Would the libertarians conspiracy theory movement support the left in a revolution?

[LeninistKing]

Hello all, i would like to know if the libertarians and the conspiracy-theory movement in America (Alex Jones followers, 9-11 truth movement, Anti-NWO movements, etc) support the left-wing in a socialist-revolution? or would they support the right-wingers and former capitalist ruling class oppressors?

.

[core_1]

Hello all, i would like to know if the libertarians and the conspiracy-theory movement in America (Alex Jones followers, 9-11 truth movement, Anti-NWO movements, etc) support the left-wing in a socialist-revolution? or would they support the right-wingers and former capitalist ruling class oppressors?

.
The problem with (right) Liberatarianism is that it considers the state and capitalism as different establishments that can exist without each other. Libertarians somhow hope to preserve capitalism without an organised system of coercion to enforce class rule. This is misguided and frankly if they're still clinging to their wafer thin politics in a time of revolutionary change, they won't support us.

[Axle]

Nope, they'd have to be considered counter-revolutionary.

[RED DAVE]

No. They will act in a reactionary way. The whole point of their convoluted notions, no matter how radical they might appear, is to situate the individual in a privileged place in the capitalist system.

RED DAVE

[GPDP]

No. They will act in a reactionary way. The whole point of their convoluted notions, no matter how radical they might appear, is to situate the individual in a privileged place in the capitalist system.

I have to take issue with this statement, particularly the bolded part. Saying they favor the "individual" gives way too much credit to their highly abstract and frankly misleading notions of individualism. In reality, when they say they are fighting for the rights of "the individual," they are really fighting for the rights of the capitalist minority. In their eyes, the so-called "individual," who features so prominently in their rhetoric and lore, is the rugged, competitive entrepreneur i.e. the capitalist.

Hence, what they seek is to fully empower the capitalists of the world at the expense of everyone else, even if the more delusional among them say otherwise. Thus, they are not to be trusted or allied with at any time.

[RED DAVE]

No. They will act in a reactionary way. The whole point of their convoluted notions, no matter how radical they might appear, is to situate the individual in a privileged place in the capitalist system.
I have to take issue with this statement, particularly the bolded part. Saying they favor the "individual" gives way too much credit to their highly abstract and frankly misleading notions of individualism. In reality, when they say they are fighting for the rights of "the individual," they are really fighting for the rights of the capitalist minority. In their eyes, the so-called "individual," who features so prominently in their rhetoric and lore, is the rugged, competitive entrepreneur i.e. the capitalist.

Hence, what they seek is to fully empower the capitalists of the world at the expense of everyone else, even if the more delusional among them say otherwise. Thus, they are not to be trusted or allied with at any time.Right.

I should have said that they want to situate themselves in a privileged place in the capitalist system.

RED DAVE

[GPDP]

[B]I should have said that they want to situate themselves in a privileged place in the capitalist system.

It depends. I'm sure there are opportunists within the movement that do want that, while there are some who are genuinely delusional and buy into libertarianism out of a wholesome belief that laissez-faire capitalism ensures maximum individual liberty and (lol) social harmony.

[The Douche]

Many of them would avticely fight against a collectivist revolution. I mean, tea partiers aren't exactly fond of socialism, are they...

[Raúl Duke]

If libertarians support a left revolution, that would be because they abandoned libertarianism. A left revolution, especially a Leninist type (which you can bet your ass they'll oppose till death), would have little to offer for libertarians.

[RadioRaheem84]

Didn't some right wing elements support the Cuban Revolution? Afterward, they came back during the Bay of Pigs as counter-revolutionaries.

[jake williams]

I think it's very very important to distinguish the class basis of the propagandists, the ideologues, eg. Alex Jones, and the class basis of the audience, which is for the most part working class, with some petty bourgeois elements. But it really is mostly working class.

In fact, something like these theories - conspiracy theories in particular - perhaps form an important part of the consciousness of the majority of the US working class. And since to have a meaningful leftist revolution, the left needs the support of the working class, the "right libertarians" if we mean that part of the working class which tends to subscribe to those views and not the ideologues, will necessarily "come over to the left" for a revolution to occur anyway. It's a necessary condition.

Now I do want to make clear my understanding that I believe the thread author is referring to the ideologues. I'm personally less interested in them, but if we want to try to make some rough predictions about them: a lot of them are just paid propagandists, and will spread whatever propaganda the money is behind. So a lot of them would move far to the right during a revolutionary situation, and give up their "libertarianism". But it's a complex set of predictions, because ideologues and intellectuals are a complex set of people, they're not all just in it for the money. A narrow segment actually is true believers, in which case it's actually meaningful to look at the content of their ideologies. In this final narrow case I think they would be antagonistic to a leftist revolution.

[GPDP]

I think it's very very important to distinguish the class basis of the propagandists, the ideologues, eg. Alex Jones, and the class basis of the audience, which is for the most part working class, with some petty bourgeois elements. But it really is mostly working class.

In fact, something like these theories - conspiracy theories in particular - perhaps form an important part of the consciousness of the majority of the US working class. And since to have a meaningful leftist revolution, the left needs the support of the working class, the "right libertarians" if we mean that part of the working class which tends to subscribe to those views and not the ideologues, will necessarily "come over to the left" for a revolution to occur anyway. It's a necessary condition.

Now I do want to make clear my understanding that I believe the thread author is referring to the ideologues. I'm personally less interested in them, but if we want to try to make some rough predictions about them: a lot of them are just paid propagandists, and will spread whatever propaganda the money is behind. So a lot of them would move far to the right during a revolutionary situation, and give up their "libertarianism". But it's a complex set of predictions, because ideologues and intellectuals are a complex set of people, they're not all just in it for the money. A narrow segment actually is true believers, in which case it's actually meaningful to look at the content of their ideologies. In this final narrow case I think they would be antagonistic to a leftist revolution.

This is very true. Consider the chart I posted on Chit-Chat:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2668/reactionaries.jpg

This encompasses reactionaries in general, but it can be applied to libertarian conspiracists specifically as well. The propagandists are opportunists, and can come in both intellectual (Alex Jones) and non-intellectual (David Icke) flavors. The ideologues fall in the lower right corner, and genuinely believe what they say (think the early Zeitgeist movement). The audience falls in the lower left corner, and will listen to and get their talking points from both the propagandists and ideologues.

[RadioRaheem84]

I would've put Pat Buchanan closer to the intellectual camp than Rush Limbaugh. Buchanan saw outright the effect of neo-liberalism on the average American worker and went against free trade agreements like NAFTA. He was labeled a populist by the right wing media. Ronald Reagan was just a stooge for the right wing business interests and told little parables to the American people.

Right wing hysteria is just a product of Americans being disenfranchised from the political system and their unwillingness to admit that the system itself is inherently corrupt. Instead the look to outside forces as the reason for which America is dying; communists, statists, terrorists, liberals, corporatists, etc.

[Red Commissar]

It depends on what you mean by "libertarian". If you mean the so-called "libertarians" in the USA, most of them will tend to attribute everything to some left-wing socialist conspiracy.

[LeninistKing]

Well from my own perspectives libertarian conspiracy-theory people are not evil. They are just influenced by the excess of libertarian, conspiracy-theory websites, and radio shows. But i think that in a real revolution of socialists against the 2% US oligarchy (Monopoly-Capitalists and real rulers of USA), they (libertarian conspiracy-theory/911 truth movement) would side with the Leftist-Revolutionary Front and not with the oligarchic-front.

.



It depends on what you mean by "libertarian". If you mean the so-called "libertarians" in the USA, most of them will tend to attribute everything to some left-wing socialist conspiracy.

[LeninistKing]

Don't worry i think that people like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will become socialists in the near future. Even Pat Robertson said in a news article: "God is OK with Socialism"

http://sayanythingblog.com/mobile/entry/pat_robertson_god_is_ok_with_socialism/

.



I would've put Pat Buchanan closer to the intellectual camp than Rush Limbaugh. Buchanan saw outright the effect of neo-liberalism on the average American worker and went against free trade agreements like NAFTA. He was labeled a populist by the right wing media. Ronald Reagan was just a stooge for the right wing business interests and told little parables to the American people.

Right wing hysteria is just a product of Americans being disenfranchised from the political system and their unwillingness to admit that the system itself is inherently corrupt. Instead the look to outside forces as the reason for which America is dying; communists, statists, terrorists, liberals, corporatists, etc.

[The Douche]

Well from my own perspectives libertarian conspiracy-theory people are not evil. They are just influenced by the excess of libertarian, conspiracy-theory websites, and radio shows. But i think that in a real revolution of socialists against the 2% US oligarchy (Monopoly-Capitalists and real rulers of USA), they (libertarian conspiracy-theory/911 truth movement) would side with the Leftist-Revolutionary Front and not with the oligarchic-front.

.

I think you ought to explain why you think this, since most of the board seems to disagree.

Socialism is the enemy to these people, the organizations which built the current libertarian/conspiracy theory movement are actively anti-communist (John Birch Society for instance). You can look at videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsaj-iUlajA

and see how this movement views communism.

The whole libertarian movement is based on radical capitalism, the Mises institute, etc. Tell you what, why don't you go over to www.awrm.org (http://www.awrm.org), which is a website of the non-racist militia movement (they are libertarians/constitutionalists), and ask them what they would do in the event of a communist revolution?

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly, we as socialists are the arch enemy of these groups and we're the whole reason for their mad cap organizations. They think anything that impedes on free markets is socialism, regardless of the fact that it may be far from socialism. They'll tell you up and down, day and night, back and forth, that what we have today is not capitalism but "corporatism" or whatever other form of "collectivist", "statist", "socialist" they think the US is engaged in.

You think that we can be friends with these people? Or engage them in rational conversation?

[LeninistKing]

Cmoney: Hold your horses my friend, dont be so rigid. That was just own personal hypothesis-prediction not that it might happen that way.

Remember that libertarians and conspiracy theory people are victims of capitalism, humans, facing the same problems that you and i have in this country of lower buying power, lower living standards and poverty, and i would think that in a socialist-revolution they would at least realize that their libertarian bourgeoise ideology doesnt work any more because capitalism has reached a monopoly, oligarchic-stage and that would be like turning back the clock to 1800s.

So maybe some libertarians would side with leftists in a socialist-revolution against the corporate capitalist imperialists of USA

.


I think you ought to explain why you think this, since most of the board seems to disagree.

Socialism is the enemy to these people, the organizations which built the current libertarian/conspiracy theory movement are actively anti-communist (John Birch Society for instance). You can look at videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsaj-iUlajA

and see how this movement views communism.

The whole libertarian movement is based on radical capitalism, the Mises institute, etc. Tell you what, why don't you go over to www.awrm.org (http://www.awrm.org), which is a website of the non-racist militia movement (they are libertarians/constitutionalists), and ask them what they would do in the event of a communist revolution?

[RadioRaheem84]

So maybe some libertarians would side with leftists in a socialist-revolution against the corporate capitalist imperialists of USA


Maybe. But most would be opposed to it because their world view is dominated by that of private property and profit. How would that work? The union would collapse as soon as the oligarchs were taken out.

[GPDP]

Maybe. But most would be opposed to it because their world view is dominated by that of private property and profit. How would that work? The union would collapse as soon as the oligarchs were taken out.

Again, it depends on the class the libertarians in question belong to, as well as their ideological commitment to libertarianism. I imagine most of the workers in the movement would go to our side, with only the most reactionary of the bunch staying along with the leaders and intellectuals in the movement.

[The Douche]

Cmoney: Hold your horses my friend, dont be so rigid. That was just own personal hypothesis-prediction not that it might happen that way.

Remember that libertarians and conspiracy theory people are victims of capitalism, humans, facing the same problems that you and i have in this country of lower buying power, lower living standards and poverty, and i would think that in a socialist-revolution they would at least realize that their libertarian bourgeoise ideology doesnt work any more because capitalism has reached a monopoly, oligarchic-stage and that would be like turning back the clock to 1800s.

So maybe some libertarians would side with leftists in a socialist-revolution against the corporate capitalist imperialists of USA

.

I was just saying that you should explain why you feel that way, which you did here.

And the fact is this, if libertarians come over and support socialism, then they cease to be libertarians and begin to be socialists!

But the number that do will likely be slim because they believe that what causes those problems is socialism.

[Anarcho-Gamer]

I don't believe the official 9/11 story at all. There's a lot of evidence pointing to the United States government as the culprit. That's not to say I'm some patriotic Alex Jone's type of guy who links everything to satanic cults. I just do my research and come to my own conclusions is all.

I believe that if things get ugly enough... everyone will unite. Regardless of our political/religious differences. After all, putting aside our differences, there is only us (the poor, middle class, working class) and the rich! We tend to do better in large numbers after all... if the worlds elite is below 5% then we have a really good chance against them if we manage to convince their soldiers/cops to join our side.

[Klaatu]

IMHO, I think Libertarians have a near-zero sense of community. That is, they
are so concerned with their own "rights," they seem to lose sight of the fact that
we live in a civilized society, and must carefully consider how our own actions
impact upon our neighbors.

Libertarianism is sort of Ayn Rand-ish, self-indulgent savagery, it is...
I do not, nor would not, trust these people; they only care about themselves.

[LeninistKing]

Indeed, 9-11 was an inside-job. I dont know why many dogmatic leftists in this forum and in other forums religiously believe in the 9-11 Official Version. It makes me think that many leftists who deffend the 9-11 US government official version of 9-11 work for the US government or something. Like Alexander Cockburn of counterpunch.org who says that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.

.


I don't believe the official 9/11 story at all. There's a lot of evidence pointing to the United States government as the culprit. That's not to say I'm some patriotic Alex Jone's type of guy who links everything to satanic cults. I just do my research and come to my own conclusions is all.

I believe that if things get ugly enough... everyone will unite. Regardless of our political/religious differences. After all, putting aside our differences, there is only us (the poor, middle class, working class) and the rich! We tend to do better in large numbers after all... if the worlds elite is below 5% then we have a really good chance against them if we manage to convince their soldiers/cops to join our side.

[The Douche]

Who did 9/11 is ultimately irrelevant to the struggle for socialism.

Do governments lie? Yes. So is it possible that the government did 9/11? Sure, but no jackass on the internet will uncover it.

So lets say that the government did 9/11, now what? What does that conclusion matter in regards to revolution? Do you think there would be revolution if the public found out that the government did 9/11?

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. Segments of the left waste their time trying to uncover hidden secrets about the government. This a right wing thing that leftists should have no part of. If you want to focus on stuff the government has done, focus on the stuff the government has admitted to; the Cold War. You will find a treasure trove of information on stuff the CIA did to overthrow democratic leaders and destabilize economies.

How come no right winger libertarian focuses on that?

[Dimentio]

Hello all, i would like to know if the libertarians and the conspiracy-theory movement in America (Alex Jones followers, 9-11 truth movement, Anti-NWO movements, etc) support the left-wing in a socialist-revolution? or would they support the right-wingers and former capitalist ruling class oppressors?

.

No, they wouldn't. They would be confused why the left would want to do a revolution though. For them, the left is in power. The conspiracy theory movement is basically antisemitism without the Jews.

[Dimentio]

I have to take issue with this statement, particularly the bolded part. Saying they favor the "individual" gives way too much credit to their highly abstract and frankly misleading notions of individualism. In reality, when they say they are fighting for the rights of "the individual," they are really fighting for the rights of the capitalist minority. In their eyes, the so-called "individual," who features so prominently in their rhetoric and lore, is the rugged, competitive entrepreneur i.e. the capitalist.

Hence, what they seek is to fully empower the capitalists of the world at the expense of everyone else, even if the more delusional among them say otherwise. Thus, they are not to be trusted or allied with at any time.

Not really. The typical libertarian thinks that capitalism is some form of utopian society where everyone by hard work could rise up to become everything he (most often a he) could ever want to become. They tend to glorify small-town America and small cornershop owners. For a libertarian, a capitalist could be everything from a child selling home-made drawings to a worker selling his labour to a prostitute selling her body. In short, everyone are capitalists according to their definition (except for slaves, government bureaucrats and bankers).

[LeninistKing]

Hello, and another problem with Paleoconservatism and Libertarianism is that it is a bit anti-scientific. It is anti-scientific because according to paleoconservatives and libertarians, the economy doesnt need to be planned and everybody could get rich in a totally free environment. That ideology too utopian i think, because in a world full of evil, and full of people with unchecked appetites and unchecked hungers an unregulated capitalist society without commerce laws, without taxes and without business-regulations from the government it would be a society full of crime and barbarism. Where the big fish like Wal Mart would eat the smaller fish. Another thing is that paleoconservatives and libertarians think that resources like gold, oil, and wealth are unlimited so there doesnt need to be any regulations for it. They dont even believe in the Peak Oil theory.

I go to the site http://www.whatreallyhappened.com some times, but the problem with Michael Rivero is that he is paleoconservative, which is a form of libertarianism. Jeff Rense is a bit more radical-rightist than Alex Jones and Michael Rivero. Jeff Rense is even anti-muslim, he is also a nationalist, he doesnt like immigration into USA. But i think that being anti-immigration is being anti-american. Because America was founded as a pro-immigration nation and "The Melting Pot" of different races.

Jeff Rense even has articles in this website http://www.rense.com written by libertarian-nationalists against the muslim race taking over USA.

Man if i was muslim in USA i would feel very threatened in this country of so much radical-nationalism.

.

.

Not really. The typical libertarian thinks that capitalism is some form of utopian society where everyone by hard work could rise up to become everything he (most often a he) could ever want to become. They tend to glorify small-town America and small cornershop owners. For a libertarian, a capitalist could be everything from a child selling home-made drawings to a worker selling his labour to a prostitute selling her body. In short, everyone are capitalists according to their definition (except for slaves, government bureaucrats and bankers).

[Uppercut]

The 911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers just MAY support a socialist revolution if they were left with no other choice. A lot of them say the New World Order is going to be "socialism" or "communism", while it's probably going to look a lot like an oligarchy/corporatism/fascism, seeing as its main goal is private profit and power.

[RED DAVE]

The 911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers just MAY support a socialist revolution if they were left with no other choice. A lot of them say the New World Order is going to be "socialism" or "communism", while it's probably going to look a lot like an oligarchy/corporatism/fascism, seeing as its main goal is private profit and power.You are contradicting yourself, Comrade.

The "911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers" oppose the New World Order because they think it's socialism. Yes, indeed, should such a thing come into being, it will be fascism. In that case, these conspiracy mongers, who are closet fascists, will be in hog heaven.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

I never understood how they saw bankers as socialists. I also never understood how they saw a one world government run by large corporations and an authoritarian state protecting oligarchs as communist. These people are confused.

[Uppercut]

You are contradicting yourself, Comrade.

The "911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers" oppose the New World Order because they think it's socialism. Yes, indeed, should such a thing come into being, it will be fascism. In that case, these conspiracy mongers, who are closet fascists, will be in hog heaven.

RED DAVE

They aren't fascists, by any means. They mean well, but at the same time, they're misguided on the relation of capitalism to the nwo. They wish to return to the "good old days", instead of moving ahead, which is something I don't agree with, personally.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to research their views and come to my own conclusions on them.

Have you ever heard of immortal technique, btw? He's a socialist and anti-nwo hip hop artist.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of their beliefs stem from old anti Semitic conspiracy theories from groups such as the john birch society. It's a very anti international finance and anti communist group that wishes to go back to a more industrial America. These same myths though about Jewish bankers and communist politicians have just been revamped to meet today's situation. They nixed all the racist stuff but the meat is still there. It just happens to be by coincidence that it happens to be a time where the concentration of wealth is happening again at major level due to finance capitalism that their myths regained momentum. It's the same shit though. That's why their ideas about the NWO make no sense and always incorporate some weird ideas about socialism. It's because the USSR is gone and they have no scapegoat.

[Tablo]

My cousin is a Libertarian who works as the assistant manager at McDonald's. I have, quite easily, refuted every single defense he has made in favor of the free market, but he is adamant. He has some irrational obsession with free-market economies. I don't really understand his position. No matter what he stays in the clearly flawed position of the American Libertarian and it drives me crazy. :/

[Chambered Word]

Don't worry i think that people like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will become socialists in the near future. Even Pat Robertson said in a news article: "God is OK with Socialism"

http://sayanythingblog.com/mobile/entry/pat_robertson_god_is_ok_with_socialism/

.

He didn't say that 'God is OK with socialism', that was just how the right-lib moron - who wrote that entry you linked to - interpreted it. All he said was that God supposedly told him that people would embrace socialism 'to relieve the pain', referring to the recent economic troubles. If you look at any other quotes by Pat Robertson, he's vehemently anti-socialist.

Don't get me fucking started on Glenn Beck's bullshit anti-socialist rhetoric either. Rush Limbaugh's no better.

As for Alex Jones and his lot, they'll probably be amongst the first against the wall when the revolution comes. :thumbup1:


I never understood how they saw bankers as socialists. I also never understood how they saw a one world government run by large corporations and an authoritarian state protecting oligarchs as communist. These people are confused.

To understand rightists, you have to think like a rightist.

Us freedom lovers vs kiddie fiddling baby eating socialist monsters.

It's pretty easy really.


IMHO, I think Libertarians have a near-zero sense of community. That is, they
are so concerned with their own "rights," they seem to lose sight of the fact that
we live in a civilized society, and must carefully consider how our own actions
impact upon our neighbors.

Libertarianism is sort of Ayn Rand-ish, self-indulgent savagery, it is...
I do not, nor would not, trust these people; they only care about themselves.

They're the kinds of fuckwits who don't notice the 'Made In China' tags on their shirts and don't realize that if we didn't work together we wouldn't have alot of the goods and services we enjoy.

It's kind of like anarchy for rich people; the freedom to keep everybody else oppressed. There's alot of history denial in there as well (I mean, how free was society during the laissez-faire eras? The Industrial Revolution?) but what do you expect from these fanatics. If we don't shoot them during the revolution, we'll have them sitting on their arses and complaining about everyone else getting ahead while everyone else works.

[Dimentio]

You are contradicting yourself, Comrade.

The "911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers" oppose the New World Order because they think it's socialism. Yes, indeed, should such a thing come into being, it will be fascism. In that case, these conspiracy mongers, who are closet fascists, will be in hog heaven.

RED DAVE

Not really. The segment of the American population represented by Alex Jones and Jeff Rense is very provincial. There has always been a conflict between de-centralising and centralising factors in America - where the federal state often (but not always) has superimposed a more progressive change upon society. The economic development which is concentrating wealth in a few urban regions is one of the reasons why people in Kansas, Alabama and Oklahoma are so keen at voting against their own political interests.

I don't think its acceptable to advocate for the execution of Alex Jones. That would be meaninglessly cruel and just lead to Alex Jones having been confirmed for being right. I don't understand this fetischism for violence, for the sake of violence itself.

[RED DAVE]

You are contradicting yourself, Comrade.

The "911 truthers and illuminati whistleblowers" oppose the New World Order because they think it's socialism. Yes, indeed, should such a thing come into being, it will be fascism. In that case, these conspiracy mongers, who are closet fascists, will be in hog heaven.
They aren't fascists, by any means.Have to disagree with you. If you look at their websites, you'll find all kinds of unsavory links.


They mean well,That's a very strange political characterization for a Marxist to use. Liberals often "mean well," but we know what the consequences of liberal thought are.


but at the same time, they're misguided on the relation of capitalism to the nwo.First of all, there isn't any New World Order in the sense that these types believe in it. What we have is global capitalism in all its glory, not a series of conspiracies by evil bankers, Jews, Freemasons, etc.

Fascism always contains a certain anticapitalist rhetoric; otherwise, it wouldn't get the mass support that it obtains.


They wish to return to the "good old days", instead of moving ahead, which is something I don't agree with, personally.Glad you don't agree, Comrade.


But that doesn't mean I'm not going to research their views and come to my own conclusions on them.Research away.

Here's a good place to start: You can see a bunch of "illuminati whistleblowers" trying to makes sense of it all. They definitely "mean well."

http://www.***************/forum/archive//t-412039.html

RED DAVE

[Klaatu]

It's kind of like anarchy for rich people; the freedom to keep everybody else oppressed. There's alot of history
denial in there as well (I mean, how free was society during the laissez-faire eras?)

I am thinking to myself during one of Glenn Beck's rants: If capitalism were such a great system for everyone,
why must he so vigorously defend it - that is - his militant endorsement of a system where HE is making the
money? If this system were so great, it would stand on it's own merits, not needing a defender. A system that
benefits all should not need to be propped up, if it works for all. Actually Beck's rants tell me that something is
wrong with the system - kind of like the small child who dutifully reports to mommy "I didn't do it!"
("Do what, junior?")

It is a phenomenon that those less-well-off listen to his drivel, transfixed in the mind-numbing propaganda.
In other words, how can a minimum-wage earner (if that) strongly favor a system where there are multi-
millionaires and multi-billionaires stepping on his face to get to the top - lying, cheating, stealing, extracting,
profiteering, raping, pillaging of the lesser classes, with no benefit to him?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________



The typical libertarian thinks that capitalism is some form of utopian society where everyone by hard work
could rise up to become everything he (most often a he) could ever want to become. They tend to glorify
small-town America and small cornershop owners. For a libertarian, a capitalist could be everything from
a child selling home-made drawings to a worker selling his labour to a prostitute selling her body. In short,
everyone are capitalists according to their definition (except for slaves, government bureaucrats and bankers).

What do Libertarians think of big corporations? Opulent Wall Street crooks? Organized crime?
They only bash big government, the very thing that is supposed to protect us from these groups.
Do Libertarians feel that crime is OK, as long as it happens in the name of "free enterprise?"

[Dimentio]

Indeed, 9-11 was an inside-job. I dont know why many dogmatic leftists in this forum and in other forums religiously believe in the 9-11 Official Version. It makes me think that many leftists who deffend the 9-11 US government official version of 9-11 work for the US government or something. Like Alexander Cockburn of counterpunch.org who says that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.

.

No, people will not do a revolution if 9/11 indeed is proven to be an inside job. The state would lose a lot of legitimacy, the government would not be trusted any more and more conspirationists would be bred if Cheney ends up in jail, claiming that Obama framed Cheney in order to become socialist dictator of America.

[RadioRaheem84]

Do Libertarians feel that crime is OK, as long as it happens in the name of "free enterprise?"

I believe Milton Friedman advocated for the government to not be so strict on the black market.

[Dimentio]

What do Libertarians think of big corporations? Opulent Wall Street crooks? Organized crime?
They only bash big government, the very thing that is supposed to protect us from these groups.
Do Libertarians feel that crime is OK, as long as it happens in the name of "free enterprise?"

I would say that libertarians dislike Wall Street Bankers and large capitalists, seeing them as betrayers of the spirit of true capitalism. They view Wall Street and the large banks as parts of a sort of socialist conspiracy aimed at the hard-working American male.

[Klaatu]

I would say that libertarians dislike Wall Street Bankers and large capitalists, seeing them as betrayers of the spirit of true capitalism. They view Wall Street and the large banks as parts of a sort of socialist conspiracy aimed at the hard-working American male.

Gol-lee I do not see how big banks and Wall Street could possibly be thought of as "Socialist." If anything, these institutions
are the antithesis of socialism - the complete opposite, if I may say so. (Why are Libertarians so dumb?) :confused:


I believe Milton Friedman advocated for the government to not be so strict on the black market.
I never did like that guy. (Being the root of Reaganomics and all)

[Dimentio]

Gol-lee I do not see how big banks and Wall Street could possibly be thought of as "Socialist." If anything, these institutions
are the antithesis of socialism - the complete opposite, if I may say so. (Why are Libertarians so dumb?) :confused:

Libertarians are not using the same terminology as progressives.

They equate socialism with all economic activity conducted by the state or by large economic actors together with the state, no matter the purpose of the activity or the ideological foundation of the state.

In short, progressives look at what and why things are done, while libertarians are only looking at what is done.

[Klaatu]

They equate socialism with all economic activity conducted by the state or by large economic actors together with the state, no matter the purpose of the activity or the ideological foundation of the state.

So they acknowledge plutocracy. But why are they so one-sided, that is, they bash
government, while ignoring Wall Street. Maybe they should look at it the other way around:
Condemn "malefactors of great wealth" as Theodore Roosevelt did over 100 years ago.

[The Vegan Marxist]

There's no way that the conspiracy theorists, nor their 'leader' Alex Jones would support our movement. Want to know why? Because Alex Jones sells shit like this: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/sotla.html

[Uppercut]

That's a very strange political characterization for a Marxist to use. Liberals often "mean well," but we know what the consequences of liberal thought are.

So we're giong to standardize what a Marxist can and cannot study and form opinions on?


First of all, there isn't any New World Order in the sense that these types believe in it. What we have is global capitalism in all its glory, not a series of conspiracies by evil bankers, Jews, Freemasons, etc.

Yes, we do have global capitalism that is controlled by a few hundred or so people. You and I are both aware of this and I'm guessing when we think of the members of the global ruling class, we have the same people in mind.

As for the masons, many of them are good, working people. The problem is that the few at the top are highly corrupt and are working for the ruling class. Infiltration provides them with a "mole" as to what the nature of the working class is at that given time and how they can use it to their advantage.

For example, by using Trotsky and Zinoviev, they had achieved an effective way to direct the energy of the working class.



Research away.

Here's a good place to start: You can see a bunch of "illuminati whistleblowers" trying to makes sense of it all. They definitely "mean well."

http://www.***************/forum/archive//t-412039.html

Thanks for the broken link. A lot of info to gather there...

[The Douche]

Yes, we do have global capitalism that is controlled by a few hundred or so people. You and I are both aware of this and I'm guessing when we think of the members of the global ruling class, we have the same people in mind.

So capitalism exists because of certain individuals who conspired to create it, in your opinion?


As for the masons, many of them are good, working people. The problem is that the few at the top are highly corrupt and are working for the ruling class. Infiltration provides them with a "mole" as to what the nature of the working class is at that given time and how they can use it to their advantage.

For example, by using Trotsky and Zinoviev, they had achieved an effective way to direct the energy of the working class

Ummmmmm, are you saying that Trostky and Zonviev were agents of international masonry as opposed to communist revolutionaries?

[RED DAVE]

That's a very strange political characterization for a Marxist to use. Liberals often "mean well," but we know what the consequences of liberal thought are.
So we're giong to standardize what a Marxist can and cannot study and form opinions on?No, but I would like to point out to you that "mean[ing] well" is not a Marxist category.


First of all, there isn't any New World Order in the sense that these types believe in it. What we have is global capitalism in all its glory, not a series of conspiracies by evil bankers, Jews, Freemasons, etc.
Yes, we do have global capitalism that is controlled by a few hundred or so people. You and I are both aware of this and I'm guessing when we think of the members of the global ruling class, we have the same people in mind.Uh, Comrade, we Marxists consider that the global capitalist ruling class involves millions of people. That's one of the differences between class theory and conspiracy theory.


As for the masons, many of them are good, working people. The problem is that the few at the top are highly corrupt and are working for the ruling class. Infiltration provides them with a "mole" as to what the nature of the working class is at that given time and how they can use it to their advantage.Do you really believe that the Masons are a conduit of information about the working class for the ruling class? You've got to be kidding.


For example, by using Trotsky and Zinoviev, they had achieved an effective way to direct the energy of the working class.Do you really believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev were Masonic agents in the working class? You've got to be kidding.

RED DAVE

[Uppercut]

"I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development." - Leon Trotsky


"You will have a revolution, a terrible revolution. What course it takes will depend much on what Mr. Rockefeller tells Mr. Hague to do. Mr. Rockefeller is a symbol of the American ruling class and Mr. Hague is a symbol of its political tools."
Leon Trotsky, in New York Times, December 13, 1938. (Hague was a New Jersey politician)


http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_02.htm

Dear Mr. President:
I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited
for the Russian people...
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

[Uppercut]

So capitalism exists because of certain individuals who conspired to create it, in your opinion?

Yes. They create both the thesis and anti-thesis to opposing ideologies, trends, etc.. That way, these people can control the finance capital of the respective supporters of said ideology, as well as the information that is disseminated to the public.


Ummmmmm, are you saying that Trostky and Zonviev were agents of international masonry as opposed to communist revolutionaries?

Sady, yes. I wish it weren't the case, but it appears so.

[LeninistKing]

hmmmm, from my own point of view, i think that the Illuminati Order, The Freemason, and The Masons, are just like any other club or order in this world. My grandfather was a mason. There are many clubs in this world that you can join as a hobby. My dad was a Rotary Club member. But i dont think that Trotsky being a Mason was wrong.

.


Yes. They create both the thesis and anti-thesis to opposing ideologies, trends, etc.. That way, these people can control the finance capital of the respective supporters of said ideology, as well as the information that is disseminated to the public.



Sady, yes. I wish it weren't the case, but it appears so.

[RED DAVE]

"I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development." - Leon TrotskyWhen he was young, Trotsky undertook at study of freemasonry as a historical phenomenon. He was interested in the organization as a reaction to the bourgeoisification of the medieval craftsmen. His studies confirmed for him the truth of historical materialism. That's the meaning of the above quote. Freemasonry was quite strong in Russia. (Tolstoy, I believe, was a Mason.) But Trotsky was never one.


"You will have a revolution, a terrible revolution. What course it takes will depend much on what Mr. Rockefeller tells Mr. Hague to do. Mr. Rockefeller is a symbol of the American ruling class and Mr. Hague is a symbol of its political tools."
Leon Trotsky, in New York Times, December 13, 1938. (Hague was a New Jersey politician)

http://reformed-theology.org/html/bo...chapter_02.htmThis quote is an example of Trotsky's anticapitalist rhetoric. Rockefeller was one of the pre-eminent capitalists of first half of the 20th Century. Much of his corporate wealth was situated in New Jersey. Hague was a prominent anti-labor politician and Mayor of Jersey City. Why should it be so stgrange that Rockefeller should be calling the shots for Hague or that Trotsky should use this as a rhetorical example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hague


Dear Mr. President:
I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited
for the Russian people...
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkThe only sources i could find for the above quote were right-wing websites, including Stormfront. It has to be considered suspicious at best. I must note, Comrade, you are picking very dubious sources in a completely uncritical way. I begin to doubt your sincerity as a leftist.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

So capitalism exists because of certain individuals who conspired to create it, in your opinion?
Yes. They create both the thesis and anti-thesis to opposing ideologies, trends, etc.. That way, these people can control the finance capital of the respective supporters of said ideology, as well as the information that is disseminated to the public.This is paranoia. What you are saying, basically, is that Marxism is a conspiracy of wealthy capitalists. This notion is a hallmark of right-wing, not left-wing ideology.


Ummmmmm, are you saying that Trostky and Zonviev were agents of international masonry as opposed to communist revolutionaries?
Sady, yes. I wish it weren't the case, but it appears so.Sadly, you are full of shit and an uncritical purveyor of right-wing ideology. You have demonstrated the same attitude in another thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/red-symphony-dr-t129139/index.html

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

How the fuck did all of this talk of freemasons, illuminati, NWO, 9/11 inside job pervade the politics and learning forums?

The idea that that international finance capitalism is a but a controlled game played by a few elite players and that these same players are also behind Communism is RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY junk. The type of junk that even Hitler used to win people over to National Socialism as he said that international finance and communism were Jewish conspiracies.

This stuff is demeaning, anti-Semitic, and downright dangerous to our cause.

Somebody needs to clean house!

[Dimentio]

How the fuck did all of this talk of freemasons, illuminati, NWO, 9/11 inside job pervade the politics and learning forums?

The idea that that international finance capitalism is a but a controlled game played by a few elite players and that these same players are also behind Communism is RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY junk. The type of junk that even Hitler used to win people over to National Socialism as he said that international finance and communism were Jewish conspiracies.

This stuff is demeaning, anti-Semitic, and downright dangerous to our cause.

Somebody needs to clean house!

Well, these tendencies would certainly appear here as they are very - and I mean very - prevalent outside on the internet and outside off the internet. Conspiratism is one of the fastest growing ideological currents in the entire world. Its a way of explaining the world and at the same time delegitimising the ruling elite.

In the 90's, stuff like this was limited to extreme right-wing organisations, discussion forums and websites. Nowadays, they have entered the political centre. I think they are a symptome of the alienation felt by people, even though most proponents of such theories have sinister goals. But people wouldn't listen to such ideas if they weren't angry and confused.

And...

...I believe that even if you would try to teach them marxism, they wouldn't listen at this point.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Conspiratism has become a religion, practically. Cheep, fast, & effective ways of telling how things went. They believe to be open-minded, yet when shown the facts, they flip out & call us neocon or zionist agents. Trust me, LeninistKing had just called me a government agent on the '9/11 Was NOT An Inside Job' thread.

[The Douche]

Yes. They create both the thesis and anti-thesis to opposing ideologies, trends, etc.. That way, these people can control the finance capital of the respective supporters of said ideology, as well as the information that is disseminated to the public.


Then you are not a marxist.


Sady, yes. I wish it weren't the case, but it appears so.

Okay, this guy thinks the Russian revolution was carried out by agents of the freemasons, who are apparently involved in a conspiracy to run the world.

Restriction, please?

[Uppercut]

Yep, I deserve to get banned.

Someone tell the administrators we have a right-wing infiltrator on revleft.

[RED DAVE]

Yep, I deserve to get banned.

Someone tell the administrators we have a right-wing infiltrator on revleft.My question is: Why would you, again and again, uncritically use right-wing sources concerning the Russian Revolution?

Do you believe that, somehow, the Right possesses some truths that have somehow eluded the Left?

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

My question is: Why would you, again and again, uncritically use right-wing sources concerning the Russian Revolution?

Do you believe that, somehow, the Right possesses some truths that have somehow eluded the Left?

RED DAVE

Its all so clear, those left wong sources are the products of international jewery (oops I mean masonry) to confuse whites (oops I mean the working class) into doing their bidding...

[The Red Next Door]

No, They wouldn't support the left maybe they will support anarchists, but i doubt they would support any leftists because they consider communists to be apart of the Illuminati and the new world order.

[Uppercut]

Do you believe that, somehow, the Right possesses some truths that have somehow eluded the Left?

Yes. The right is correct on some issues, wrong on others. And by the way, most libertarians dislike fascism just as much as socialism. They use the two terms interchangeably, viewing both as big-government control, which is true to an extent.

[Uppercut]

Its all so clear, those left wong sources are the products of international jewery (oops I mean masonry) to confuse whites (oops I mean the working class) into doing their bidding...


You're blowing this way out of proportion.
That's a major problem with the left, imo. We always look for excuses to slap labels on people, like "fascist" or "racist".

I dislike fascism and discrimination just as much as anyone, but why do we always, always, always need to call anyone who doesn't agree with far-left politics "racist" or "Nazi"?

[RED DAVE]

Yes.Fabulous! Enlighten us, please.


The right is correct on some issues, wrong on others.That is true. The weather reports on Fox News are often correct (although they messed up on last week's snowstorm in New York).

However, they're wrong on a few small issues, like capitalism, socialism, fascism, racism, the causes of war. That'll do for openers.


And by the way, most libertarians dislike fascism just as much as socialism.And, having dealt with them for years, I can tell you that they misunderstand socialism, fascism and just about everything else.


They use the two terms interchangeably, viewing both as big-government control, which is true to an extent.That's like saying Mount Everest and the Empire State Building are the same because they're both very big, which is true to an extent.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

This all started because the Jews in Europe saw right through the dogmatic bullshit in Western European culture and began to do their own thing and criticized the world around them. Because of the blatant antisemitism surrounding them they also began to get involved with trades that were restricted to the majority Christian population. They also began to develop ideas in finance, communism, interest, etc. because they weren't slaves to dogmatic culture of the time. And because the did so they were pitted as conspirators against Western Civ because christian European population wasn't creative enough to drop the dogma! That's how this all started. It continues today only without the antisemitism. Freethinkers that aren't captive to the culture and dogma of the country or do not hold a Eurocentric view are seen as "one worlders". Today it's just nativist propaganda!

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes. The right is correct on some issues, wrong on others. And by the way, most libertarians dislike fascism just as much as socialism. They use the two terms interchangeably, viewing both as big-government control, which is true to an extent.

OK there is a difference in fascist control which is the state used for the purposes of a few and democratic control of the state in favor of the worker majority. You see, libertarians have no clue whatsoever about what socialism or fascism means. IMO, the ideology breeds reactionary unstable supporters that hide behind reason and individualism to disguise the fact that their doctrine is 'rule by a few'.

[Klaatu]

"most libertarians dislike fascism just as much as socialism. They use the two terms interchangeably,
viewing both as big-government control"I use the terms Libertarian and Loopy interchangably. I "view both" as being soap-box loudmouthed control freaks.

[The Douche]

Yes. The right is correct on some issues, wrong on others. And by the way, most libertarians dislike fascism just as much as socialism. They use the two terms interchangeably, viewing both as big-government control, which is true to an extent.

Libertarian economics are a fucking horror.

They will result in a fascism of the free market, where instead of one authoritarian state wielding brutal anti-working class power, there will be a thousand authoritarian bosses wielding brutal anti-working class power.

Strikes will be violently broken, not with police/military, but with private military contractors. Labor avtivists/socialists/communists/anarchists will be sacked and blacklisted. Assaults on private property (i.e. a sit in/lockout strike) will result in imprisonment or death.

Opposing the state is not inherently anti-fascist or anti-authoritarian.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Libertarian economics are a fucking horror.

They will result in a fascism of the free market, where instead of one authoritarian state wielding brutal anti-working class power, there will be a thousand authoritarian bosses wielding brutal anti-working class power.

Strikes will be violently broken, not with police/military, but with private military contractors. Labor avtivists/socialists/communists/anarchists will be sacked and blacklisted. Assaults on private property (i.e. a sit in/lockout strike) will result in imprisonment or death.

Opposing the state is not inherently anti-fascist or anti-authoritarian.

Well, the free market really wouldn't be the reason of going to fascism would it? I've always understood fascism as a form of capitalism, & capitalism doesn't necessarily mean the free-market system.

[The Douche]

Well, the free market really wouldn't be the reason of going to fascism would it? I've always understood fascism as a form of capitalism, & capitalism doesn't necessarily mean the free-market system.

Fascism is capitalism in crisis, libertarianism (of the US variety of course) is capitalism unrestrained.

Currently laws exist to protect workers and their gains to some degree, libertarians would repeal those laws. The resultant system from a modern day return to laissez faire capitalism would be something the world has essentially never seen before, it would certainly be fascist, but not in the traditional sense. Libertarianism is american fascism, but no, its not classical or neo-fascism.

[Klaatu]

Libertarian economics are a fucking horror.

They will result in a fascism of the free market, where instead of one authoritarian state wielding brutal anti-working class power, there will be a thousand authoritarian bosses wielding brutal anti-working class power.

Strikes will be violently broken, not with police/military, but with private military contractors. Labor avtivists/socialists/communists/anarchists will be sacked and blacklisted. Assaults on private property (i.e. a sit in/lockout strike) will result in imprisonment or death.

Opposing the state is not inherently anti-fascist or anti-authoritarian.

One only has to look at banana republics and other third-world countries,
in the present day, as proof of this as being true.