Defining Ourselves

The Ron Paul Phenomenon Is Not Dead! Part 2 of 4

When examined objectively we see that the “Ron Paul Phenomenon” is made up of many components, only one of which is Ron Paul himself. In one very crucial respect the Ron Paul Phenomenon united people across the political spectrum in a passionately held common desire to reclaim at least the promise that once was America.

As such, the “phenomenon” may now be in the process of sowing the seeds for a viable third party that could unite not only the more impassioned elements of the far right and the far left but also a good portion of the more mainstream segments of the electorate. The problem is that there is the very real possibility that this shared dream (and potential third party) may yet again be subverted or destroyed altogether.

The importance of that truly extraordinary, yet-to-be-realized American dream requires that you and I together carefully examine how it was that the “phenomenon” came to be. In so doing we will be better equipped to detect fault lines and possible pitfalls we might need to avoid if we are to keep at least the promise of our shared dream alive. It must be said that this endeavor will also ultimately require a coming together of ALL of us, not just a few target populations, and it must rest on the principles that are actually contained in the founding documents — not just someone else’s interpretation of them.

To begin real movement toward our goal, each of us must examine — with as much deliberate care and objectivity as we are able to muster — the facts as they exist for each of the various components of the larger phenomenon that goes well beyond Ron Paul the man. One such component concerns what Paul himself has described as “ancient history”; that is to say the long defunct “racist” newsletters going under various titles including The Ron Paul Political Report and The Ron Paul Survival Report.

The lingering questions over authorship of these newsletters only add more questions as to exactly who might now be responsible for all or most of Paul’s current and future work and writings. If indeed other individuals assist with — or provide the bulk of — Paul’s material, we might also wonder whether the agenda of these unidentified others completely matches — or subtly re-frames — Paul’s own thinking and philosophy.

Another aspect to consider is that — if it is true that the original purpose of those newsletters was part of a Machiavellian style campaign strategy designed by Paul’s associates in order to build a support base that may not in fact be aligned with Paul’s own sentiments — what assurance do we have that Paul (or his handlers) may not yet again utilize at least a mutated version of such tactics? This is especially troublesome in that Paul himself has so far made NO move to either satisfactorily explain or sever the ties to the relevant, controversial portion of his support base or the tacticians who dreamed it all up.

In the long run, the whole newsletter issue is far less about racism than it is about campaign tactics and what we as voters are willing to tolerate or accept as “part of doing business.” Thus a good portion of our undertaking necessarily involves considerable self-examination. Our own individual responses to and opinions of those old newsletters will tell us as much about ourselves and more importantly how we approach politics in general and our leaders in particular, as they can tell us about Ron Paul the politician. This is a critical element of the task at hand because all too many of us are inclined to take short cuts which eventually can come back to haunt us.

I for one confess that I had watched various reports of the nature of these controversial newsletters which made it to CNN, Tucker Carlson, Wolf Blitzer, and the Bill Moyers Journal. But, like a lot of people, I summarily accepted the answers Ron Paul gave in those interviews.

Suffice it to say, my decision has come back to haunt me, and so today we revisit those old newsletters in order that we might together examine the facts as they exist. We begin with a very cursory review of a few of the statements that were again garnering a flurry of criticism in 2008. We include a series of rebuttals, some of which charged that the quotes cited were made up.

You can be the judge of all of this by carefully investigating scanned copies of the recently recovered original documents for yourself. But as you move through this material, please remember to ponder carefully the real implications of your personal reactions and opinions — as well as the potential long range consequences of even tacit acceptance of this sort of campaign strategy.

Selections from the newsletters are as follows.

“Hmmm. I hate to agree with Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis…”1

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks. . . Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin…”2

And: “They [homosexuals] enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick…”3

A May 1990 issue4 cites a man by the name of Jared Taylor, who six months later would go on to found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance. A May 1991 issue5 offers a subscription to American Renaissance.6 Four years later, in July 1994, Taylor was cited by The Ron Paul Survival Report, this time as a “criminologist.”7

In 1996, Paul said that the newsletters were taken out of context. Five years later he said he didn’t write them — but he took “moral responsibility” for them. The chronology goes something like this.

When interviewed separately by the Houston Chronicle, the Austin American Statesman, the Dallas Morning News and elsewhere in 1996, Ron Paul and his staff all claimed that Paul wrote the Political Reports — but insisted the media was taking them out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul claimed someone else had written the controversial passages. “‘Old News’? ‘Rehashed for Over a Decade’? ” by Matt Welch, January 11, 2008. Reason.

Then in January 2008, during an interview on the Tucker Carlson Show, James Kirchick of The New Republic said that Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Kirchick that he (Benton) had written those newsletters. Shortly thereafter Benton changed his story somewhat by saying the offensive parts were ghostwritten.8

Immediately after this interview, long time friend and one time congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell posted a short rebuttal to Kirchick on the Lew Rockwell Blog beginning with the charge that “TNR [The New Republic] has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism…”9 Concurrent to Rockwell’s post, a much longer article asserted that “Another hack journalist intent on making a name for himself in the establishment media peanut gallery is the latest to spuriously attack presidential candidate Ron Paul, making completely baseless claims … Ron Paul is a hero. He stands for uncompromised integrity and unwavering adherence to the core principles of the Constitution.”10

These rebuttals notwithstanding, a few days after the Carlson/Kirchick interview, Congressman Paul told Wolf Blitzer that he had “absolutely” no idea who “wrote those things”and allowed that it is the editor, not the publisher (in this case Ron Paul & Associates) of a magazine, who has responsibility for the daily activity of such publications. Paul also stated that there were “some hirings” during that time period, but since “people come and go” he did not know any of their names.11

So we might ask: how and why is it that several of the Political Reports listed Paul as the editor? How often is it that Paul places his name on articles or books he may not even have read? How is it that no one can identify the true authorship of those newsletters inasmuch as there were only four primary employees listed during this time period — Paul’s family and Lew Rockwell — together with another seven nationwide.12 Moreover why were these newsletters (with one exception which carried the byline of another writer) all published under the banner of Ron Paul’s name, thus creating the impression that they were all written by him, and therefore reflective of his views?13

Another question arises: and it has to do with what the nature of those newsletters say about Paul’s supporters, past and present. Specifically, why were there apparently few or no complaints or cancellations from past supporters — and presumably newsletter purchasers — over the twenty year period they were written and during a time period in which their publisher, Ron Paul & Associates, was earning some $940,000 annually?

In other words, were the majority of Paul supporters at that time all racist or “homophobes” — or were only selected publications used to target such groups? Moreover, and given the fact that Paul convincingly asserts that he is not a racist, should we now be at all concerned that the kind of language used in those newsletters clearly appealed to racists and similar “hate” groups who seemed to have helped establish a support base that is still with him?

Additionally, why have so many present supporters, myself included, been so readily dismissive of the many inconsistent explanations — and in turn remiss in considering the long term implications of such campaign tactics (assuming that is indeed what they were)? Part of the explanation rests with the simple fact that the pressure and activity of everyday life often seduces us into relying more on emotion and assumption than might be warranted or required in our decision-making processes, but might this just as easily be as much an excuse as an explanation given the extent of our national problems?

There are of course some thought-provoking assessments of those old newsletters and how they might be related to campaign strategy. Here is one such assessment:

The whole newsletter campaign was marketing genius, in a Machiavellian, the-ends-justify-the-means kind of way. It was a bare-knuckled attempt to build a list of donators and supporters that could be mined when Ron Paul returned to the political scene in the 90’s–it was pre-meditated… In the end, the strategy was entirely successful, and worked masterfully. Ron Paul crushed his political rivals, despite voting almost entirely according to the Libertarian platform … I’m sure that the rural Texans were unaware of Ron Paul’s progressive positions … Ron Paul has shrewd (if not always politically correct) campaign strategists working for him. I now see Ron Paul with eyes wide open. He is human, and a political animal.14

In considering the above, we might also want to ask what relationship or relevance these “rural Texans” might have to certain high profile supporters and even certain employees. For example a man by the name of Randy Gray was employed by Paul as the Midland County Coordinator in Michigan for Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. It so happens that Gray is a member of the KKK, and is also a “white nationalist” who posts under the user name “Central Michigan” on the Stormfront website which carries the motto “White Pride Worldwide.”15

Stormfront brings us to Don Black, another Paul supporter, who donated $500 to the Paul campaign — about which incident Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said, “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.”16 The fact remains however that Don Black is an avowed white supremacist, owner of the Stormfront website and a former Grand Wizard of the KKK. Black had succeeded David Duke as Grand Wizard of the KKK, and David Duke was another Paul supporter.

To be sure, politicians cannot handpick supporters. But the methods employed to cultivate — and maintain — a support base are by their nature deliberative acts. Thus the strategies employed by those newsletters, together with who is selected for key positions in a campaign and the manner in which issues are framed are all matters which should be of concern to any of us who consider ourselves to be part of the voting public.

So it is that portions of Paul’s more contemporary politics, upon examination, likewise raise some questions within the context of those old newsletters.

For example, Paul wants to end “birthright citizenship” so as to allow the deportation of children of undocumented workers — and he leads an effort to “secure our borders.” One could, and perhaps should, ask whether Paul’s framing of immigration issues might be construed (or misconstrued) by certain factions as a perhaps more subtle form of racism and as such still function as a part of campaign strategy. Some of his 2008 campaign ads and posters indeed seem to support this possibility.17

Importantly, this suggestion in NO way is meant to minimize the severity of the situation that exists along the US/Mexican border. As anyone who has visited or has friends and relatives in the affected areas can well attest, the problem is not only showing no signs of letting up, it is becoming untenable for those living there. Moreover, accusations of “racism” hurled at those who dare to suggest that illegal aliens are, well … illegal are little more than the expressions of the phony war of ideas we are all being subjected to through the work of tax exempt foundations — an issue we will explore in future articles.

This being said, it must be recalled that prior to NAFTA, migrant workers moved freely across the U.S. Border and back without incident. Now they must sneak over as illegal aliens in order to work for pennies on the dollar, and outside US labor laws. Moreover, prior to the TRIPS Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture which in 1994 became a part of the WTO, many peasant farmers from Mexico and points south were at least able to eke out a living for themselves in their own countries without the need to become migrant workers.

The cumulative economic fallout of these various “free” trade agreements has either forced these peasants off the land and into the cities and newly built industrial border towns — or they have become unwilling pawns of the drug cartels, or they must risk life and limb, quite literally, in order to have a chance at earning a very marginal, fear-infused living. Most troubling is that a big percentage of these illegals are women and teenage children, many of whom, once in the U.S., must risk their lives daily in order to work in slaughter houses, meat packing plants and similar situations where the Clinton-inspired “Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray” regulatory rules now apply.

Moreover, the increased efforts at border security since 9-11 have in fact decreased the numbers of these job-hungry illegals, while at the same time there has been a marked increase in drug-related violence along the Southern border. So it is that peasants seeking to do little more than feed themselves are — together with working Americans — the real victims in a much, much bigger economic game.

With this in mind, wouldn’t it be far more productive, and less open to misinterpretation, for Paul to maintain a primary focus on the root of the problem — which is the WTO, the TRIPS agreement and other portions of the “economic/police state matrix” against which Paul himself so eloquently and frequently expresses strong opposition?18

In the interim, why not demand that appropriate authorities take actions against employers who hire illegal aliens — under current laws already in effect. Why call for still more laws and most importantly why allow employers to escape penalty when it is — to a significant extent — their actions which pit American workers against immigrants, illegal and otherwise? Finally, why not expose the phony drug war for what it is, which is a tool by which to fuel the economic engines of the “industrial north” at the expense of the peasant farmers in the south?

Without question, Paul’s biography reveals an impressive individual who seems to be endowed with almost super human abilities — even if others do substantial ghost writing for him. In addition to his medical and political careers, Paul co-owned a coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years, and is the author of numerous books.

Paul also had what was reportedly a minority stake in the publishing group known as Ron Paul & Associates (which was dissolved in 2001), out of which variously came the infamous Ron Paul Political Report along with The Ron Paul Investment Letter, and The Ron Paul Survival Report. Indeed, Paul and his associates seem to have a “midas touch” if the earnings from Ron Paul & Associates alone are any indication.

Impressively, these diverse careers are in addition to his being the father of five children and now grandfather of 18.

Adding to a VERY long list of activities, publications and books together with multiple careers and an apparently full family life, Paul has also established a number of foundations, together with a variety of political action committees or PACS.

For example: Paul established the non-profit (tax exempt) “think tank” known as the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education or FREE in 1976, while on the House Banking Committee and after a political career was added to his medical career. FREE was “intended to be a vehicle to increase understanding of the economic principles of a free-market society.”

In 1989, FREE established the National Endowment for Liberty (NEFL) in order “to develop programs that take advantage of electronic media.”

Paul is also a “distinguished scholar” for the Von Mises Institute, even teaching at its seminars. The institute has also published a number of Paul’s books — and is itself a tax exempt foundation.

It is the tax exempt foundations which leads us to the subject of Part 3 of The Ron Paul Phenomenon Is NOT Dead. Stay tuned.

  • Read Part 1.
    1. October 1990 issue of The Ron Paul Political Report, 4. []
    2. June 15, 1992 Special Issue of The Ron Paul Political Report, 6. []
    3. January 1994 of The Ron Paul Survival Report, 5. []
    4. May 1990 issue of The Ron Paul Political Report. []
    5. May 1991 issue of The Ron Paul Political Report, 3. []
    6. American Renaissance Magazine []
    7. July 1994 issue of The Ron Paul Survival Report. []
    8. Ron Paul Revealed,” Tucker Carlson Interview with James Kirchick. []
    9. The New Republic” post by Lew Rockwell, LRC Blog, January 8, 2008. []
    10. Vicious Ron Paul Hit Piece Hits the Barrel of Yellow Journalism,” by Paul Joseph Watson and Steve Watson. Prison Planet, January 8, 2008. []
    11. Ron Paul Accused of Racism by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.” []
    12. More Selections from Ron Paul’s Newsletters”, January 14, 2008, The New Republic. []
    13. Angry White Men”, by James Kirchick. January 8, 2008. The New Republic. []
    14. Ron Paul’s Klansman Kampaign Koordinator”, by “phenry”, Jan 15, 2008, The Daily Kos. []
    15. The Authors of Ron Paul Newsletters: Discovered”. January 16, 2008. Intellectually Stimulating. []
    16. Paul Keeps Donation From White Supremacist”, Associated Press, MSNBC, Dec. 19, 2007. []
    17. Ron Paul: The Deep Dark Details Part 2,” 7 minute mark. []
    18. The Encroaching Economic/Police State” slide presentation by Geraldine Perry. []

    Geraldine Perry is co-author of The Two Faces of Money and creator of its related website which includes recent reviews. This website also has an abundance of related material and links, along with a free, down loadable slide presentation describing the two forms of money creation and the Constitutional solution, which is not the gold-backed dollar as popularly believed. As a means of imparting accurate information on health and nutrition to as broad an audience as possible she developed the web site The Health Advantage. Read other articles by Geraldine, or visit Geraldine's website.

    54 comments on this article so far ...

    Comments RSS feed

    1. lichen said on June 8th, 2009 at 12:38pm #

      When examined objectively by someone outside of ron paul’s small cult of personality, it is clear that he setup a narrow coalition on the far right consisting of people obsessed with the two-party system who wished for him to make a second libertarian party. It is neither a phenomenon nor something noteworthy to anyone but his small group who fondly dreams of cutting social services and shutting down other people’s hospitals, libraries, public parks, and schools.

    2. HR said on June 8th, 2009 at 12:38pm #

      Here come the cleverly named Libertarians, the Cato Institute gang, the most ultra right bunch of all. Privatization of everything is their goal (check out their web site), and complete freedom for those with wealth, with the rest of us free only to serve them. You want health care? forget it with those folks. They’ll tell you to contact a charity if you haven’t the money … maybe they’ll throw a bake sale in your honor. If working people are dumb enough to fall for the Libertarian line, then they deserve what they get.

    3. Deadbeat said on June 8th, 2009 at 2:32pm #

      If working people are dumb enough to fall for the Libertarian line, then they deserve what they get.

      Politics ahbors a vacuum. The reason why working people may choose the Libertarian line is that there are no effective and strong alternatives. The Left’s inability to reach out to working people has help to create such a vacuum.

    4. Max Shields said on June 8th, 2009 at 2:44pm #

      No, it’s not about a left void. Where libertarians have the strongest support is on foreign policy which is the nexus between so-called (whatever this really means) between left/right or non-partisan progressive/conservative.

    5. Danny Ray said on June 8th, 2009 at 3:00pm #

      Max , here I have to disagree with you . While foreign policy is a strong pull to the libertarian philosophy , (no working guy can see why we’re spending money to keep the Russians out of Germany when there are no more Russians and we don’t give a damn about Germany )or for that matter why would we give Hamas a billion dollars to rebuild Gaza .

      No the big pull for working people with the libertarian party is the debate between large and small government . Working people see large government interfering with their lives causing their businesses and jobs to fail . They see the government handing out money to people who in their eyes right or wrong don’t deserve it . They see big government as stopping drilling and coal mining. Telling them how fast they can drive on the interstate and that they have to buckle up . That is why working people fear big goverment, That is the attraction of small government and that is what the libertarians are offering .

      Why the far left will never attract working americans is all you offer is bigger goverment.

      Now , I hear the chorus , “well that’s because the rednecks are uneducated , brainwashed , are too stupid to know what’s good for them” but in reality until the left off first Joe and Jane average something that they believe in you will never have them . This is exactly what the libertarian party does it offers good old Joe and Jane something that appeals to their core principles .

      P. S. don’t shoot me I’m only the messenger .

    6. lichen said on June 8th, 2009 at 3:02pm #

      The reason working people support libertarianism is because, contrary to marxist dogma, right wing scum transcends class barriers. And yes, the left in america is and will always be stronger, better organized, and more represented than the libertarian far right is.

    7. Deadbeat said on June 8th, 2009 at 3:03pm #

      No, it’s not about a left void. Where libertarians have the strongest support is on foreign policy which is the nexus between so-called (whatever this really means) between left/right or non-partisan progressive/conservative.

      If people have to seek out “Libertarian [Capitalism]” solutions to war and peace then it is obvious that no other message or “ideas” are getting out to the people. Then the question is WHY are those ideas being suppressed or not getting out. Then one has to looks at the FAILURES of the LEFT for its inability to get its ideas out to people.

      The contradiction of Libertarian Capitalism are fairly obvious. I found it tremedously ironic that the Left can write articles complaining about ordinary working people voting for the Democrats but how many DESPARATE leftists were there who backed the Ron Paul “Libertarian [Capitalism]” campaign. We saw promenate “Left-wingers” do just that.

      Thus it is CLEARLY about a void on the left and its inablity to win people over to its ideas and values.

    8. Max Shields said on June 8th, 2009 at 4:21pm #

      Whose “seeking out libertarian [Capitalism] solutions”?

      It’s an oversimplification to say that Paul/Libertarianism has a deep and broad appeal.

      The dynamic between what Paul represents vis a vis the Republican Party (as the only anti-empire candidate) and Kucinich represents vis a vis the Democratic Party has more to do with the so called “appeal” than libertarian ideology.

      It’s fairly self-evident, and I sincerely hope that doesn’t need to be explained.

    9. Jeff said on June 8th, 2009 at 5:28pm #

      “Give me control of a nation’s money
      and I care not who makes the laws.”

      by:

      Mayer Amschel Rothschild

      Looking in the wrong sandbox boys and girls!

      Cannot wait for part three.

      Tis’ good reading.

    10. Hue Longer said on June 8th, 2009 at 5:30pm #

      Deadbeat said on June 8th, 2009 at 2:32pm #”If people have to seek out “Libertarian [Capitalism]” solutions to war and peace then it is obvious that no other message or “ideas” are getting out to the people. Then the question is WHY are those ideas being suppressed or not getting out. Then one has to looks at the FAILURES of the LEFT for its inability to get its ideas out to people”.

      You fairly asked why messages and ideas were not getting out, but then thought the answer wasn’t going to affect the “FAILURES of the LEFT”. The media made a big deal out of the corporately sponsored Tea Bag nonsense (attended to by a small amount of folks) but all but hid the millions and millions of protesters against the invasion of Iraq. “They got ya thinkin that what you need is what they sellin”

    11. rg the lg said on June 8th, 2009 at 6:54pm #

      I am all for any third party alternative. Let us not just stop at three …

      Libertarians are in favor of two things, in general, that the alleged left seems to prefer: the rights of the individual, and a completely revised foreign policy. Alas, the social issues of both are a chimera. AmeriKKKans have been brainwashed into believing that they must have big government in order to protect them from the narrow mindedness of local politicians, and that there is something valuable in the constitution. When someone says: “The Left’s inability to reach out to working people has help to create such a vacuum, ” my brain begins to go into shock. If the left is not for the working people then who the hell are they for? If the left is NOT for the working people, maybe the people who think themselves left are merely delusional.

      We do not need a third party so much as we need a multi-party. We need a system that allows for a diversity of opinion … all the way from the extreme far right to the extreme far left. Our so-called perfect system is not perfect … a parliamentary system would be much preferable … and in that sense I propose that we rejoin the British Commonwealth … so that when we have an election the party with the majority coalition will have a queen to go to. The british monarchy does, and has the virtue that it is a toothless tiger (maybe a toothless tabby?) and only has the value of ‘inviting’ the creation of a government.

      The way our so-called legislative system is functioning, I am seriously thinking that the house and senate can be kept around … so long as the members of the house are limited to no more than three terms … and senators are elected for life, or until they retire … . Aside from the house proposal, the de-election of senators is really pretty close to the way things are now. The house would become the power, and the senate would be around to pretend … plus it would be a magnet for the elites. Maybe we could set up a sytem in which a senate seat can simply be bought by the highest bidder? Not really all THAT far from our current reality …

      Finally, the war machine is nothing more or less than a nation-wide football team: we get mad as a nation when they ‘don’t win’ … such as Vietnam (Korea) or Iraq. We just want to take our marbles home when we begin to lose. The anti-war movement may have some true believers (certainly my cousin fits into this category) but most of them sound more like poor sports than citizens. When we pull off a Grenada (Reagan) or a Panama (Bush I) who gets all up-tight? No one … it is like a friday night rout … quick and decisive.

      Just thinkin’ out loud …

      RG the LG

    12. Dan Hansen said on June 8th, 2009 at 7:26pm #

      Curious. The author (in both articles) starts with the contention that she finds the ideas espoused by Ron Paul to be attractive. She then spends the great bulk of the articles attempting to flay the man. The first article is an attack on his economics. In this second article she references to fifteen year old charges of racism and even throws Stormfront into the mix. But we are to believe that she supports the man. Uh, sure. Right.

      I have to come to conclusion that this is a bait and switch. She is pulling in progressives who find Ron Paul’s policies attractive and then attempting to convince them that he is some sort of horrible racist who they would be foolish to support. Got it.

      The reason progressives find Ron Paul’s policies attractive is that at the end of the day he is a small government, pro-liberty, non-interventionist. The difficulty most progressives is with the small government message. On one hand they are all about being local. On the other, they tend to go to centralized government to solve social issues. I understand their dilemma. They don’t tend to be free market capitalists.

      But on the message of freedom and noninterventionism there is a strong commonality between the supporters of Ron Paul and the American left. It is out of this commonality that a coalition can be forged that can actually effect change.

      Imagine hundreds of billions of dollars saved from reducing the overseas military deployments. Imagine that money being used to fund social security or medicare. Even if we disagree on other issues we know this is an example of a policy approach upon which we can agree.

      If your fear is that this old doctor is a closet racist or some devious politician then, sure, don’t vote for him. But I think if you take a look you’ll see a man who has worked hard to be clear on his principles and to stick to them. And racism as a social group construct goes against his entire philosophy of individualism. But if he is it is not reflected in his goal to maximize freedom both economic and personal within the constraints of the constitution.

    13. lichen said on June 8th, 2009 at 8:50pm #

      No, you are on the american right if you find ron paul attractive; his policies are reactionary all the way across the board, and yes, both his social and economic views are of the far right; he and his small band of troll-followers don’t oppose war because it is wrong to kill people, but from a purely economic perspective; he violently opposes, further, using money saved from ending wars for investing into our infrastructure, which he wants to destroy, privitize, and price people out of; creating millions of homeless people, repealing the minimum wage, and refusing inequality for minorities, and any sense of social justice.

      He supports insititutional racism, and is a complete reactionary; not calling for progress i.e. a constitutional convention to make a new, advanced constitution, but sticking ignorantly to the old one in order to preserve a right wing society. So no, there is no commonality and no movement, no ‘third party’ possible with this sycophant; further, it isn’t 2006 anymore, and people are finding cuts in social spending, deregulation, and privatizing less and less attractive; they will not buy this trash nor the regressive idiots that fall for his line and want to create the Passive Agressive Party For Poverty Creation.

    14. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 8th, 2009 at 8:56pm #

      However what USA really needs is a United Socialist Front composed of the small socialist leftist parties of USA. I don’t understand why the US left is so sectarian.

    15. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 8th, 2009 at 9:00pm #

      United front

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      The united front is a form of struggle that may be pursued by revolutionaries. The basic theory of the united front tactic was first developed by the Comintern, an international socialist organisation created by revolutionaries in the wake of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

      According to the theses of the 1921 Comintern congress: “The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”[1] The united front allowed workers committed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism to struggle alongside non-revolutionary workers. Through these common struggles revolutionaries sought to win other workers to revolutionary socialism.

      [edit] History
      According to Leon Trotsky the roots of the united front go back to the practice of the Bolshevik Party in the 1917 Russian Revolution.[2] The Comintern generalised this experience among the fledgling Communist parties that were established or grew significantly during the years following 1917. The theory of the united front was elaborated at the third and fourth congresses of the Comintern, held in 1921 and 1922.

      Revolutionary socialists represented a minority in the working class, and the united front offered a method of working with large numbers of non-revolutionary workers, while simultaneously winning them to revolutionary politics. The united front strategy came to the fore in the period after the initial revolutionary tide following 1917 began to ebb. According to leaders of the Comintern, the shift from offensive to defensive struggles by workers strengthened the desire for united action within the working class. It was hoped that the united front would allow the revolutionaries to win a majority inside the class: “The task of the Communist Party is to lead the proletarian revolution. In order to summon the proletariat for the direct conquest of power and to achieve it the Communist Party must base itself on the overwhelming majority of the working class… So long as it does not hold this majority, the party must fight to win it.”[3]

      The these argued that unity was not to be achieved at any price—revolutionaries should not subordinate themselves within the united front, or sacrifice their independence: “The existence of independent Communist Parties and their complete freedom of action in relation to the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary social democracy… In the same way the united front tactic has nothing to do with the so-called ‘electoral combinations’ of leaders in pursuit of one or another parliamentary aim. The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”[4]

      However, revolutionaries could not simply go over the heads of the leaders of reformist organisations. They should approach these leaders demanding unity on the bases of a united front. This would pose a dilemma for the reformist leaders: refuse the invitation and be seen by their followers as an obstacle to unity, or accept the invitation and have to operate on the terrain of mass struggle (strikes, protests, etc) on which the revolutionaries would be proved to have superior ideas and methods.[5]

      The method was put into practice in Germany in 1922-1923, and for a time proved effective in winning workers to revolutionary socialism. [6]

      As Stalinism came to dominate the Comintern the united front strategy was dropped. In the period preceding Adolf Hitler’s victory in Germany, the Stalinised Comintern argued that the social democrats were “social fascists” and that they, rather than the Nazis, represented the real danger. Following Hitler’s victory, the Comintern argued for popular fronts drawing in forces far beyond the working class movement. Leon Trotsky, now exiled from Stalin’s USSR, argued that the first policy was disastrous because it prevented unity against the far right, and that the second was disastrous because the terms of the struggle would be dictated by mainstream liberal parties, and that Communists would have to subordinate their politics within the alliance. Trotsky continued to argue for a workers’ united front against fascism.[7]

      Trotsky argued that the united front could have great appeal to workers who wished to fight fascism: “The programme of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial ‘claims’, without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself: what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a break.” [8]

      In Chinese history, the First United Front (1924-27) was a period when the Communists worked closely with the KMT. There was also a Second United Front (1937-43) to fight the Japanese during World War II. During the Vietnam War, the National Liberation Front (1960-77) was organized as a united front for the Vietcong.[9]

    16. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 8th, 2009 at 9:27pm #

      THE ULTRA-RIGHT WING POLITICAL PROGRAM FOR USA OF RON PAUL

      THE FASCIST NEOLIBERAL, FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL PROGRAM OF RON PAUL

      Here are the remedial steps that we must implement if we are to unleash the free market and reclaim capitalism’s former glory:

      1. Eliminate the public education system. If you don’t have money, you remain ignorant.
      2. Immediately cut public funding to maintain roads and highways. A toll booth at every other intersection would be a small price to pay for the reinvigoration of free markets.
      3. Close all public libraries. If you want to read, buy your books.
      4. Shut down all forms of public transit. Walking is good exercise.
      5. Completely deregulate and privatize public utilities. If the market drives prices too high for you, you can buy candles, piss in buckets, sweat, shiver, and boil creek water.
      6. Abolish police and fire departments. Settle your own disputes, protect yourselves, and keep your buckets and garden hoses handy.
      7. Put the EPA out of our misery. It’s time to end the tyrannical reign of fear mongering environmentalists.
      8. Labor laws, EEOC and OSHA? These anachronistic impediments to profit need to go. Let the market dictate wages, hours and working conditions. People need to be thankful to have a job, regardless of how miserable, discriminatory, or dangerous it might be.
      9. Eradicate the FDA and USDA. If a food or drug starts killing large numbers of people, distributors and manufacturers will police themselves in order to sustain their profitability.
      10. Dismantle the FAA. Plane crashes are simply a cost of doing business. Let’s put a sense of adventure back into flying.
      11. Halt all Social Security and Medicare handouts. The programs are insolvent. Our elderly need to start fending for themselves. Wal-Mart needs greeters. And as for those who are too infirm or feeble to work, they’re fortunate to have lived as long as they have.
      12. Kudos to Clinton for creating TANF, but he didn’t go far enough. Medicaid and TANF must go. It’s time we introduced our spoiled and lazy rabble to the concept of the workhouse. It worked for the Victorians; it can work for us.

      Enacting these twelve reforms would go a long way toward restoring the supremacy of free market capitalism. However, our task would not be complete.

      Consider an even more critical challenge. To unfetter the free market, we must divorce ourselves from the idiocy of Christianity. Let’s face it. Christ was about compassion, love, generosity, and forgiveness. In the final analysis, Jesus was a loser who provided false hope for misfits, outcasts, incompetents, and weaklings. As free market capitalists driven by greed, selfishness, and hyper-competitiveness, we need to exorcise Christ’s moronic teachings from our society and culture.

      Now let’s get busy.

    17. HR said on June 8th, 2009 at 9:39pm #

      Good one, Tennessee.

    18. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 1:26am #

      I cannot keep up with the name changes Tennessee but I’m glad you added Marxism to your moniker. There needs to be a resurgence and an embrace of Marxist analysis and Marxist ideas by the Left. It’s really sad that the Left drifted away from Marxism and “left” the field open to these Libertarian Capitalists to fill.

    19. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 1:52am #

      I totally agree with lichen’s assessment of Ron Paul and why some prominent members of the Left display their utter disarray and futility when they jumped onto the Ron Paul bandwagon in 2008. These same folks criticized working class people and people of color who voted for Obama. These people are not fools they know that Obama is the “lesser” evil. They are not totally going to vote for someone who is totally against their interest. Rather than offer up some real analysis — like a Marxist analysis of Capitalism and the current crisis (remember this has been a 30 year crisis) they jumped onto the bandwagon of a Libertarian Capitalist.

      And let’s remember Ron Paul REFUSED TO RUN a 3rd Party candidate. He ran as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. So anyone embracing Paul is embracing a member of the establishment. Just like those who embraced Dennis Kucinich’s bids.

      It’s time to stop blaming working people who vote for the two parties. It is time to engage them with alternatives — especially Marxist alternatives perspectives, and ideas.

    20. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 2:41am #

      Tennessee writes …

      However what USA really needs is a United Socialist Front composed of the small socialist leftist parties of USA. I don’t understand why the US left is so sectarian.

      Easy.

      The Left has drifted away from Marxism and most especially working class politics since the end of WWII. Perhaps the worst attack on the Left was McCarthyism.

      The Union have unfortunately opted on protecting their meager gains and have been discriminatory keeping out women and minorities. The Union leadership is rather ossified.

      The Left also embraced oracles like Noam Chomsky who are despite labeling himself a “Libertarian Socialist” is far from it. His brand of politics has been more diversionary than honest and has provided very little in the way of Marxist analysis. His goal is to blame all the ill in the world on United States “Imperialism” even if the U.S. operates in way that works against U.S. “Imperialism”. Chomsky has also been an apologist for Zionism and has done very little in the way to challenge and to speak out against all forms racism in the U.S. especially Zionism.

      Another problem issue is “identity” politics which effectively is used to obscure class. With “identity” politics you have upwardly mobile white women trying to convince themselves they are “more oppressed” than working class men of color who are rotting away in jail cells and on death row.

      It has been the drifting away from Marxist analysis and working class solidarity is the primary reason why the Left is so sectarian and fragmented. The only way people can become united and there be a real united front is when working class (MARXIST) politics is pushed to the forefront in the struggle against Capitalism, Racism, and Militarism.

    21. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 2:52am #

      Hue Longer writes …
      You fairly asked why messages and ideas were not getting out, but then thought the answer wasn’t going to affect the “FAILURES of the LEFT”. The media made a big deal out of the corporately sponsored Tea Bag nonsense (attended to by a small amount of folks) but all but hid the millions and millions of protesters against the invasion of Iraq. “They got ya thinkin that what you need is what they sellin”

      Hue,

      The issue is not about the mainstream media it is about the Left’s OWN inability to form the kind of organizations and solidarity with the working class. Therefore before you can point to the mainstream media you have to look WITHIN the Left’s own ability or inability to mobilize ITSELF.

      You bring up the War on Iraq. As I have said many times on DV, the Left was responsible for the anti-war demobilization. Many in the anti-war movement started to focus on Israel and most importantly the raising influence of Zionism on U.S. Foreign policy yet you have a split in the Left as others wanted to solely promote the U.S. Imperialism line “War For Oil” in order to obscure Zionism’s influence. It took the murderous operation by Israel of both Lebanon and especially Gaza to essentially reveal the dishonesty of the “War for Oil” promoters. Zionism is a major reason why the Left is divided.

      Because the anti-war movement collapsed in 2004 and the failure of Nader and the Green to coalesce in 2004 helped to further weaken the Left in 2008 leaving the political vacuum to be filled by Barack Obama.

      As I said Hue, politics abhors a vacuum and the Left needs to get its act together.

    22. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 2:59am #

      Max Shields writes…

      It’s an oversimplification to say that Paul/Libertarianism has a deep and broad appeal.

      I never said that Paul/Libertarianism has “deep and broad appeal”. What I am saying is that the Left is doing a poor job of winning the working class over to ITS ideas. That the Left DOES NOT HAVE “deep and broad” appeal is the problem.

      The dynamic between what Paul represents vis a vis the Republican Party (as the only anti-empire candidate) and Kucinich represents vis a vis the Democratic Party has more to do with the so called “appeal” than libertarian ideology.

      Appeal based on OUTREACH and IDEOLOGY. The Left has failed at both outreach and ideology. I think Max you need to have a Thesaurus nearby because you are having an extreme disconnect with semantics.

    23. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 3:06am #

      In fact Max you are totally against ideology and I have argued with you here on DV about the importance of ideology. Because you and other members of you ilk on the Left abhor ideology is one of the MAJOR reasons why there is a political vacuum that the Ron Pauls are able to fill.

      This is how the Right is able to achieve their “appeal” because the left is so fragment, weak, confused, and dishonest. Your arguments exposes the aforementioned traits and you Max and others like you help to create the void that is now being filled by the right with their “appeal” to the working people who confuses them as “dissenters”.

      My advise to you Max is to rethink ideology and get you head of the Henry George sand and read some Marx.

    24. bozh said on June 9th, 2009 at 5:42am #

      ideology in US does not basically differ from that of ancient egypt, akkad, persia, et al nor from newer empires such as ottoman, russian, UK, italian, et al.
      in all these evil empires gangsters or fewer than 1% of people ruled.
      the members of the ruling class are and were then the richest people.
      their main concern was and is now to never let the peasants in on what is relly going on nor to participate in governing/managing their own business.
      such people always speak softly and carry big stick. That’s why US has cia, fbi, and army

      the left [1% of amer pop] also has ideas but not cia, fbi,and army. In view of this fact, one asks, Which ideology is going to prevail?
      it may be noted that ruling class in US can easily infiltrate the left and thus further weaken it. tnx

    25. Max Shields said on June 9th, 2009 at 7:02am #

      Deadbeat, it is NOT the “left” that needs to form “organization and solidarity” with workers. Such a notion is elitist. In your postings for months on end, you treat a “left” as if it is some professorial order that is monolithically of a single-mind, all humming the praises of Noam Chomsky, as they sit at his feet.

      This is not only a caricature, it is utterly absurd. Basing your arguments on a anachronistic notion of Marxism and this wild cartoon you call the “left” makes your arguments exceptionlly weak.

      You seem to want to goad a group you call the “left” into building a movement in the collapsing empire (the latter you seem to deny). I’m not sure why you even care about the “left” when you seem to deny that the USA is an imperial empire. That what it [the empire] does abroad it does here as well. That the inequalities and injustices here are due to this preditory imperial system.

      It is for these reasons, DB, that I question your motives. You speak about a Marxism and worker solidarity on the one hand, but seem to see little displeasure at the American industrial corporate imperial system. You are aghast at racism and Zionism, but never want to consider them as symtomatic of the very essence of imperial power, control and hegemony. You deny history at every turn.

      In other words, your arguments are not only weak they seem to be so narrow as to dismiss the entire spectrum of American legacy as it was launched from the European legacy.

      With these limitations, DB, your comments about Henry George and ideology are just vapid and meaningless.

    26. bozh said on June 9th, 2009 at 8:08am #

      let’s not eschew the basic: a ruling party, a party elected controls army, spy, agencies, and foreign policy.
      a movement, no matter how large, passionate, or correct still does not control the army nor set foreign policy while in office.

      to illustrate how important it is to contro army just consider what happened to mossadegh, shah, and heads of pakistan.
      also consider that spanish socialist party must have controled the army in order to bring its troops from iraq.
      tnx

    27. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 9th, 2009 at 8:28am #

      Deadbeat: Yeah u are right, most smart socialist intellectuals treat countries as whole oppressed classes, not as specific groups. When Chavez talks about the oppression of a country he talks specifically in economic terms. About economic oppression. but many in the US left like Amy Goodman for example give too much importance to other dumb issues, that are irrelevant in this world where most of us are beating the bullets economically. And what people both right and left wing want is more money, more food, better living standards. and not dumb anti or pro-abortion debates, and other irrelevant dumb identity politics.

      .

    28. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 9th, 2009 at 8:35am #

      DeadBeat: I am sorry but Noam Chomsky is one of the national treasaures that USA has like Howard Zinn, George Carlin, Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther King etc. Even Hugo Chavez praises Chomsky. I don’t know where people get all the conspiracy against Chomsky as being zionist. Noam Chomsky has literally said that 9-11 was an inside job done by Israel and Israel controls USA.

    29. bozh said on June 9th, 2009 at 10:11am #

      tennesee,
      no doubt that chomsky had exposed israeli and US crimes like no other observer.
      however, he did not advise people to vote for any second party. Instaed, he advised the voters to vote for a wing of one party; uncle sam’s party.
      i don’t think uncle wld have two parties which wld significantly differ from each other.
      chomsky is also for a two state nonsolution; i.e., for two gazas and a ‘jewish’ state, instead of one palestina.
      recall that with two gazas and one ‘jewish’ state, right to return vanishes.
      in other words if we wld approve of that, we wld reward numerous war criminals for their crimes.
      i say that is very unwise thing to do!
      no, not in my name! tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

    30. Deadbeat said on June 9th, 2009 at 1:07pm #

      DeadBeat: I am sorry but Noam Chomsky is one of the national treasaures

      I’m sorry you feel that way especially knowing your position on Zionism. You need to read other critic and then form your own conclusion. You should read the critiques written by Jeffrey Blankfort and James Petras (whose writings you can find here on DV).

      I stand by my critiques. Chomsky is far from being a “treasure” unless that treasure is for confusion and obfuscation.

    31. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 9th, 2009 at 4:03pm #

      US CITIZENS ARE TOO CONFORMISTS AND NOT SELFISH ENOUGH !! US CITIZENS VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF INTERESTS !!

      A thing that prevents a social revolution in the USA is that most people in America are too conformists. Most people in USA, conform to a life of food, but man cannot live by bread alone. Americans need more than just a lot of food, like more access to health services, cheaper utility services (as a result of nationalized utility services), higher wages, less crime, etc, to close all military bases and to stop the Imperial-Wars, to stop donating the zionist Israel state with 3 billions dollars a year, to stop donating 600 millions a year to Colombia (Israel # 2), to Saudi Arabia and other fascist states, to cancel the NAFTA, CAFTA treaties, which would create more jobs in America, and more good things that would benefit American citizens, many more things which would increase the depressive, boring living standards of Americans. Socialism would make USA less painful, americans as a whole would participate in the wealth, and joys produced by USA, instead of just a few Hollywood celebrities, like Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, the Political celebrities (Obama, Dick Cheney, Pelosi etc.) while the majority of good hard working americans are alienated, rejected and banned from enjoying all the good things that USA and the world produces, and socialism can give us that a lot better than Democrat-Republicans governments can.
      Socialism would make us richer

    32. Don Hawkins said on June 9th, 2009 at 6:28pm #

      “You will know (the good from the bad) when you are calm, at peace. Passive. Use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. ”

      Calm at peace bro we are making progress.

    33. Shabnam said on June 9th, 2009 at 6:28pm #

      Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist writes:

      “Noam Chomsky has literally said that 9-11 was an inside job done by Israel and Israel controls USA.”

      As far as I know Chomsky never said that. As matter of fact, Chomsky believes the OPPOSITE of what you have written. Would you please provide us with a link for this claim?
      People like Chomsky and his close associates like Howard Zinn have accepted the official explanation for 9/11. Whoever deviates from the official explanation will be considered a conspiracy theorist.

      http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3553

    34. Barry99 said on June 9th, 2009 at 6:34pm #

      The reason the left fails to get its message out is that the US is the vanguard of capitalism, capitalism is dynamic and seductive, capitalists control the mass media, the educational system, the health system, the government at all scales, and virtually all other institutions of note – as one would expect in a nation that is the vanguard of capitalism. As capital has few/no values outside of accumulation of profit, we then of course live in a nation bereft of values – so the corporate media provides same. In this manner, tens of millions of people can be converted to family values rather than the value of labor and tens of millions more can be convinced that the marriage of a gay couple in California is more important than having a job or health coverage.

      And back when the left got too big for its britches, the capitalists sent in the goon squads to kill union members. And then they told white males that black males were going to take their jobs and their privileged position in society – and maybe take their women too. Even told them that CIO (as in AFL-CIO) meant ‘Christ is out.’

      And then there’s the gift that kept on giving – the Soviet Union presenting itself as a socialist enterprise. If nothing else sounded the death nell (for the time being, anyway) of socialism in the US – the abomination that was the Soviet Union did so. At bottom, you can fool almost all the people with new toys and fuzzy values for a very long time – and when that starts to fail, you gun ‘em down.

    35. Shabnam said on June 9th, 2009 at 6:42pm #

      Noam Chomsky in the following video on 9/11 says opposite to what you have written. Basically he rejects any other explanation that does not support the official line.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&feature=related

      Has he recently changed his position on this issue?

    36. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 9th, 2009 at 7:34pm #

      Jeff: Only socialism can save the USA !!

    37. Tennessee-Bolivarian-Marxist said on June 9th, 2009 at 7:40pm #

      Barry: I think that the real reason of why most Americans are so politically apathetic is conformism. If you realize it, most americans can only have access to food, and nothing else. Can most US citizens get a college degree? no, only middle bourgeoise and rich people can. Can most US citizens get access to good dental and health services? no !! only rich people. Can most US citizens have access to partying, vacation cruises, fitness centers, spas, plastic surgeries, partying, etc? No, only rich americans can live a full complete life. While the majority of exploited americans can only eat. And man cannot live by bread alone. Only those in the upper strata of USA are self realizing themselves, only those who earn above 80,000 a year can have a more or less full live, but for the majority life in USA is a hell.

      .

    38. mary said on June 9th, 2009 at 11:48pm #

      An excellent commentary on our present situation written on the 200th anniversary of of Thomas Paine’s death.

      http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/i-thomas-paine-two-hundred-years-hence/

    39. Deadbeat said on June 10th, 2009 at 2:59am #

      An angry Max Shields writes …

      Deadbeat, it is NOT the “left” that needs to form “organization and solidarity” with workers. Such a notion is elitist.

      As I stated Max you need a thesaurus. How is it elitist for the Left to build solidarity among the working class. Solidarity is NOT about “leading” the working class. Solidarity is about aligning oneself with the interest of the working class and offering the working class support and most importantly building TRUST. Clearly the Left has been these past 30 years doing the opposite of building trust. In fact I’d argue the Left has been rather deceptive and deceitful. Clearly not in the way of building trust.

      In your postings for months on end, you treat a “left” as if it is some professorial order that is monolithically of a single-mind, all humming the praises of Noam Chomsky, as they sit at his feet.

      In fact, Max, that Left has behaved as you just described. I couldn’t have stated any more succinctly as you just did.

      This is not only a caricature, it is utterly absurd. Basing your arguments on a anachronistic notion of Marxism and this wild cartoon you call the “left” makes your arguments exceptionlly weak.

      Unfortunately Max it is not a “caricature” but fact. I’ve have posted a link to Jeffery Blankfort and referenced Dr. James Petras. who share similar criticism. You offer NO other references to support your defense of the Left. Can you say “WAR FOR OIL”, Maxie-pooh! Can you say the “COLLAPSE OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT” in order to conceal the influence of Zionism upon U.S. foreign policy.

      You seem to want to goad a group you call the “left” into building a movement in the collapsing empire (the latter you seem to deny). I’m not sure why you even care about the “left” when you seem to deny that the USA is an imperial empire. That what it [the empire] does abroad it does here as well. That the inequalities and injustices here are due to this preditory imperial system.

      Max you are JOKE. You are clearly a Chomskyite who wants to simplify all issues as “U.S. Imperialism”. The U.S. Imperialism(TM) explanation did a very good job to conceal the rising influence of the racist ideology on Zionism within the United States.

      The raising inequalities and injustices has to do with CAPITALISM, MILITARISM, AND RACISM which is world wide and not merely isolated to the U.S. Chomskyites such as YOU Max aim is to obfuscate these aspects and especially try to disparage Marxism along the way.

      It is for these reasons, DB, that I question your motives. You speak about a Marxism and worker solidarity on the one hand, but seem to see little displeasure at the American industrial corporate imperial system.

      Max I don’t use “corporatism” to obfuscate or “imperialism” to obfuscate. You and Chomsky are master at doing that. You’ve been here on DV trying to tell people that “ideology” doesn’t matter. How the hell can you organize people WITHOUT ideology; without a vision and without goals. Yet you want to sell people on the nonsensical Henry George land tax that was discredited over a century ago. In fact Max your first appearance on DV was in DEFENSE of “little Israel” and the “impossibility” of its influencing big bad U.S. foreign policy. Which is CLEARLY a Chomskyite position.

      You are aghast at racism and Zionism, but never want to consider them as symtomatic of the very essence of imperial power, control and hegemony. You deny history at every turn.

      Please MAX you are out to lunch. Marxism and its critique of Capitalism clearly examined this well before both you and I were born. So to make such a statement is a reflection of your own irrationality.

      In other words, your arguments are not only weak they seem to be so narrow as to dismiss the entire spectrum of American legacy as it was launched from the European legacy.

      Seeing how you are coming off Max I know I struck a nerve meaning I was able to make POWERFUL arguments in my prior rejoinders. I clearly blew you out of the water with my statement about how ridiculous your past argument have been here on DV especially about ideology which you using some semantic gymnastics turned into appeal. In order to have appeal you need OUTREACH.

      [you]dismiss the entire spectrum of American legacy as it was launched from the European legacy

      ROTFLMAO. Max stop you are leaving me in stitches. I think I have addressed White Supremacy and Zionism much more than you.

      With these limitations, DB, your comments about Henry George and ideology are just vapid and meaningless.

      HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA. Max you are JOKE!!!

      One important point Max. I responded to ALL of your remarks IN CONTEXT do you think you can do the same? I don’t think so.

      DB

    40. Deadbeat said on June 10th, 2009 at 3:17am #

      Barry99 writes…

      The reason the left fails to get its message out is that the US is the vanguard of capitalism, capitalism is dynamic and seductive, capitalists control the mass media, the educational system, the health system, the government at all scales, and virtually all other institutions of note – as one would expect in a nation that is the vanguard of capitalism.

      Thank you Barry99 for that summation. It is why we need a Marxist analysis more than ever. The Left has also been drifting if not outright rejecting Marxism for decades. The only way that the “vanguard of capitalism” can be neutralized is with an opposing force that scares the crap out of it. Therein lies Marxism. Marxism doesn’t try to put capital on an equal footing with labor. (Which of course Henry George did with his ideology). Capital must become SUBORDINATE to labor. That is the core of Marxism.

    41. Deadbeat said on June 10th, 2009 at 3:25am #

      Tennessee writes…
      Barry: I think that the real reason of why most Americans are so politically apathetic is conformism.

      I disagree. Barry is right. Because the U.S. is the “vanguard of capitalism” it was able to bribe the working class for years. This crisis is unraveling that bribery but is still has a way go. Some of this was predicted years ago but Barry is touching on a reason why the Left has been IMO drifting away from Marxist-like analysis and offered up this “U.S. Imperialism” explanation of everything. Unfortunately this Chomskyite approach has IMO left the Left unprepared and atomized and unable to be in a position to do the necessary outreach that could help explain the current crisis to working people and win them over. This is why people like Ron Paul has such “appeal” and why this thread of discussion has been quite active and contentious.

    42. Hue Longer said on June 10th, 2009 at 5:15am #

      DB,

      So the “LEFT” are to blame for why millions of (supposedly non “LEFTIST”) people were marginalized, brutalized or ignored while USA Inc went to war? And when a much smaller number of Ron Paul bake sale lunatics (organized with the help of corporations/corporate media) get the official “dissident” attention, it is this “LEFT” that offered no alternative for these fuckwits to turn? Even though very few of these kunts protested the war to begin with? WOW!

      Your definition of “LEFT” has been offered once but could you please describe it again? Or just qualify this mess because it’s insane unless you miswrote…

      ”If people have to seek out “Libertarian [Capitalism]” solutions to war and peace then it is obvious that no other message or “ideas” are getting out to the people. Then the question is WHY are those ideas being suppressed or not getting out. Then one has to looks at the FAILURES of the LEFT for its inability to get its ideas out to people”

    43. bozh said on June 10th, 2009 at 5:21am #

      barry, yes,
      yes to your analyses and not because i also think or, rather, know that.
      some people forget the basic fact that amers are people; thus, not different than any other in most aspects of panhuman behavior which wld include also interrest or lack of it in governance.

      in my experience, some people or even most are solely interested in politics.
      but in narrowest view posssible. To them warfare, being disnformed, healthcare are detached events not only from one another but also politics.
      and if they talk about politics, they think about how a pol talks, looks, behaves, what he says., etc.
      and if one wld talk about necessity of doing away with WMD, some will say, Stop talking about politics! Other wld say that WMD prevent wars! and subject is closed.
      clearly, they have such ans such knowledge. And one get’s this ‘knowledge’ – that they are even willing to go to war for- from their ‘educators’ : media, pols, polls, movies, army echelons, ‘educators’, et al.
      and we all know that each of us had at least once in one’s life false knowledge and hated to be considered stupid or ignorant.

      now, the question arises, how are we going to make them give up on their ‘knowledge’?
      one way is to talk to them and write for them; preferably, in english that a 10 yr-old uses and not the language of petras, zinn, obama, chomsky.

    44. Mike G said on June 10th, 2009 at 5:54am #

      What you idiot progressives and socialists refuse to appreciate is the US Constitution.

      You people are so use to getting up someone elses ass and sucking off the government that you could not live without it.

      I pity your sorry asses, because when government fails you dumb bitches are going to be lining up for the cattle cars

    45. Max Shields said on June 10th, 2009 at 7:33am #

      Deadbeat, if what I’ve written is a “joke” than you not only have a strange way of mangling facts, but an even stranger sense of humor.

      I won’t waste words by going through your points because you’ve made no cogent argument worthy of rebuttal.

      I will address your “thesis” of “oil”. I would ask that you look back to the early 1970s to understand what happened in the Middle East and OPEC and what the US did in retaliation. The Middle East had been part of a number of empires not least of which was the British Empire who transformed the region into a variety of nation-states. The hand-off to the US/FDR put the US squarely in the midst of the oil rich region where deals were cut with brutal shahs and “kings”; where the USD became the coin of the realm for purchasing oil.

      But in the 70s the Arabs had had it with the US bully. It pushed the “oil” button by dramatically increasing prices; and the US retataliated with a “food” offense to starve the third world, and ultimately control trade agreements and food sourcing. It has been that way ever since.

      Food for oil is the policy. You must live in a cave DB not to understand the power of oil; and how it runs the empire. But for you this is all “obfiscation”. What a silly and useless word to toss out when you have no argument. It’s like your buddy dan e calling people zionists when he can’t come up with a sane and rational argument. It’s a bullying tactic. You make a good imperial citizen Deadbeat.

    46. bozh said on June 10th, 2009 at 8:11am #

      how many generals, journalists, actors, comedians, ceos, bankers, pols, ‘educators’, clergy are leftists? Does anyone have a rough %?
      is it 0001% of such class of people?
      how many workers are tad left or right of franco, hitler, custer, truman, mcarthur [the nuke happy one]?
      is it 50% tad left of franco and 48% mainstream nazist or worse.
      certainly, 98% of ‘jews’ may be just a tiny bit left of hitler. If i am even partly correct, where is this might but lazy/prone to failing left?

    47. lichen said on June 10th, 2009 at 12:17pm #

      The marxist analysis, that someone has to be there to “explain the situation” and “provide analysis” to “working people” is so condescending. ron paul is an internet-based movement; it’s members had exposure to all sorts of ideas, and they chose to go the way they did because that is what they really believe; they hate people, want them to starve and die so they can (supposedly) get ahead themselves; period. People’s sociopolitical ideas aren’t always touchable by education.

      The left is more organized and has higher numbers than they; Nader came in third place in 2008, not the libertarians, who also failed to make a dent in the grotesque republican primary. If everyone could unite for widespread electoral reform, we could all have our own viable parties, and the resulting government would be to the left of the libertarians. We have our own politicians, parties, and movements that are anti-empire as well as boldly demanding social and economic justice; so anyone who chooses ron paul does so because they really believe in his right wing bs.

    48. Mike G said on June 10th, 2009 at 3:46pm #

      So America’s founding fathers were right-wing wackos and wrote the US Constitution to promote their own agenda vs the right of King George to subjegate them as servants of the crown. I guess I can agree with that premise.

      Ron Paul has been the only constitution concerned candidate running for the presidency in sometime. The reason he ran as a Republican is because he learned that running as an independent, as he did previously, he received NO coverage by the bought and paid for corporate media.

      His 2008 run was to bring the US Constitution back into the debate, he did that, not as successfully as he hoped, but more successfully than he could imagine.

      The socialists and progressives who voted for the Democrat, the other head of the two headed monster, think that all will be fine now that Obama has to talk to the corporate interests rather than a Bush. If you haven’t noticed Obama is sucking up to Wall Street hard and also the War Party. You that voted for him have been duped, he listens to them before he ever will listen to you.

      The whole reason our founders wrote the Constitution was so the people were somewhat protected from the excessives of powerful interests. US Government was not meant to feed the poor or the lazy, it is up to the people, in their individual generosity to do so.

      Government, as we have now, under the Obama administration has dumped trillions of borrowed money into the fatcat laps, and we have received nothing, nor will we other than an IOU.

      If we followed the Constitution none of this wealth redistribution to the fatcats would have happened. The progressives and socialists are offered a bone and gladly take it, thankful for the pittance, while the masters take the cow.

      If you don’t believe in the Constitution, then let your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.

    49. dan e said on June 10th, 2009 at 4:44pm #

      Max Shields, when you first started posting to DV you consistently defended pro-Zionist/pro-Israel positions, and attacked those who quoted Petras and Blankfort. So I was surprised when much later I read posts by you which were definitely anti-Zionist; you may have missed it, but I took note of the change, crediting you with having “undergone considerable development”.

      So I was disappointed to find that having abandoned Zionism did not mean that you had abandoned rightwing reactionary ideology entirely. To me you are a strange contradictory phenomenon, capable of sounding quite intelligent at times, but also capable of trying to peddle an utterly stupid pile of reactionary capitalist nonsense like “henrygeorge-ism”.

      Henry George’s ideas, like those of Adam Smith and Ron Paul’s hero Von Mises, are openly pro-capitalistsystem, pro-Capitalist Class ideas. Writing in 1776, Smith’s advocacy of capitalist mythology (“the invisible hand”, etc) had a historically progressive character as a challenge to the then hegemonic Feudal ideological formations. But today in 2009, all these ideas are totally reactionary, and to advocate them is to participate in the oppression of the vast majority by the utterly ruthless tiny minority.
      Moral: you’ve made some progress, Max, but you have a ways to go. If you are sincere, you’ll go back to the drawing board and find yourself a sounder intellectual foundation.
      (mutter mutter… henry george for crysache, is he serious?)

    50. Mike G said on June 10th, 2009 at 5:00pm #

      Dan E

      Do I read you wrong? You are saying that the US Constitution and free enterprise are reactionary? Against whom are they reactionary?

      Against the present socialist fascist trend that Americans can borrow as much as they can from communist countries and other investors to maintain their elitist parties way of consumerism and perpetual wars?

      Please enlighten me, maybe I’ve missed something

    51. lichen said on June 10th, 2009 at 7:34pm #

      Of course the founding fathers and their ridiculously outdated constitution were right wing and reactionary; many nations such as Bolivia and Ecuador have recently convened a truly democratic process to get a new, advanced constitution for the 21st century; and so should we have a constitutional convention, not follow deranged idiots who view the old one religiously when it benefits their anti-democracy, anti-justice crusade.

    52. Max Shields said on June 10th, 2009 at 7:45pm #

      dan e,

      Where do you get you notions? Like “you first started posting to DV you consistently defended pro-Zionist/pro-Israel positions, and attacked those who quoted Petras and Blankfort.”

      Does critiquing Petras make one a “Zionist”?

      You only partly understand Henry George. George is NOT a Capitalist. If you don’t get that you don’t get Henry George. (I’ve never heard Ron Paul talk about Henry George as his economic model…have you?)

    53. Max Shields said on June 10th, 2009 at 8:18pm #

      George is not against free enterprise, but he is against monopolies and unearned wealth…which is what makes up the US systems form of what it calls capitalism.

      There are libertartian Georgists; as there are libertarian Socialists and Capitalists. There are anarchists who consider themselves capitalists and others socialists and still other see the genius of George.

      Paul is a capitalist liberterian of the more conservative sort who happens to agree with many on the so-called left regarding the US imperialist foreign policies.

      The world is not black and white, dan e. Like Deadbeat, discernment is critical and something it seems each of you could use more of.

      When you call someone a zionist because they think energy, resources and specifically oil is central to an empire such as the US…you’ve lost all perspective. Petras seems to think oil was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq. I can disagree with him, think that that is wrong headed in many respects (tho not all) and in no way does that align my thinking to “zionism”. There is something pathological about a thought process that concludes that to disagree with Petras is to be a zionist.

      I don’t know if you get that given what you and Deadbeat seem bent on “proving”.

    54. Bay Area Kid said on June 21st, 2009 at 8:04am #

      Ron Paul is the savior of the American People! He’s the only voice coming out of Washington that speaks truth about all subjects. What most of the postings here fail to understand is Ron Paul is standing up for all Americans, to protect a strong finanical state who is then able to work for the people’s needs. Without sound money and with a facist Federal Reserve all the social policies in world are worthless. The Uber Rich control everything and take Americas wealth, leaving us average folks with poor public services and inferstructure.

      It is only “Libertarian” movement that will take on the Banksters and allow America to be a FREE, one more time, a FREE Nation. Ron Paul reaches across all political boundries and is the only candidate of Peace and Prosperity in all of America.