelous or inconsequental to be railing against Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN. The problem is not enough fuck’n care about anything but their own little consumerist selves.

“The rest of the world” shouldn’t change the way they see the US just as the the people in the US shouldn’t change the way they see the US. Any duped US or World citizen is far better off with their eyes open

Cheers

For all Obama’s many disappointing flaws, early failings and god-awful staff selections (I oppose almost all the people surrounding him, including Clinton), he is changing the way we are viewed by the rest of the world.

That was the one reason I voted for him. I expected no more than that. If he fucks that up, I’ll join the rest of you.

You didn’t mention education but you can add that to the list.

Arne Duncan, Obama’s Michael Brown nominee for the Department of Education has the possibility of becoming the worst Ed. Sec. ever.

Generally I find the constant critiques as avoidance of the real problem — the disorganization of the Left and its failure to build solidarity among the working class.

Are we really surprised?

Did you really think there would be a more substantive change than a ‘return’ to the long-standing myth that we are the good guys, that the empire should (of right) be paramount, that the oligarchs should continue to be protected, that corporations should be held exempt from culpability, that capitalism would continue as the religion?

If so, how sad.

It will take more than electing an Uncle Tom to change this country … and more than just hand-wringing.

But then, hand-wringing is the progressives only action …

… in the US at least.

RG the LG