Fuming after watching a Bill Maher episode...

[RadioRaheem84]

Conventional run of the mill liberals, especially ones in Hollywood are serious d-bags. I mean how could they have so much contempt for people in the heartland. Yes, some of them have rather repulsive and sometimes outlandish beliefs, but ridiculing them to feel superior does not make for a better world. Guys like Maher are hacks that don't really understand their beliefs but instead hide behind people that can defend theirs.

I am so sick of hacks like Maher that feed and live off of attacking the heartland as a shtick. Religious fanatics represent such a small portion of the actual religious community and even then it shouldn't be a crime to harbor differing beliefs on ethical issues (although should be fought against politically).

It seems like Liberals have become the new "conservatives" in politics, the media, academia and Hollywood. Most of the grassroots movements in the US these days are either right wing (Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo) or leftist-progressive(Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders) and I prefer that over the smarmy liberals who have utter contempt for the rest of the population. They should educate and inform the public, not mock them into submission.

We need less Bill Mahers and more Noam Chomskys.

Seriously, I would rather side with a John Bircher who believes in his rights than a conventional liberal jerk who sticks his nose up at Middle America.


* Sorry, didn't mean to offend any liberals in here.

[ArrowLance]

* Sorry, didn't mean to offend any liberals in here.

How. . . liberal of you.

Worrying about offending liberals is the last thing you need to worry about. Worry more about getting rid of them.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, since when is Kucinich not a liberal? Also, I do recall Clinton stating that she was also not a liberal, but a progressive. :D

Wouldn't a comedian be a hack if he isn't funny, rather than depending on what his target is? I mean, sure there's a relation between the two ('Dialectical Comedy', anyone?), but nevertheless... Anyways, Maher's not funny, so sure, he's a hack.

Anyways, we need less Bill Mahers, less Noam Chomskys, and more, perhaps, Bill Hickses and Wittgensteins?

[core_1]

Don’t let it get to you too much. This is just typical hypocritical Liberalism, as they claim to defend the downtrodden and the most oppressed groups in the country yet in turn view themselves as so far superior to the working class. It’s Capitalist shit all the same.

[9]

Worry more about getting rid of them.

When it comes to fascists, we should worry about getting rid of them. When it comes to liberals, we should worry about bringing them over to our side. Granted, that would not apply to wealthy liberals like Maher.
But seriously, when the Western revolutionary left is so fragmented and small that it would instantly lose a war against the David Ickes of the world, it is sort of a silly notion to talk like we have the "luxury" of "getting rid" of liberals. Unless of course the revolution is just a fantasy we want to jack off to and not something we actually want to work to create.



In response to the original post, I essentially agree, at least with the underlying message. Though it is really no surprise that the economic elite should act like elitists. Though the conservative elites are much more clever, by and large, at not appearing overtly elitist in public. Much of the liberal elite, on the other hand, seem to thrive on it.
"Religulous" was one of the stupidest fucking movies I've ever seen. And its funny because if someone wants to make a documentary refuting religious convictions, all the facts are on their side. Why they would instead seek, as Bill Maher did, to argue a bunch of strawmen and do a bunch of horrible editing to distort the statements of the people being interviewed into something else entirely is beyond me. We already have enough religious fundamentalists villifying atheists; we sure as hell don't need atheists themselves making atheism look fucking stupid.
/end rant

[ArrowLance]

When it comes to fascists, we should worry about getting rid of them. When it comes to liberals, we should worry about bringing them over to our side. Granted, that would not apply to wealthy liberals like Maher.
But seriously, when the Western revolutionary left is so fragmented and small that it would instantly lose a war against the David Ickes of the world, it is sort of a silly notion to talk like we have the "luxury" of "getting rid" of liberals. Unless of course the revolution is just a fantasy we want to jack off to and not something we actually want to work to create.


Liberals are not our friends. We can't just accept them because we need more soldiers on the Glorious Revolutionary Front! Liberals are against the revolution and are not willing to get their hands dirty.

[ZeroNowhere]

When it comes to fascists, we should worry about getting rid of them. When it comes to liberals, we should worry about bringing them over to our side.If a liberal becomes a communist, is there not one less liberal?

Also note that I'm not using 'liberal' in the sense it's often used here (often about left communism and such), that is, of 'we don't like it'.


This is just typical hypocritical Liberalism, as they claim to defend the downtrodden and the most oppressed groups in the country yet in turn view themselves as so far superior to the working class.Um, most liberals are working class.

[9]

Liberals are not our friends. We can't just accept them because we need more soldiers on the Glorious Revolutionary Front! Liberals are against the revolution and are not willing to get their hands dirty.

There is never going to be any "Glorious Revolutionary Front" if the revolutionary left insists on acting like an elitist, patronizing, cliquish intelligentsia in an era when large segments of the Western working class don't have any idea what the revolutionary left is. People don't come out of the womb with a ready-made permanent political philosophy. Politics shouldn't be like sports, where you pick a team and run with it. People learn, they hear different ideas, their conceptions and convictions grow and change. Capitalist propaganda, as I'm sure you are aware, is extraordinarily pervasive. Many liberals are "against the revolution" because they don't understand what the revolution is, assuming they've ever even heard of such a concept from the left to begin with. Many working class liberals don't realize the "left" extends beyond "liberal Democrat". If we are so proud that we no longer have any interest in explaining our convictions and theory to other members of the working class unless they are already revolutionary leftists, then it is evident that we never had any intention of facilitating proletarian revolution to begin with. Because, as it stands, the overwhelming majority of the working class are not revolutionary leftists. We need to be making a concerted, creative effort to inform other workers; shunning them isn't going to get us anywhere. And the entire point I am trying to make is that disillusioned working class liberals have been and are, in my experience, overwhelmingly the most receptive to and approving of revolutionary leftist views, once the views have been clearly and respectfully articulated. So rejecting these people as a whole instead of even attempting to engage them just strikes me as an admission that we don't actually believe in this whole "working class revolution" bit we like to push.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, so how did you interpret him, as saying that we need to go around killing liberals?

[9]

Wait, so how did you interpret him, as saying that we need to go around killing liberals?

Hah, no, not at all. I interpreted it as him saying we should just completely dismiss liberals and not bother engaging them.

[ZeroNowhere]

Hah, no, not at all. I interpreted it as him saying we should just completely dismiss liberals and not bother engaging them.But how can one reduce the amount of liberals by simply not engaging with them? Of course, there is the question of whether or not offending them would help with recruitment and so on, but at least IMO, whether or not something will offend liberals is somewhat that should generally not concern you when you're speaking on a subject (because really, what can't offend some liberals?), and I would expect that the liberals who don't get offended easily would also be more easy to engage in debate, and perhaps become socialists if you manage to make a good case for it which they accept, which would be a good thing as long as they become De Leonites.

[9]

But how can one reduce the amount of liberals by simply not engaging with them? Of course, there is the question of whether or not offending them would help with recruitment and so on, but at least IMO, whether or not something will offend liberals is somewhat that should generally not concern you when you're speaking on a subject (because really, what can't offend some liberals?), and I would expect that the liberals who don't get offended easily would also be more easy to engage in debate, and perhaps become socialists if you manage to make a good case for it which they accept, which would be a good thing as long as they become De Leonites.

When did I say we cannot offend liberals? If you are not being blatantly disrespectful and someone gets offended, obviously that isn't your fault. But this was never the subject I was arguing, I think you may have misread. I'm arguing that we should not dismiss liberals, but rather, make an effort to engage them and see if we can't bring them over to the revolutionary left. As I said before, disillusioned working class liberals are in my experience the most receptive to revolutionary ideas, which is why I think it is a huge mistake to dismiss them as a lost cause.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure, but that wouldn't have actually conflicted with the post which you had quoted.
While liberals are not the most receptive in my own experience, that's just anecdotal, so we can't really argue about it.

[9]

Sure, but that wouldn't have actually conflicted with the post which you had quoted.

Well, my apologies to ArrowLance if I've misunderstood what he said. Though certainly that is how I interpreted it. But I think I'll quit derailing this thread any further into oblivion. :)

[Calmwinds]

Wait, since when is Kucinich not a liberal?
Anyways, we need less Bill Mahers, less Noam Chomskys, and more, perhaps, Bill Hickses and Wittgensteins?

Why the dislike of Chomsky?

[absurd_planet]

Frankly, I can give a shit what the ''heartland'' interprets as offensive to their culture. By no means does it have some special designation or significance for California. The concept of vicariously reaping the benefits of a revolution or social progress in another part of the world or country is ridiculous. The only focus should be on local communities and how to directly impact the lives of the working class in your area. That's how to get people interested in ''movements''. So while i think it's fantastic if marxism finds support in the mid-west/south(which it has yet to come close to doing), I really have no invested interest in their activities. Also, the people in the mid-west are fine but the naivete of much of the population there is higher than the rest of the country. More citizens join the military from that region than anywhere else and they continue to teach ''creationism'' in limited areas.

[RadioRaheem84]

Frankly, I can give a shit what the ''heartland'' interprets as offensive to their culture. By no means does it have some special designation or significance for California. The concept of vicariously reaping the benefits of a revolution or social progress in another part of the world or country is ridiculous. The only focus should be on local communities and how to directly impact the lives of the working class in your area. That's how to get people interested in ''movements''. So while i think it's fantastic if marxism finds support in the mid-west/south(which it has yet to come close to doing), I really have no invested interest in their activities. Also, the people in the mid-west are fine but the naivete of much of the population there is higher than the rest of the country. More citizens join the military from that region than anywhere else and they continue to teach ''creationism'' in limited areas.
The working class populations of the urban areas are just as naive and full of outlandish beliefs as the midwest. The point is that the working class in this nation is in real dire need of help. They're craving for change and opposition toward an obvious elite upper class. That is why they cling to right wing conspiracy theories and Jesus. Its because both offer a different perspective on reality and offer 'hope'. It's just a survival mechanism. You cannot blame them for that. It seems like most people that rant about the heartland folk don't seem to mind the same type of people in third world nations by excusing their rather outlandish behavior.
Point is, I think it's actually great that the heartland is atleast CLASS CONSCIOUS on some level. They recognize that a liberal elite run this nation and doesn't give a damn about their interests. Yes, they go about it in a right wing fashion but atleast they're willing to admit to the utter corruption infesting the nation while trendy yuppie liberals support the status quo.

[absurd_planet]

We both can agree that yuppie liberals are boneheads for their constant defense of the status quo. There's a lot to say on this subject. For example, in San Francisco the city has been transformed into a elite left wing utopia where humble families cease to exist because of the disappearance of the middle class in the city. Many people come to the conclusion that liberal tendencies arose from this guilt. Rich and poor classes in that city and absolutely no grey area. People are lured to the city because of it's reputation as a liberal mecca which causes the rents to sky rocket and becomes filled with snotty rich east coast college kids and get rich quick liberal free marketers toiling in the video game or tech industries. I think this illuminates your disgust of the liberals ideology quite well. Not to mention the only places they prefer to eat at are vegan/organic restaurants which don't get me wrong are positive in moderation but it can wreck the diversity of an economy when you legislate against big box stores, fast food restaurants, and implement strict zoning laws/high taxes.

[BlackCapital]

“There is a difference between an inconsequential left and a consequential right, the difference is they both do the same things, but one says they don't.” -Subcomandante Marcos


(http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there-is-a-difference-between-an-inconsequential/421750.html)

[RadioRaheem84]

We both can agree that yuppie liberals are boneheads for their constant defense of the status quo. There's a lot to say on this subject. For example, in San Francisco the city has been transformed into a elite left wing utopia where humble families cease to exist because of the disappearance of the middle class in the city. Many people come to the conclusion that liberal tendencies arose from this guilt. Rich and poor classes in that city and absolutely no grey area. People are lured to the city because of it's reputation as a liberal mecca which causes the rents to sky rocket and becomes filled with snotty rich east coast college kids and get rich quick liberal free marketers toiling in the video game or tech industries. I think this illuminates your disgust of the liberals ideology quite well. Not to mention the only places they prefer to eat at are vegan/organic restaurants which don't get me wrong are positive in moderation but it can wreck the diversity of an economy when you legislate against big box stores, fast food restaurants, and implement strict zoning laws/high taxes.


Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself. I thought I was the only one who noticed this phenomena. I was starting to think that perhaps I had to become a right winger in order to critique the liberal establishment in this nation. I am glad that there is a legitimate critique of the liberals coming from the left too.

But, yes, as of now I see the neo-liberal/liberal establishment as more of a threat than the disorganized right wing groups in the nation. The liberals have real power and have used it to enhance the most extreme forms of capitalist exploitation I have ever seen. The thing is, is that they have an effective marketing campaign that paints them as the do-gooder intellectuals that they're not. I mean GW Bush and his crew were right wingers no doubt but they were just to the right of the same business party Democrat/Republican conglomerate.

Ironically, the places I think that any working class family can survive are all in red states. Places that dont tax the hell out of the working class to provide for rich industries and create neighborhoods where the middle class is all but wiped out. I cannot tell you how many Northern state and California license plates I have seen in Texas over the past two years. These supposed liberal bastions are nothing more than uber-elitist hell holes that could care less about the working class.

So why doesn't the left focus its efforts on attacking this menace to society? Why does it focus so much on the right wingers that have NO REAL POWER?

Even Noam Chomsky recognized the liberal establishment as being the primary force behind Washington. He wrote about this 30 years ago when critiquing Vietnam and then again in Manufacturing Consent. He never wrote about the Right-Wing Media or the crazed conservatives, he wrote about the true face of power in America: Rich-Elite Liberals.

Do we not attack them (in writing, I mean) because some of them support our causes (in spirit, no doubt), like donating money to progressive causes? Is it because we bought into their wholesome image and agree with them on some points? Or is it because we ourselves have a such a disdain for the right that we wouldn't dare form an alliance with them by admitting that there is a liberal bias in everything and give them ammo by which to attack them?

What is it?

[Misanthrope]

We need less Bill Mahers and more Noam Chomskys.



if you're curious..

kE25W83tChM

[absurd_planet]

RadioRaheem84 wrote
''Do we not attack them (in writing, I mean) because some of them support our causes (in spirit, no doubt), like donating money to progressive causes? Is it because we bought into their wholesome image and agree with them on some points? Or is it because we ourselves have a such a disdain for the right that we wouldn't dare form an alliance with them by admitting that there is a liberal bias in everything and give them ammo by which to attack them?''

We should convert the liberals into donors for the social wealth of the U.S.

That's all i got.

I worked at a restaurant in berkeley that was owned by a guy from africa that came here seeking political asylum. He told me he picked the bay area because he was shown travel clips from documentaries and chose the the U.S for the weather. I just thought that was kinda funny. Anyway he was a revolutionary struggling against the dictator of his country..no joke, he showed me how he was tortured and what he learned from being out in the desert and many things. We would discuss revolution and fighting from the inside as opposed the outside. The conclusion we came to was that any rebellion from the outside will be crushed by international forces.

In the Bay Area there are various institutions such as the temescal library branch tool lending facility, numbers of free health clinics and worker advocacy programs that actually impact the social well being of many people in the lower spectrum.

The right wing would have nothing to do with this.

I would like to know how you justify lowering taxes when you know damn well that they provide services that are essential to poor people.

The families of the middle class shouldn't be targeted granted.

Just tax the fuck out of the Richest Class.

[core_1]

Um, most liberals are working class.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not in the classical sense of the word, by which I mean Liberalism. The American sense of the word has a reformist sense to it doesn't it? Over here the term tends to mean an unregulated market, so Classical Liberals are generally 'middle class' or rather wealthy

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Not in the classical sense of the word, by which I mean Liberalism. The American sense of the word has a reformist sense to it doesn't it? Over here the term tends to mean an unregulated market, so Classical Liberals are generally 'middle class' or rather wealthy

In the US "Liberal" can be a pretty ambiguous term. In the minds of a lot of USAmericans there is a dichotomy in "mainstream" politics which cuts everything into "Liberal" and "Conservative" so we get a lot of people calling themselves "Liberals" because they support women's reproductive rights or "Conservatives" because they support the "right to bear arms." Of course these are ignorant uses of the terms and in fact it serves to prevent working class independence by lumping workers together with the ideas of bourgeois ideologues like Bill Maher and Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Of course the bourgeoisie co-opts people who disagree with both the "Hollywood Liberals" and "Red State Conservatives" by promoting people like Jesse Ventura or Ron Paul. So-called "independents."

[8bit]

Maher seems like a pretty cool guy. I don't see why you would hate him- he's rational and honest. If given an argument which points out a fallacy in his system of ethics he'd likely acknowledge this, and reform his argument.

And Maher is, of course, far more progressive than you make him out to be. He's no Anarchist or Marxist, but he does seem to find the democrats to be way to conservative, and often calls them the conservative party.

He comes off as a social democrat, but why, exactly, is that so bad? He may not agree with you 100%, but he's certainly not trying to 'maintain the status quo', and he's very respectful, and usually in agreement with those who are far more progressive than himself, such as Chomsky.

[RadioRaheem84]

Mahr seems like a pretty cool guy. I don't see why you would hate him- he's rational and honest. If given an argument which points out a fallacy in his system of ethics he'd likely acknowledge this, and reform his argument.

And Mahr is, of course, far more progressive than you make him out to be. He's no Anarchist or Marxist, but he does seem to find the democrats to be way to conservative, and often calls them the conservative party.

He comes off as a social democrat, but why, exactly, is that so bad? He may not agree with you 100%, but he's certainly not trying to 'maintain the status quo', and he's very respectful, and usually in agreement with those who are far more progressive than himself, such as Chomsky.


I thought Maher claimed to be a libertarian? At least that is what he said a long time ago.

Secondly, I don't consider the man to be rational or logical. He's a comedian who likes to rant about middle America and religion. The shtick is getting old. Then he invites speakers who generally share his viewpoint and leaches off of their ideas.
He's a knee-jerk elitist if I have ever seen one.

[RadioRaheem84]

In the Bay Area there are various institutions such as the temescal library branch tool lending facility, numbers of free health clinics and worker advocacy programs that actually impact the social well being of many people in the lower spectrum.

The right wing would have nothing to do with this.

I would like to know how you justify lowering taxes when you know damn well that they provide services that are essential to poor people.

The families of the middle class shouldn't be targeted granted.

Just tax the fuck out of the Richest Class.

Most of the those programs were probably enacted some time in the sixties through progressive community action, or possibly earlier. They have nothing to do with the Liberals in power other than they've kept them running. I don't doubt that a lot of liberals have helped the poor with moderate and albeit reformed social programs, but at the same time to promote business they've also catered to a cadre of real estate, tech and financial houses that have gentrified so many neighborhoods that the city is practically useless to anyone making less than 100k. Of course, then you would need a sort of safety net for the poor. Liberals are the types that support and promote globalization and neo-liberalism but then will call in Bono to throw a fundraiser for children affected by the policies they support. They've leached onto a lot of true progressive and left causes for years in order to appear less conservative.

Now, I am not justifying lowering taxes or propose that a red state is somehow the way to go, but then do you explain people flocking to places like Texas, Florida and the rest of the South in order to make a living? Why don't they appreciate the wonderful blue liberal states? Why are people leaving LA, San Fran, New York, Boston, Penn, in droves for the more conservative South?

Watch the movie the Trap by Adam Curtis. It explains it all. They gist of the movie is that with the advent of the 'New Democrats' in the US and New Labour in the UK, liberal politicians have advanced both free market ideology and 'market style reform' in the government. While the Tatcherites and the Reganites in the 80s substantially reduced a lot of social services they left the rest in tact, while the New Democrats and New Labour parties in the US and the UK, opted to modify the social programs to make them more "efficient". This in turn, according to Curtis, made the situation worse for the poor and working class as they were living in cities that were dominated by the free market ideology and were provided with poor social services.

When I visited Boston, I thought I was going to a liberal bastion where the workers were unionized, better off, etc. Boy was I wrong. I have never seen a town where the social classes were so evident and where there was racial segregation (and I am from the south!). Most the workers I met there were right wingers! They complained day in and day out how they're getting taxed to death and how they keep getting pushed out of their neighborhoods by the new construction. It was too sad.

So again, I ask, what use it to live in a town like San Fran with social services if they can't even afford to live there?

[8bit]

I thought Maher claimed to be a libertarian? At least that is what he said a long time ago.

Yes, he is very much a libertarian, as am I, as were Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. The term 'libertarianism' is a comentary on social rights, in that, a librertarian is positioned opposite to that of an authoritarian. It has only been in the last few decades that conservatives and reactionaries have adopted the term, and began using it to exclusively describle social liberals with conservative fiscal policy.


Secondly, I don't consider the man to be rational or logical. He's a comedian who likes to rant about middle America and religion. The shtick is getting old.

Last I checked, religious genoicde is still going on today. Until that stops the shtick of critisizing religion will never get old.


Then he invites speakers who generally share his viewpoint and leaches off of their ideas.
He's a knee-jerk elitist if I have ever seen one.

He far more often invites people who disagree with him. Rarely do I see an athiest on his show, for example, in comparison to the number of religious persons who get invited, and he often invites many that are much further to the left than him, and to the right than him. He has a huge range of guests, from the far right of Ann Coulter, to the far left of Chomsky, and pretty much everything in between.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, he is very much a libertarian, as am I, as were Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. The term 'libertarianism' is a comentary on social rights, in that, a librertarian is positioned opposite to that of an authoritarian. It has only been in the last few decades that conservatives and reactionaries have adopted the term, and began using it to exclusively describle social liberals with conservative fiscal policy.



Last I checked, religious genoicde is still going on today. Until that stops the shtick of critisizing religion will never get old.



He far more often invites people who disagree with him. Rarely do I see an athiest on his show, for example, in comparison to the number of religious persons who get invited, and he often invites many that are much further to the left than him, and to the right than him. He has a huge range of guests, from the far right of Ann Coulter, to the far left of Chomsky, and pretty much everything in between.


A.) He never claimed to be a libertarian in the sense that you're speaking of. He claimed to be a Libertarian in the American sense of the word.

B.) His shtick is him inviting people of faith so he can lambaste them and make himself look and feel superior. Have you not seen Religilous?

C.) He invites people of all stripes because he is an entertainer. Chomsky would go on any show if they invited him. He went on Buckley's old show and even the Ali G show. He is a nice man who is willing to share his views with anyone. Coulter and Bill are friends.

D). Maher is not a left winger but a man who doesn't know what he is. All that he is an elitist prick with a sick taste for demeaning people.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p7dlM9ACng&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewayfarerphilosophy.org%2F %3Fp%3D416&feature=player_embedded#t=71

[absurd_planet]

Yo Raheem, I totally appreciate your analysis and reply on this subject.

Although the substance of your ideas are completely logical, there are a few inconsistencies apparent. You asked what use is it to live in S.F if the expenses are too high to enjoy a sufficient existence. I hate to quote myself but already in this conversation I said this.

''For example, in San Francisco the city has been transformed into a elite left wing utopia where humble families cease to exist because of the disappearance of the middle class in the city. Many people come to the conclusion that liberal tendencies arose from this guilt. Rich and poor classes in that city and absolutely no grey area. People are lured to the city because of it's reputation as a liberal mecca which causes the rents to sky rocket and becomes filled with snotty rich east coast college kids and get rich quick liberal free marketers toiling in the video game or tech industries. I think this illuminates your disgust of the liberals ideology quite well. Not to mention the only places they prefer to eat at are vegan/organic restaurants which don't get me wrong are positive in moderation but it can wreck the diversity of an economy when you legislate against big box stores, fast food restaurants, and implement strict zoning laws/high taxes.''

I don't agree with the city or how it's managed.

Beautiful as it is, the middle class has been sucked out into the suburbs surrounding the city.

Furthermore, i've seen differing figures on the demographics of California and I truly don't envision some sort of mass exodus from the state. I travel frequently inside the state and abroad and everybody I meet has fantastic things to say about it. Sure political corruption and the magnitude of the population slows down progress at times, nevertheless there's many reasons why it's a great place to live and do business. Look at silicon valley, tourism, etc. Those industries are here to stay.

Boston does have a history with racial tension, but the traditions of north east culture are far different than California and in my opinion more intellectual and organized than the cities of the bay area and L.A. Which consequently makes it less revolutionary. It is much easier to cross over from mexico and stay in California than try to crusade to NY somehow. People from Latin American countries arrive everyday to L.A bringing with them socialist tendencies and a real disdain for authority. This atmosphere of illegal immigrants, yuppie liberals, alienated urban minorities, marxist students, and central valley farmers(which are is the highest producers of agriculture in the U.S) lays the groundwork for a real revolution of some kind if you ask me.

[mykittyhasaboner]

We need less Bill Mahers and more Noam Chomskys.
No, we need less reformist liberals and more revolutionary leftists.

Last I checked, religious genoicde is still going on today. Until that stops the shtick of critisizing religion will never get old.
Sorry but is this supposed to be a defense of Maher's methods of critiquing religion? Speaking of "religious genocide" as a reason to critique religion; Maher only talked to one Jew in his movie, and that Jew happened to be an anti-Zionist Jew. If he's doing any critiquing of religious communities and political organizations on the grounds of violent extremism or whatever, then it is absurdly hypocritical. The guy is a straight up Zionist.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, we need less reformist liberals and more revolutionary leftists. Chomsky is not a reformed liberal. He was always a libertarian socialist that thinks the best form of government came from the CNT autonomous regions of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.



Sorry but is this supposed to be a defense of Maher's methods of critiquing religion? Speaking of "religious genocide" as a reason to critique religion; Maher only talked to one Jew in his movie, and that Jew happened to be an anti-Zionist Jew. If he's doing any critiquing of religious communities and political organizations on the grounds of violent extremism or whatever, then it is absurdly hypocritical. The guy is a straight up Zionist.Exactly. I mean honestly, you know the whole premise of his film was to really attack Middle American Christians over all. I think the whole inclusion of other religions was really for him to appear to be fair. He might also have a hatred toward Islam but most of all the religious right. While I agree that these people need to be exposed, they should be in an objective manner.

I mean the whole reason for why people cling to right wing ideology and religion is because the general populace feels powerless. They believe their modest lives are a joke to people like Maher who go on TV to ridicule them for their beliefs. They strengthen their beliefs when Maher continues with the jokes with other elitist types. Sure the jokes are funny, but they do nothing to mobilize people to effectively change society.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Chomsky is not a reformed liberal. He was always a libertarian socialist that thinks the best form of government came from the CNT autonomous regions of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.
He may call himself a "libertarian socialist" and think that the CNT regions of Spain were the "best form of government" (by the way could you provide a quote of him saying this?) but hes a liberal who tries to paint his politics as socialist. He has crazy double standards: he thinks the Bolsheviks have nothing to do with the left, are anti-socialist and led a "counter-revolution" and that the dissolution of the USSR was a "victory" for socialism; yet on the other hand he supports voting for Kerry or Obama as a viable alternative to Republican candidates. Have look at this gem of Chomsky's:

"In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society." - Noam Chomsky 2003. Chomsky on Democracy & Education. Routledge. p. 399

So basically according to Chomsky the US has come "closer to classlessness" than any society, even Catalonia. There's not much hope for his "libertarian socialist" politics among quotes like this one.

He also talks about how the US needs progressive taxes as Jefferson advocated, as well as other odd positions like advocating a draft as a means to combat the tendency for the US to use a smaller professional military force to fight its neo-colonial wars. On the surface the guy has some decent critiques of capitalism here and there and is usually spot-on when it comes to US foreign policy, but he isn't a revolutionary.


Exactly. I mean honestly, you know the whole premise of his film was to really attack Middle American Christians over all.This I wholly agree with. I think making fun of the beliefs of christians can be fun and I found some of his antics mildly amusing but looking at the film as a whole it was a complete joke.


I think the whole inclusion of other religions was really for him to appear to be fair. He might also have a hatred toward Islam but most of all the religious right. Oh he certainly has it out for Islam, as much as christianity. He went on and on about how they don't let jews in whatever Muslim temple (or whatever he was visiting) and given that he supports Israel openly I don't think he cares about those crazy suicide bombing fundamentalists. :rolleyes:

While I agree that these people need to be exposed, they should be in an objective manner. Which you will never, ever get with Maher.


I mean the whole reason for why people cling to right wing ideology and religion is because the general populace feels powerless. They believe their modest lives are a joke to people like Maher who go on TV to ridicule them for their beliefs. They strengthen their beliefs when Maher continues with the jokes with other elitist types. Sure the jokes are funny, but they do nothing to mobilize people to effectively change society.I think the fact that he has a tv show, and thus the medium to manipulate the thought process of millions of people is scary in itself, like all other political pundits in this country. He panders to atheist liberals and Obama-morons. Even when they elect "a bright guy as president" he still thinks there all just a bunch of idiots! :closedeyes: I understand your contempt for the guy, I really do.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

Chomsky on Anarchism. There is also a book out where he relays his appreciation for the CNT.


he thinks the Bolsheviks have nothing to do with the left, are anti-socialist and led a "counter-revolution" and that the dissolution of the USSR was a "victory" for socialism; yet on the other hand he supports voting for Kerry or Obama as a viable alternative to Republican candidates. Have look at this gem of Chomsky's

Well he thinks that Marxism is a pseudo-science anyways. He was always an admirer of Bakunin instead. Chomsky thinks that the USSR was counter-revolutionary in that it did more harm for the spread of socialism than good. Many leftists in here critique Bolshevism, Stalinism and the USSR. Running a nation like a corrupt gangster state (Stalin) is not socialism.

I don't know why Chomsky always asks us to vote for people like Kerry or Obama when people like Nader or Kucinich or even other left wing parties are on the ticket. My guess is that he's very pragmatic and thinks in the lesser of two evils frame when it comes to US politics. Then again he never stops at critiquing an administration. He openly admits to Clintons reign as being worse than Bush.

And last, I agree with him to a certain extent that the US is classless on an inter-personal level, at least was now that that is rapidly deteriorating. I feel as though the classes are less evident in most cities in the US then say the UK or the EU. Obviously this is due to the many gains during the New Deal and so on, not because of the capitalist system. I also feel this way even more so living in a state like Texas where the cost of living is so low and jobs are abundant. If I allocate my funds right I can eat at the fanciest restaurant, shop at the best stores and party at the best clubs with people who earn or inherit millions, no joke. Google, the 30k millionaire phenomena that is visible in cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Miami.
This stuff is mostly material and doesnt amount to anything but enhance class superiority in this nation but it does point to the fact that this society is much freer in terms of social mobility. Most people in other countries dont even interact with the wealthy unless they seem pass by in a motorcade.

[absurd_planet]

Noam Chomsky and Maher provide a service to this country.

Chomsky has reserved his talents for a role as a rather conventional western intellectual.
I prefer the ideas of David Harvey personally, and the marxist tendencies were never quite solidified in Chomsky enough to make him dangerous to the establishment. Hence his place at the top of the academic ladder. His developments and critiques have yet to surprise, he doesn't evolve anything.

Maher has a tv show that is viewed by many people who get a majority of their information from fox news or msnbc and while his show certainly doesn't call for a revolution. He remains fairly skeptical of current events and most importantly has guests on the show from time to time that actually are involved with local organizations that promote the social consciousness of the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

I prefer the ideas of David Harvey personally,

David Harvey is the man! A Brief History of Neoliberalism is one of my favorite books. Now I agree, he is much better.

I personally just think Noam Chomsky is the best guy to call bullshit on a lot of American policies.


Maher has a tv show that is viewed by many people who get a majority of their information from fox news or msnbc and while his show certainly doesn't call for a revolution. He remains fairly skeptical of current events and most importantly has guests on the show from time to time that actually are involved with local organizations that promote the social consciousness of the working class.

A huge chunk of the population gets their news from outside non-mainstream new sources. They think that there is an elite liberal agenda and when they turn on the TV to find a smug intellectual wannabe like Maher calling them stupid with NO remorse about it, they cling to their guns and their bible for self-reassurance.

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

Chomsky on Anarchism. There is also a book out where he relays his appreciation for the CNT.

Thanks.


Well he thinks that Marxism is a pseudo-science anyways. He was always an admirer of Bakunin instead. Chomsky thinks that the USSR was counter-revolutionary in that it did more harm for the spread of socialism than good. Well this is exactly why he has ridiculous double-standards. If the USSR was "counter revolutionary" then how is voting for Kerry or Obama not? How is the US the "freest country in the world?"


Many leftists in here critique Bolshevism, Stalinism and the USSR.I'm aware but that doesn't really mean much.

Running a nation like a corrupt gangster state (Stalin) is not socialism. At the risk of getting into another one of these straw man debates, I don't care how much one dislikes the Soviet state, but "corrupt gangster state" is just slander. It is worth noting that Chomsky's criticism of the USSR is downright reactionary, in that he applauded it's dissolution, which of course has led to horrendous effects on the conditions of ordinary people in Russian/post-Soviet society.


I don't know why Chomsky always asks us to vote for people like Kerry or Obama when people like Nader or Kucinich or even other left wing parties are on the ticket. My guess is that he's very pragmatic and thinks in the lesser of two evils frame when it comes to US politics.Which reeks of reformism.


Then again he never stops at critiquing an administration. He openly admits to Clintons reign as being worse than Bush.Well if he never stops at critiquing an administration when whats the point of telling people to vote for them?


And last, I agree with him to a certain extent that the US is classless on an inter-personal level, at least was now that that is rapidly deteriorating.How on Earth is the US "classless on an interpersonal level"?

I feel as though the classes are less evident in most cities in the US then say the UK or the EU. Obviously this is due to the many gains during the New Deal and so on, not because of the capitalist system.I'm sorry but this is completely wrong. The US system is based on the class rule of the bourgeoisie over all other classes. I mean the damn government injected billions of dollars to save credit card and banking companies, when average people are drowning in their own cost of living/taxes, etc and the ruling government sends average workers to fight and die for their brutal imperialist wars.

Stuff like the New Deal has little to do with this, since that was born out of the great depression and didn't contribute to the US becoming any more "classless" (I would advise you see Stalin vs HG Wells, Marxism vs Liberalism; its an interview that's been posted here and Stalin talks all about how the New Deal has nothing to do with socialism or classlessness) but if your going to suggest that because of social programs, that the US is more "classless" than the UK or EU then that argument falls flat on its head. The UK and EU have way more credibility on the grounds of social welfare and equality then the US ever had.


I also feel this way even more so living in a state like Texas where the cost of living is so low and jobs are abundant. If I allocate my funds right I can eat at the fanciest restaurant, shop at the best stores and party at the best clubs with people who earn or inherit millions, no joke. Google, the 30k millionaire phenomena that is visible in cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Miami. None of which has any relevance towards "classlessness".


This stuff is mostly material and doesnt amount to anything but enhance class superiority in this nation but it does point to the fact that this society is much freer in terms of social mobility. Most people in other countries dont even interact with the wealthy unless they seem pass by in a motorcade.Most people in the US don't interact with "the wealthy" either.

[RadioRaheem84]

At the risk of getting into another one of these straw man debates, I don't care how much one dislikes the Soviet state, but "corrupt gangster state" is just slander. It is worth noting that Chomsky's criticism of the USSR is downright reactionary, in that he applauded it's dissolution, which of course has led to horrendous effects on the conditions of ordinary people in Russian/post-Soviet society.

I agree. In fact, so does Chomsky. I an interview in in the Book the Understanding Power, he actually defends some aspects of the USSR over US critiques of communism. While he saw the USSR as an authoritarian state-capitalist society he still saw it as a better to third world despotism. The reason why everything the Soviet Bloc was called second world was because it was the second way of running things beside capitalism and third world cronyism. He explained that the reason why the USSR was such a threat to the US was because it posed as an economic competitor in the third world. Third world nations would have rather had a developmental socialist state rather than a capitalist run one at the time. I agree with him on this. He also defended the USSR by saying that it was always wrong to compare the US to the USSR because the US had way more of an advantage under its belt at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia was an agrarian society that was thrust into the 20th century by Stalin himself albeit by force.
His dispassionate views about the USSR are not reactionary.



Which reeks of reformism

Agreed. He really just needs to support a real left candidate.



Well if he never stops at critiquing an administration when whats the point of telling people to vote for them?

To hold them accountable? They dont run for office on a platform of imperialist expansion and giving money to the rich.





I'm sorry but this is completely wrong. The US system is based on the class rule of the bourgeoisie over all other classes. I mean the damn government injected billions of dollars to save credit card and banking companies, when average people are drowning in their own cost of living/taxes, etc and the ruling government sends average workers to fight and die for their brutal imperialist wars.

Ofcourse it is. The US system is one based on upper class supremacy, BUT provides for social mobility to get to the top. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to with simply the wealthy and the poor interact more with each other in this nation than most nations on earth. It's not really a praise of the nation, just an examination. The US will always favor the rich but it will also favor those who SEEK to become rich too by granting access and greater social mobility to enrich oneself.


None of which has any relevance towards "classlessness".


No. It doesn't. The US just has the "feel" of being classless.



Most people in the US don't interact with "the wealthy" either.


Yes, they do. Maybe not the ultra wealthy, but Americans interact with people from different social classes all the time. Most of the time its with people of the different middle class structures. From upper middle class to working class, they all attend the public school system, go to the same malls, clubs, colleges, etc. etc.

S
tuff like the New Deal has little to do with this, since that was born out of the great depression and didn't contribute to the US becoming any more "classless" (I would advise you see Stalin vs HG Wells, Marxism vs Liberalism; its an interview that's been posted here and Stalin talks all about how the New Deal has nothing to do with socialism or classlessness) but if your going to suggest that because of social programs, that the US is more "classless" than the UK or EU then that argument falls flat on its head. The UK and EU have way more credibility on the grounds of social welfare and equality then the US ever had.

The New Deal did a lot for changing the landscape of America as did the rejection of Free Market ideology for Keynesian economics. It never made it class less but it did provide an avenue for many Americans to move into a middle class. This didnt change anything except modified the classes to alleviate social revolution.

The UK and the EU may have better social programs but you cannot deny that the classes are dominant there considering each class has their basic necessities met. There is no need for upward social mobility in those societies. In the US, there is, considering there is little to no social safety net. So this nation widens the scope for people to try and compete to have access to those things. The only rights in this nation are ones that you WIN in the marketplace. And if you win, you win big, if you lose, you lose big. Again, this is not saying that this system is better.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree. In fact, so does Chomsky. I an interview in in the Book the Understanding Power, he actually defends some aspects of the USSR over US critiques of communism. While he saw the USSR as an authoritarian state-capitalist society he still saw it as a better to third world despotism. The reason why everything the Soviet Bloc was called second world was because it was the second way of running things beside capitalism and third world cronyism. He explained that the reason why the USSR was such a threat to the US was because it posed as an economic competitor in the third world. Third world nations would have rather had a developmental socialist state rather than a capitalist run one at the time. I agree with him on this. He also defended the USSR by saying that it was always wrong to compare the US to the USSR because the US had way more of an advantage under its belt at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia was an agrarian society that was thrust into the 20th century by Stalin himself albeit by force.
His dispassionate views about the USSR are not reactionary.
OK, maybe not wholly reactionary; but claiming that the USSR's dissolution was a "small victory for socialism" is crazy. Hes so critical of the USSR because he takes the view that Lenin and the Bolsheviks "took advantage" of the revolution, and that the Soviet state had nothing to do with working class power. Yet again, in his classically contradictory fashion, he is much less critical of the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions. Chomsky really plays a bizarre balancing act and his views don't really add up.





Agreed. He really just needs to support a real left candidate. Or just disregard US electoral politics in general, which imo, would be the correct approach. I have my qualms with the tactic of running in bourgeois elections in the US solely because leftist parties (unintentionally perhaps) give credibility to the electoral system. I think leftist parties should focus on other tactics besides elections, but this is for another discussion.



To hold them accountable? They dont run for office on a platform of imperialist expansion and giving money to the rich.
I fail to see how telling people to vote for bourgeois candidates can make them 'accountable' in the public's view. If anything it strengthens the supposed validity of the system.



Ofcourse it is. The US system is one based on upper class supremacy, BUT provides for social mobility to get to the top.This is reminscent of the capitalist nonsense that goes along the lines of: "anyone can make it to the top and succeed if they just work hard and stop being lazy". Of course there are tons of problems with this. The US hardly provides the ability for individuals to "get to the top", instead certain individuals can do this solely because of their wealth. There is no provided way for an illegal Mexican immigrant to get to the top, nor is there any provided "social mobility" for a black youth growing up in the projects, same goes for anyone really. The way people succeed in this system the way you describe is by chance.


It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to with simply the wealthy and the poor interact more with each other in this nation than most nations on earth. But this has nothing to do with class. The rich may 'interact' with the poor all they want, but if the system is based on bourgeois rule and people are not equal, then this doesn't add to any credibility for the US being "classless".


It's not really a praise of the nation, just an examination. The US will always favor the rich but it will also favor those who SEEK to become rich too by granting access and greater social mobility to enrich oneself. Again, this sounds like a US chauvinist argument that the system here is fair as long as you want to succeed. That's bullshit.




No. It doesn't. The US just has the "feel" of being classless. I certainly wouldn't say so. I would say the US is one of the most class divided societies in the world due to sheer size and of course historical development. The US has a history ridden with class divisions and conflict.



Yes, they do. Maybe not the ultra wealthy, but Americans interact with people from different social classes all the time. Most of the time its with people of the different middle class structures. From upper middle class to working class, they all attend the public school system, go to the same malls, clubs, colleges, etc. etc. I really don't understand how you think this. Just because they "interact" a lot, doesn't make a difference. The working and petit-bourgeois classes interact a lot sure, but that is the case in almost every country, since these two classes are reliant on their own labor for the most part.

According to this logic, if a rich woman walked buy a homeless guy and gave him some money, then the US has a classless "feel".




The New Deal did a lot for changing the landscape of America as did the rejection of Free Market ideology for Keynesian economics. It never made it class less but it did provide an avenue for many Americans to move into a middle class.Maybe, but the new deal's attributes didn't last very long did they? The program itself was meant for revitalizing the failing economy, and it "worked".

This didnt change anything except modified the classes to alleviate social revolution. Precisely.


The UK and the EU may have better social programs but you cannot deny that the classes are dominant there considering each class has their basic necessities met.This is highly contestable, the basic needs of each class aren't exactly met in full in those countries, rather they have a superior social structure thanks to their various welfare programs. In fact there's more of a chance for someone to "move up" in those countries when people aren't worrying about paying thousands of dollars for health care, etc.


There is no need for upward social mobility in those societies. In the US, there is, considering there is little to no social safety net. So this nation widens the scope for people to try and compete to have access to those things.This scope is only so wide, since the majority of people living in Ameirca will never get a chance to increase their economic status significantly.


The only rights in this nation are ones that you WIN in the marketplace. And if you win, you win big, if you lose, you lose big. Again, this is not saying that this system is better.I don't think your saying the system is better, I think you are misunderstanding the system itself. The only rights we have are the ones that have been fought for by organized workers through years of struggle. The marketplace has little to do with what rights we have, and really only applies to those who own their MOP. Wage-workers don't have anything but their labor to sell, so essentially the market is their slave master, and they don't have the ability to "win big" unless they are really lucky.

[Sarah Palin]

Chomsky is not a reformed liberal. He was always a libertarian socialist that thinks the best form of government came from the CNT autonomous regions of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.


I beg to differ. I watched an interview (or maybe it was in one of his books of interviews) in which he called himself an Anarcho-Syndicalist. Needless to say though, that's how CNT controlled Catalonia was organized.
I just thought libertarian socialist was a misnomer.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is reminscent of the capitalist nonsense that goes along the lines of: "anyone can make it to the top and succeed if they just work hard and stop being lazy". Of course there are tons of problems with this. The US hardly provides the ability for individuals to "get to the top", instead certain individuals can do this solely because of their wealth. There is no provided way for an illegal Mexican immigrant to get to the top, nor is there any provided "social mobility" for a black youth growing up in the projects, same goes for anyone really. The way people succeed in this system the way you describe is by chance. It is nonsense. But this society does provide means for some people to make it to the top. It just chooses who they want at the top first. At first it was only White Anglo Saxon Males, then it was modified to anyone white, now its modified to anyone who has a sense of intelligence (educated) and can defend the status quo.

Ofcourse it's all by chance but the point is that this society has hoodwinked the public into thinking that if they relinquish their desire for social safety nets and more public expenditures that this will allow for them to have an easier road to make it big one day.

If you were to ask most Americans if they would rather live in a society that has little to no social welfare but gave you the ability to make it rich and afford those ammenties all your own, or in a society that offered a lot of social safety nets and met all your basic needs but you would have less of a chance to become wealthy one day; most Americans would choose to the former.


But this has nothing to do with class. The rich may 'interact' with the poor all they want, but if the system is based on bourgeois rule and people are not equal, then this doesn't add to any credibility for the US being "classless".Yes it does. The thing is that the poor and working class interact with the rich via workplaces, cafes, connections, etc. The rich are also almost forced to interact via public schools, libraries, shops and restaurants that cater to middle class shoppers.
The point is that it allows others to work their way to the top to reinforce the status quo. It's classless in the sense that people suppress the ideas of class in America in favor of having a dream that they might own a Mercedes one day.


Again, this sounds like a US chauvinist argument that the system here is fair as long as you want to succeed. That's bullshit.No its only fair to you if you co-tail to the system and make yourself either a prole serving the rich or become rich yourself. By rich I dont mean Bill Gates rich, but this nations forces someone to either work their ass to foster a middle class or join the ranks of the impoverished. It favors those who seek out the meager existence that the capitalist promotes over that of the working class who seeks a social safety net.



I really don't understand how you think this. Just because they "interact" a lot, doesn't make a difference. The working and petit-bourgeois classes interact a lot sure, but that is the case in almost every country, since these two classes are reliant on their own labor for the most part.

According to this logic, if a rich woman walked buy a homeless guy and gave him some money, then the US has a classless "feel".



Rich and poor interact way more than just passing each other in the street. They go to school together (secondary and College), they work together depending on the industry, support the same candidates by canvassing together, etc. etc. There is a lot more social interaction with the rich in this nation than in other countries. Most other countries are like New York where the rich and poor do not interact as much and there are clear social distinctions.



This is highly contestable, the basic needs of each class aren't exactly met in full in those countries, rather they have a superior social structure thanks to their various welfare programs. In fact there's more of a chance for someone to "move up" in those countries when people aren't worrying about paying thousands of dollars for health care, etc.Move up to what? Another sub-section of a mildly better middle class? There are people in this country that make more money as mechanics or technicians than some doctors in the UK. Moving up is no big deal in the EU considering everyone's basic needs are somewhat met. In the US, its huge because people can finally begin to afford stuff.



This scope is only so wide, since the majority of people living in Ameirca will never get a chance to increase their economic status significantly.Which its why its flawed.


I don't think your saying the system is better, I think you are misunderstanding the system itself. The only rights we have are the ones that have been fought for by organized workers through years of struggle. The marketplace has little to do with what rights we have, and really only applies to those who own their MOP. Wage-workers don't have anything but their labor to sell, so essentially the market is their slave master, and they don't have the ability to "win big" unless they are really lucky.The only TRUE rights we have are the ones won by organized labor. The only rights the elites want us to have are the ones one can win in the marketplace by either selling ones labor, starting a business and then reaching a capacity to where you can buy your right to health-care, protection, etc.

I wasn't saying that these are real rights but the only rights we were meant to have had not organized labor helped their fellow worker.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I guess I understand what your saying.

[RHIZOMES]

Anyways, we need less Bill Mahers, less Noam Chomskys, and more, perhaps, Bill Hickses and Wittgensteins?

^^^That. Noam Chomsky is a good resource on anti-imperialism but he is a bit of a liberal.

[9]

^^^That. Noam Chomsky is a good resource on anti-imperialism but he is a bit of a liberal.

I think this is worth noting. Chomsky is an academic and his analyses of American foreign policy etc. are very informative. He is valuable for his analyses and I recommend them frequently (I sent a copy of "Hegemony or Survival" to my mother a few weeks ago; she finished it, and the last I heard, my father was reading it :) ). To claim, however, that because of these analyses and his "sympathy" for anarcho-syndicalism that he himself is a revolutionary seems to be a bit of a stretch, but more importantly, wholly irrelevant to anything.