Beware of progressive liberals in sites like commondreams, they are very classists

[MarxistMan]

Dear friends, i have a thing against progressive liberals. My personal opinion the progressive-liberals is that they give bad reputation to the real socialist marxist-left, to the anarchists, and to ultra-leftists of America. I consider the progressive liberals as centrist-right-wingers. Not centrist-leftists.

Most progressive liberals in alternative news sites like commondreams, alternet, truthdig, and counterpunch.org are real elitists, classists, absolutists, and narcissists. They are so anti-democratic, that they think that they have the are the owners of the left. When we all know that the left in the whole world is divided into many different schools of thought (Maoism, Marxist-leninism, anarchist, Trotskists, etc.) They think that they have 100% absolute truth on how to change a nation, and if you disagree with them they would ban you or report you.

In fact the other day Alexander Cockburn from counterpunch who is an elitist leftist said that Fidel Castro belongs in a mental hospital.

So i would like to know what do you guys think about progressive liberals and how they are to blame from the destruction and division of the real left of USA

.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't consider hardline Stalinists to be generally speaking objectively more "real left" than "progressive liberals", because they don't really believe in worker's rights in any concrete and empirical sense.

It depends on the situation, because some liberal leftists don't either.

For me, socialism is all about real worker's power, if there is no real worker's power, then it's not genuine socialism. It really is that simple. After all, even Hitler called himself a "socialist" (National Socialist). Empty slogans mean nothing to me.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well maybe Fidel does belong in a mental hospital. He's getting very old and is near the end of his life, what was their reasoning for this?

[NGNM85]

Dear friends, i have a thing against progressive liberals.

More red meat for the hardliners. You’ll have 1000 rep points in no time, if you keep this up. You might just end up a Moderator.

First; can you define the terms ‘Progressive’, and ‘Liberal’? Is there a difference? What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and modern Liberals? (Presuming there is one.) Are these fixed, static idelogies, or do these terms represent a range of opinion? What, specifically, is the nature of you’re philosophical objection to these political tendencies?


My personal opinion the progressive-liberals is that they give bad reputation to the real socialist marxist-left, to the anarchists, and to ultra-leftists of America.

How so?


I consider the progressive liberals as centrist-right-wingers. Not centrist-leftists.

On what technical basis do you make this determination?


Most progressive liberals in alternative news sites like commondreams, alternet, truthdig, and counterpunch.org are real elitists, classists, absolutists, and narcissists.

Is this a substantive, informed criticism? Do these websites share a common political outlook, or a range of opinion?


They are so anti-democratic, that they think that they have the are the owners of the left.

So do half the people on this forum.


When we all know that the left in the whole world is divided into many different schools of thought (Maoism, Marxist-leninism, anarchist, Trotskists, etc.)

You missed a few…


They think that they have 100% absolute truth on how to change a nation, and if you disagree with them they would ban you or report you.

So do half the people on this forum.


So i would like to know what do you guys think about progressive liberals and how they are to blame from the destruction and division of the real left of USA
.

Well, you’ve really answered your own question, as you present this conclusion as self-evident. Therefore, the rest of us are only here to confirm your brilliance. When you can provide, informed, intelligent answers to the preceding questions, I might begin to take you seriously.

[MarxistMan]

I will be straight with whats the matter with the US left. The problem is not really a problem oef the US left, but a problem of most american citizens. Most american citizens are too depressed, too negative, too sad, too damn unfriendly, too damn angry, too damn hateful, too depressed. And because the american leftists are also americans, the left cannot succeed because americans are too pessimists, depressed and sad.

As long as people in USA are so unfriendly, so hateful, so evil, so depressed and so negative we will never see a change. You cant create a United Left in a country so sad like America.

So i dont really see a change in the future in USA because of the extreme levels of pessimism in America

USA needs an anti-depressant

.



More red meat for the hardliners. You’ll have 1000 rep points in no time, if you keep this up. You might just end up a Moderator.

First; can you define the terms ‘Progressive’, and ‘Liberal’? Is there a difference? What is the difference between Classical Liberalism and modern Liberals? (Presuming there is one.) Are these fixed, static idelogies, or do these terms represent a range of opinion? What, specifically, is the nature of you’re philosophical objection to these political tendencies?



How so?



On what technical basis do you make this determination?



Is this a substantive, informed criticism? Do these websites share a common political outlook, or a range of opinion?



So do half the people on this forum.



You missed a few…



So do half the people on this forum.



Well, you’ve really answered your own question, as you present this conclusion as self-evident. Therefore, the rest of us are only here to confirm your brilliance. When you can provide, informed, intelligent answers to the preceding questions, I might begin to take you seriously.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I will be straight with whats the matter with the US left. The problem is not really a problem oef the US left, but a problem of most american citizens. Most american citizens are too depressed, too negative, too sad, too damn unfriendly, too damn angry, too damn hateful, too depressed. And because the american leftists are also americans, the left cannot succeed because americans are too pessimists, depressed and sad.

As long as people in USA are so unfriendly, so hateful, so evil, so depressed and so negative we will never see a change. You cant create a United Left in a country so sad like America.

So i dont really see a change in the future in USA because of the extreme levels of pessimism in America

USA needs an anti-depressant

.

I invite you to think about how Americans became pessimistic in the first place.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lashing out at the liberals is pointless, because they're not the ones in power. Which is why the venom some leftists direct towards liberals always puzzles and dismays me. I've always regarded liberals as potential leftists who realise the system is unfair but have yet to realise that the system cannot be changed substantially from within.

[Amphictyonis]

Lashing out at the liberals is pointless, because they're not the ones in power. Which is why the venom some leftists direct towards liberals always puzzles and dismays me.

Although I think the OP is a tad trollish and I'm tiring of this argument I have to disagree with you here. Liberals have 'been in power' plenty of times when attacks on workers have been waged in the name of profits/capitalism. They've been in power plenty of times when forign wars have been waged in the name of capitalism/profits. Liberal politicians and their liberal constituents are the lefts achilles heel. They maintain the pre-framed political debate/reality. A few liberal constituents may have more potential to becme socialists but thats even more reason to put pressure on them. It would be pointles to put pressure on some far right wing person who will never turn from their silly positions and yes in fact liberals are in power most of the time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Although I think the OP is a tad trollish and I'm tiring of this argument I have to disagree with you here. Liberals have 'been in power' plenty of times when attacks on workers have been waged in the name of profits/capitalism. They've been in power plenty of times when forign wars have been waged in the name of capitalism/profits. Liberal politicians and their liberal constituents are the lefts achilles heel. They maintain the pre-framed political debate/reality. A few liberal constituents may have more potential to becme socialists but thats even more reason to put pressure on them. It would be pointles to put pressure on some far right wing person who will never turn from their silly positions and yes in fact liberals are in power most of the time.

I think there's a difference between insistently pointing out percieved inadequacies, which is fair enough, as opposed to accusations that all Americans need medication.

[Amphictyonis]

as opposed to accusations that all Americans need medication.

Where did I say that? If anything I think Americans are overly medicated to help suppress the dehumanizing and corrosive social effects of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where did I say that? If anything I think Americans are overly medicated to help suppress the dehumanizing and corrosive social effects of capitalism.

I wasn't accusing you of saying that, but the OP clearly was. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Amphictyonis]

I wasn't accusing you of saying that, but the OP clearly was. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ya the OP isn't really well, you know. I'm beginning to suspect some trolling going on concerning the liberal topic. Like the new Stalinist troll thing or something. I think I'll just stay away from the issue all together and embrace liberalism/reformism (satirically) from now on. Go Obama!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ya the OP isn't really well, you know. I'm beginning to suspect some trolling going on concerning the liberal topic. Like the new Stalinist troll thing or something. I think I'll just stay away from the issue all together and embrace liberalism/reformism (satirically) from now on. Go Obama!

The thread's been fairly civilised so far, actually. As long as it stays that way (I'm looking at you, MarxistMan and NGNM851), this thread will remain.

[Rocky Rococo]

Lashing out at the liberals is pointless, because they're not the ones in power. .

They aren't? Who is the president? The very embodiment of contemporary American liberalism. And last I knew, the presidency of the United States was considered a position of some power.

[NGNM85]

The thread's been fairly civilised so far, actually. As long as it stays that way (I'm looking at you, MarxistMan and NGNM851), this thread will remain.

Moi? I am the picture of civility. :D

I only meant to point out the unproductive nature of the OP's post, and to, quite rightfully, I think, question his qualifications to make such sweeping proclaimations. Honestly, I don't give a shit how anybody feels about anything, but let's at least know what the hell we're talking about and engage in rational, intelligent discussion without degenerating to recriminations and hysterics. To paraphrase Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission; there are a number of problems, here, worth adressing, however, a dearth of bullshit is not one of them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They aren't? Who is the president? The very embodiment of contemporary American liberalism. And last I knew, the presidency of the United States was considered a position of some power.

Outside the US, Obama and the Democrats would be considered right-wing or centre-right in quite a few places. What the Democrats offered in terms of health care reform, for example, was pitiful compared to what I get already in the UK.

[MarxistMan]

Well, i am not trolling in this topic. The thing is that some times we make mistakes in writting posts and opinions. What i am trying to state is that progressive liberals who are not in favor of a workers-government at all, and not in favor of the basic premises of Marx, are in part to blame for the weakness of the USA left. Because of their superior economic power to marxist workers parties, they are able to reach a wider spectrum of people in America.

I think that it is time for the marxist, leninist, trotkist, anarchist left in America to get their things together and unite to offer a real marxist leftist socialist alternative, without the dictatorship of the progressive liberals who i consider an impediment for the american marxist left. Because of their emotional love for free market, for the US constitution and maybe for their blind patriotism of America

.


Although I think the OP is a tad trollish and I'm tiring of this argument I have to disagree with you here. Liberals have 'been in power' plenty of times when attacks on workers have been waged in the name of profits/capitalism. They've been in power plenty of times when forign wars have been waged in the name of capitalism/profits. Liberal politicians and their liberal constituents are the lefts achilles heel. They maintain the pre-framed political debate/reality. A few liberal constituents may have more potential to becme socialists but thats even more reason to put pressure on them. It would be pointles to put pressure on some far right wing person who will never turn from their silly positions and yes in fact liberals are in power most of the time.

[Queercommie Girl]

I will be straight with whats the matter with the US left. The problem is not really a problem oef the US left, but a problem of most american citizens. Most american citizens are too depressed, too negative, too sad, too damn unfriendly, too damn angry, too damn hateful, too depressed. And because the american leftists are also americans, the left cannot succeed because americans are too pessimists, depressed and sad.

As long as people in USA are so unfriendly, so hateful, so evil, so depressed and so negative we will never see a change. You cant create a United Left in a country so sad like America.

So i dont really see a change in the future in USA because of the extreme levels of pessimism in America

USA needs an anti-depressant

.

Stop demonising the US working class. Have you no sense of international working class solidarity?

Would a clinicially "sad and depressed" working class be able to pull off what is happening in Wisconsin right now?

[Queercommie Girl]

Outside the US, Obama and the Democrats would be considered right-wing or centre-right in quite a few places. What the Democrats offered in terms of health care reform, for example, was pitiful compared to what I get already in the UK.

Yes, pitiful compared even with New Labour policies.

I'd say even Ed Miliband is more genuinely "left" than Obama.

[HalPhilipWalker]

Well, i am not trolling in this topic. The thing is that some times we make mistakes in writting posts and opinions. What i am trying to state is that progressive liberals who are not in favor of a workers-government at all, and not in favor of the basic premises of Marx, are in part to blame for the weakness of the USA left. Because of their superior economic power to marxist workers parties, they are able to reach a wider spectrum of people in America.

I think that it is time for the marxist, leninist, trotkist, anarchist left in America to get their things together and unite to offer a real marxist leftist socialist alternative, without the dictatorship of the progressive liberals who i consider an impediment for the american marxist left. Because of their emotional love for free market, for the US constitution and maybe for their blind patriotism of America

.

I think you are exactly right in this regard. Progressive liberals purposefully censor out Marxist theory out of their messaging and issue framing with the intent of shifting discussion in this country to the right. Witness much of the policies of the Obama administration. Nationalizing the banks was never on the table. Socialized medicine was never offered as part of health care reform. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was never even threatened. In each case, Obama could have made a Marxist case for policies which would be considered genuinely of the left. Obama avoided making any appeals based on workers' solidarity, class warfare, or socialist ideology. In each case, "market solutions" and the traditionally center-right politics of this country was allowed to dominate the discussion.

I think that progressive liberals, depending on how committed they are to liberal ideology, could serve as a potential recruiting pool for leftists. But only if they are already disaffected from the traditional political process. Leftists must find institutional and ideological bridges to liberalism that can be used to bring recruits over to our side.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you are exactly right in this regard. Progressive liberals purposefully censor out Marxist theory out of their messaging and issue framing with the intent of shifting discussion in this country to the right. Witness much of the policies of the Obama administration. Nationalizing the banks was never on the table. Socialized medicine was never offered as part of health care reform. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was never even threatened. In each case, Obama could have made a Marxist case for policies which would be considered genuinely of the left. Obama avoided making any appeals based on workers' solidarity, class warfare, or socialist ideology. In each case, "market solutions" and the traditionally center-right politics of this country was allowed to dominate the discussion.

Obama isn't a liberal.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Liberals do tend to be classist, they blame the kind of poor rightwing people often referred to as white trash and rednecks for being ignorant people and view them as an "Other". The Marxists are wise enough to see that the "class enemies" are not poor conservatives who are the victims of a bad education, a rural and isolated culture, and excessive traditionalism.

If anything, Obama is more to the left than most Democrats on this. I remember his statement about people clinging to their guns and religion in the face of the alienation of modern society.

[RadioRaheem84]

Obama isn't a liberal.

He campaigned as one but is center-right like Clinton.

The point is that liberals have been in power before and have proven themselves just as ruthless to the working class (at home and abroad) as right wingers.

I am also surprised that NGN is so defensive about liberals considering he denies being one so much. Chomsky himself saves most of his ire toward the liberal establishment considering they are the ones that view themselves as the happy mediums, the cool headed center that doesn't follow extremes, etc.

The rest of his first post to the OP was absolute garbage. There is a difference between classical liberals and modern liberals, even right wingers make this distinction.

And he accuses comrades in here of being anti-democratic while he cheers on the United States like it's a paragon of virtue due to it's ideals, all the while posing as an anarchist.

Why is there a faux anarchist, Democrat Party defending, ra-ra America, joker still roaming around on this forum accusing others in here of being so undemocratic?

Clearly its now out of mere curiosity as to what inane stuff he will post next that he is kept on this forum. I must say, I watch out for it too.

[Lucretia]

I am also surprised that NGN is so defensive about liberals considering he denies being one so much.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, or at least a very confused aardvark.

[NGNM85]

I am also surprised that NGN is so defensive about liberals considering he denies being one so much.

I just want us to be able to have an intelligent, honest conversation about these things.


The rest of his first post to the OP was absolute garbage. There is a difference between classical liberals and modern liberals, even right wingers make this distinction.

I never said there wasn't a distinction, there was a question mark at the end of that sentence. I was illustrating that the OP can't define these terms to save his life, and is, therefore, totally unqualified to make such sweeping proclaimations.


And he accuses comrades in here of being anti-democratic

Only when they actually are.


while he cheers on the United States like it's a paragon of virtue due to it's ideals,

That's a really horrible distortion of what I actually said.


all the while posing as an anarchist.

I asked you to find one statement I've made that is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.


Why is there a faux anarchist, Democrat Party defending,

That's inaccurate. I have consistently characterized the Democratic party, quite accurately, as the lesser evil. You can't seem to understand that's not praise.


ra-ra America,

In addition to being infantile, this is also bogus.


joker still roaming around on this forum accusing others in here of being so undemocratic?

See above.

[Amphictyonis]

^ Rebel scum

9aspp1r0tS4

The liberal/rebel alliance on RevLeft will be destroyed when they find the socialist deflector shields are quite operational.

zGwDwx10wB4

Go grab your liberal friends and we can have a pointless back and forth concerning the liberal apologetics you seem to espouse every other day. Thesadmafiaso and a couple other people.

I have one serious question for you- why are you defending liberal politicians, their legislation and liberal constituents?

(I'm on a Star Wars kick this week, sorry)

[NGNM85]

I have one serious question for you- why are you defending liberal politicians, their legislation and liberal constituents?

That's an inaccurate characterization of what I was doing. Again, the appellation; ‘lesser evil’ is not an endorsement, it’s the opposite. Also, we need to break out of this binary, shallow, black/white analysis, especially in Learning. Simply reducing things to ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ has virtually zero intellectual value. We should be able to calmly and rationally discuss these things without going into hysterics, etc.


(I'm on a Star Wars kick this week, sorry)

That is one thing you never have to apologize for.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think that progressive liberals, depending on how committed they are to liberal ideology, could serve as a potential recruiting pool for leftists. But only if they are already disaffected from the traditional political process. Leftists must find institutional and ideological bridges to liberalism that can be used to bring recruits over to our side.

I wrote a long reply and then my browser crashed. But the gist of it was that withdrawing from "the traditional political process" is not an option - it cedes the machinery of the modern nation state to the reactionaries, which could be used to crush and repress the left. As bad as things are, they would be a lot worse if the reactionaries had their way in modern politics.

This doesn't mean that keeping the bad guys out should be the sole basis of the struggle - but we shouldn't dismiss it either.

[NGNM85]

I wrote a long reply and then my browser crashed. But the gist of it was that withdrawing from "the traditional political process" is not an option - it cedes the machinery of the modern nation state to the reactionaries, which could be used to crush and repress the left. As bad as things are, they would be a lot worse if the reactionaries had their way in modern politics.

This doesn't mean that keeping the bad guys out should be the sole basis of the struggle - but we shouldn't dismiss it either.

This is what I've been saying...

[Amphictyonis]

This is what I've been saying...

Not true. What do you think of the new healthcare law now that the Obama administration is showing the states how to cut billions from Medicaid (in each state) before the federal cuts of hundreds of billions even take place?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/nation/la-na-medicaid-20110204

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/01/24/gvsd0128.htm

Even the head of the Bank of England is saying the recession may be perminant and workers are in for tough times for many years with no economic recovery. Why can't you realize the new healthcare law in America is simply a part of the ongoing structural adjustments?

And it's not only the healthcare issue where you make excuses for Democrats.


(And If I see one Chomsky quote I'm going to use the death star to destroy your home planet)

[Amphictyonis]

I wrote a long reply and then my browser crashed. But the gist of it was that withdrawing from "the traditional political process" is not an option - it cedes the machinery of the modern nation state to the reactionaries, which could be used to crush and repress the left. As bad as things are, they would be a lot worse if the reactionaries had their way in modern politics.

This doesn't mean that keeping the bad guys out should be the sole basis of the struggle - but we shouldn't dismiss it either.

Liberals ARE REACTIONARIES and if us socialists didn't do shit as far as supporting democrats and thus validating their efforts to fuck us over the same fake ass left/right political paradigm would continue. What needs to happen is we need to ignore the Tea Idiots and focus most all our attention on 'liberals' in order to actually change the political paradigm. Democrats are not our comrades. Wedge issues....blah! Even when it comes to the stupid wedge issues Democrats cave. There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans and the stupidest thing we can do is continue to let the Democrat party coop workers struggles and meld them into a meaningless pile of uselessness.

You'll see, the states are set to attack workers big time and it wont matter if a democrat Governor, senator or congressman is in the state.It won't matter one bit just as the Obama administration hasn't made a damn bit of difference. If you think so I'd like you to point it out- I'm going to make teh counter argument that Obama has actual paralyzed the left in America during the wars and this crisis and when Democrats attack workers nation wide many people will still be lulled to sleep by democrats as children following the Pied Piper.


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

If you saw the children following him what would you do? I'd try to stop them.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just want us to be able to have an intelligent, honest conversation about these things.



I never said there wasn't a distinction, there was a question mark at the end of that sentence. I was illustrating that the OP can't define these terms to save his life, and is, therefore, totally unqualified to make such sweeping proclaimations.



Only when they actually are.



That's a really horrible distortion of what I actually said.



I asked you to find one statement I've made that is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.



That's inaccurate. I have consistently characterized the Democratic party, quite accurately, as the lesser evil. You can't seem to understand that's not praise.



In addition to being infantile, this is also bogus.



See above.

NGN, you have the worst class analysis out of anyone in this forum. There are banned people in OI that have a more radical class analysis of the system.

You keep thinking that everyone takes you out of context but in your quest to not be "dogmatic" you throw out simple basics that most leftists agree on.

You consider the Democrats the "lesser of two evils" ? What kind of leftist with a clear material perspective considers that even a viable option, especially considering the economy and fiscal policy has already overridden anything "worker" friendly a Democrat could implement. Parties are moving more to the right, and since Carter it doesn't matter if one is Dem or Rep, the economy has been dictating social policy. So the lesser of two evils canard is utterly infantile.

You would have to believe in the PR fluff of both parties and really be influenced by the system's propaganda to believe in the "lesser of two evils" canard.

We don't even have to get into your praise of America's "ideals" and founding. You were literally championing what right wingers like Dinesh D'souza wrote whole books on; that the US was founded on an ideal, and that ideal was good unlike other countries, making it quite exceptional.

You don't even understand the basics if you're sitting there parroting liberal defenses of the US, when telling us we are the freest nation with the most liberal free speech laws, then quoting Supreme Court laws as evidence of such assertions! What kind of radical does that? What does it even matter if you supposedly have a radical anarchist critique? And yet you accuse people in here of being undemocratic and rather fascist.

How mods put up with you is beyond me.

In the process of trying not to be "dogmatic", you threw out the baby with the bathwater. Your analysis isn't radical in the slightest.

[Lucretia]

NGN, you have the worst class analysis out of anyone in this forum. There are banned people in OI that have a more radical class analysis of the system.

You keep thinking that everyone takes you out of context but in your quest to not be "dogmatic" you throw out simple basics that most leftists agree on.

You consider the Democrats the "lesser of two evils" ? What kind of leftist with a clear material perspective considers that even a viable option, especially considering the economy and fiscal policy has already overridden anything "worker" friendly a Democrat could implement. Parties are moving more to the right, and since Carter it doesn't matter if one is Dem or Rep, the economy has been dictating social policy. So the lesser of two evils canard is utterly infantile.

You would have to believe in the PR fluff of both parties and really be influenced by the system's propaganda to believe in the "lesser of two evils" canard.

We don't even have to get into your praise of America's "ideals" and founding. You were literally championing what right wingers like Dinesh D'souza wrote whole books on; that the US was founded on an ideal, and that ideal was good unlike other countries, making it quite exceptional.

You don't even understand the basics if you're sitting there parroting liberal defenses of the US, when telling us we are the freest nation with the most liberal free speech laws, then quoting Supreme Court laws as evidence of such assertions! What kind of radical does that? What does it even matter if you supposedly have a radical anarchist critique? And yet you accuse people in here of being undemocratic and rather fascist.

How mods put up with you is beyond me.

In the process of trying not to be "dogmatic", you threw out the baby with the bathwater. Your analysis isn't radical in the slightest.

I have explained repeatedly to him and a couple of other liberals pretending to be leftists how the lesser of two evils mindset, however true it might in the most abstract sense, is in reality a poison pill for leftist direct action politics, how it encourages people to conservatively protect (not protest, not challenge) the slightly less odious bourgeois party out of fear that slightly more wicked one will take power, and how therefore any calculation of whether to support the lesser of two evils must take into account not only abstract policy differences among bourgeois parties, but also what support for any of those bourgeois parties does to leftist activism. But to no avail. Apparently NGNM does have a god and a master, and their names are one and the same: the bourgeois political system.

[NGNM85]

NGN, you have the worst class analysis out of anyone in this forum. There are banned people in OI that have a more radical class analysis of the system.

I’m not going to get sucked into this, again. Until you meet my aforementioned preconditions, I consider this matter closed.


You consider the Democrats the "lesser of two evils" ?

Yes, because it’s painfully obvious.


What kind of leftist with a clear material perspective considers that even a viable option,

I’m not entirely sure what you’re accusing me of, but it doesn’t sound like anything I’ve said.


Parties are moving more to the right,

This is a fact.


especially considering the economy and fiscal policy has already overridden anything "worker" friendly a Democrat could implement. … since Carter it doesn't matter if one is Dem or Rep, the economy has been dictating social policy.

I have produced two impeccable studies which reveal that the working class does slightly better under Democratic administrations. There isn’t a dramatic difference, and it seems to be shrinking, but a couple of percentage points could mean the whole world to hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people. On such a large scale, small differences have big consequences.


So the lesser of two evils canard is utterly infantile.

No, it’s ethically consistent.


You would have to believe in the PR fluff of both parties and really be influenced by the system's propaganda to believe in the "lesser of two evils" canard.

This is total nonsense. That’s the polar opposite of the ‘PR fluff.’ I’m unaware of anyone remotely in the ‘mainstream’ who says what I was saying.


We don't even have to get into your praise of America's "ideals" and founding. You were literally championing what right wingers like Dinesh D'souza wrote whole books on; that the US was founded on an ideal,

Yes, it was, to a certain extent. Of course, so was the Taliban, however, I think they had worse ideas.


and that ideal was good unlike other countries, making it quite exceptional.

Well, England wasn’t based on philosophy, for example, neither were any number of countries. Some countries were/are based on very bogus philosophies, again, like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Every country is exceptional in some respect or another.


You don't even understand the basics if you're sitting there parroting liberal defenses of the US,

No, that isn’t what I’ve done.


when telling us we are the freest nation

I said the United States is a relatively free society, comparatively speaking. That this extremely banal observation should be the subject of controversy is bizarre.


with the most liberal free speech laws,

That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. You need to understand the difference, for example, if I were to say; ‘Mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream.’ That is an opinion, now I might have data to support this opinion, even very compelling data, but it’s still a opinion. If I were to say; ‘Mint chocolate chip is a popular flavor of ice cream.’ That is a fact. There’s no value judgment of any kind. You can argue with opinions, however, it is impossible to argue with facts.

You can go ahead and compare civil liberties across the globe, but I’ll save you the trouble and tell you that you will inevitably find the United States has the broadest protections for free speech on the planet. Since that’s true, we should be able to acknowledge it without becoming hysterical. Part of the problem is you’re so fundamentally ideological that the words can’t even penetrate your consciousness. It gets chewed up by ideology and comes out as something else, entirely. I don’t like the United States government, in fact, I despise the United States government, but I’m able to acknowledge the fact that it does have the broadest protections for free speech on earth. Now, the opinion comes in here, and you’re free to argue, otherwise, I think that’s a good thing. I am as far out on free speech as you can possibly get. Now, that, you could actually argue against. I disagree, but we could have that argument. However, if you want to argue the merits of censorship, I would insist on changing venues as it would be inappropriate in this thread.


then quoting Supreme Court laws as evidence of such assertions!

The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws, it makes precedents. Brandenburg v. Ohio was an important cornerstone for civil rights, specifically, free speech, in the United States. It was one cornerstone in a lengthy struggle, on a number of fronts, with stops and stutters leading back to the American revolution.


What kind of radical does that?

One that is generally interested in the truth.


What does it even matter if you supposedly have a radical anarchist critique?

I’m not totally sure what ‘having an Anarchist critique’ is supposed to mean. I am, philosophically, an Anarchist. Does that matter? It matters to me. Whether or not it should matter to anyone else is entirely subjective, and open to debate.


And yet you accuse people in here of being undemocratic and rather fascist.

You make it sound as if I do this all the time, which is not the case. As I rule, I generally don’t throw around words like ‘fascist’, casually.


Your analysis isn't radical in the slightest.

Only according to the technical definition.

Moving on…

[NGNM85]

Not true.

Yes, true.


What do you think of the new healthcare law now that the Obama administration is showing the states how to cut billions from Medicaid (in each state) before the federal cuts of hundreds of billions even take place?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/nation/la-na-medicaid-20110204 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/nation/la-na-medicaid-20110204)

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/01/24/gvsd0128.htm (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/01/24/gvsd0128.htm)

I would be perfectly amenable to reading this articles and offering my opinion of them, in some other venue, as it would be inappropriate in this thread.


Even the head of the Bank of England is saying the recession may be perminant and workers are in for tough times for many years with no economic recovery. Why can't you realize the new healthcare law in America is simply a part of the ongoing structural adjustments?

I would be perfectly amenable to discussing that in some other venue, as it would be inappropriate in this thread.


And it's not only the healthcare issue where you make excuses for Democrats.

I don’t make excuses for anybody.


(And If I see one Chomsky quote I'm going to use the death star to destroy your home planet)

Deal.


Liberals ARE REACTIONARIES

No, Reactionaries are REACTIONARIES, Liberals are Liberals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So i dont really see a change in the future in USA because of the extreme levels of pessimism in AmericaThis line is like a mind-puzzle.


USA needs an anti-depressantI think right now, it's called Wisconsin.

But seriously, I hear you, people in the US do have very low expectations and have a sort of "house-slave" syndrome if people know the much more strongly worded Malcolm X speech about this. The fact that you hear people say, "Why should those unionists have health care when I don't, we need to get rid of the Unions!" is another mind-puzzle:). People in the US have generally found it easier to accommodate to shit, than think it could be challenged.

That's why things like Wisconsin and the Immigrant Rights protests and so on have potential to change the situation here just as the civil rights movement allowed people to start to hope for a better world and eventually to engage in mass struggles to change it and many were radicalized in the process.

[The Red Next Door]

He campaigned as one but is center-right like Clinton.

The point is that liberals have been in power before and have proven themselves just as ruthless to the working class (at home and abroad) as right wingers.

I am also surprised that NGN is so defensive about liberals considering he denies being one so much. Chomsky himself saves most of his ire toward the liberal establishment considering they are the ones that view themselves as the happy mediums, the cool headed center that doesn't follow extremes, etc.

The rest of his first post to the OP was absolute garbage. There is a difference between classical liberals and modern liberals, even right wingers make this distinction.

And he accuses comrades in here of being anti-democratic while he cheers on the United States like it's a paragon of virtue due to it's ideals, all the while posing as an anarchist.

Why is there a faux anarchist, Democrat Party defending, ra-ra America, joker still roaming around on this forum accusing others in here of being so undemocratic?

Clearly its now out of mere curiosity as to what inane stuff he will post next that he is kept on this forum. I must say, I watch out for it too.


This board is run by a zionist, what make you think, it is not run by pro-democratic party person?

[MarxSchmarx]

I wrote a long reply and then my browser crashed. But the gist of it was that withdrawing from "the traditional political process" is not an option - it cedes the machinery of the modern nation state to the reactionaries, which could be used to crush and repress the left. As bad as things are, they would be a lot worse if the reactionaries had their way in modern politics.

This doesn't mean that keeping the bad guys out should be the sole basis of the struggle - but we shouldn't dismiss it either. Liberals ARE REACTIONARIES and if us socialists didn't do shit as far as supporting democrats and thus validating their efforts to fuck us over the same fake ass left/right political paradigm would continue. What needs to happen is we need to ignore the Tea Idiots and focus most all our attention on 'liberals' in order to actually change the political paradigm. Democrats are not our comrades. Wedge issues....blah! Even when it comes to the stupid wedge issues Democrats cave. There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans and the stupidest thing we can do is continue to let the Democrat party coop workers struggles and meld them into a meaningless pile of uselessness.


Well, last I checked in America what little social welfare they have, things like food stamps, the Civil Rights Act, social security, the right to have a union, well, those were the product of people working with Democrats, not Republicans.

And you have, with rare exception, Democrat nominated judges to thank for the fairly unmitigated political speech rights that exist and the fairly strong environmental laws (at least on the books).

That the Democrats are better than the alternative, at least as an outsider, seems to me to be fairly obvious, if for no other reason than that that alternative is practically a fascist party.

Besides, who ever said we should regard the Democrats as "our comrades"?



You'll see, the states are set to attack workers big time and it wont matter if a democrat Governor, senator or congressman is in the state.It won't matter one bit just as the Obama administration hasn't made a damn bit of difference. If you think so I'd like you to point it out- I'm going to make teh counter argument that Obama has actual paralyzed the left in America during the wars and this crisis and when Democrats attack workers nation wide many people will still be lulled to sleep by democrats as children following the Pied Piper.


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

If you saw the children following him what would you do? I'd try to stop them.

So, why not vote for John McCain because Obama was actually worse for the left?

The American Democrats are not the solution. They are part of the problem. But at the same time, unfortunately the democrats are all the American people have between them and one of the most reactionary organizations this side of the House of Saud.

You have to understand that sure, it's like applying bandaid to a severed limb, but the alternative is to drive a rusty corkscrew into that wound even further.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wrong. Eisenhower was more pro-union than Truman. You can thank Nixon for the EPA and was voted the most "socialist" President by Milton Friedman. Nothing exceptional for working people happened under JFK and he was a liberal hating Cold War warrior bastard, who also hated the Civil Rights movement. LBJ had the Great Society all the while killing Vietnamese.

Do you guys not get that what they think is best for national interests also includes slaughtering workers abroad?

Who reformed welfare and made it extremely difficult to receive assistance in the US? A Democrat.

Everyone blames Regean for trickle down economics but it all began with Carter and his Volker Shock and the first stages of deindustrialization.

This is why it is pointless to regard the Dems as the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party is likewise not as extremely right wing at the federal level due to their pandering to their base too. It's all PR that one party is as left wing or as right wing as the other. In the end they are both following the dictates of their lobbyists and the dictates of the market. Economic policy heavily overrides social policy.

Clinton for instance was the most neo-liberal President in American history.

You would have to be really influenced by the PR machine and ignore facts published by good left Wong voices, if you want to go down the lesser of two evils canard. The two studies that NGN touts are so spurious as they ignore the fundamental economic questions concerning policy, instead it's just standard blather about how inequality looks better under a Dem. Pure dress up considering inequality was worse under the 90s with the passage of welfare reform. Inequality and poverty worsened worldwide because of the free wheeling neo-liberal 90s; "the new economy".

I've posted stuff up here before from great left wing sources on the subject and NGN gives us what I believe was Brookings Institute Study, yet he thinks I am being too idealogical. Funny, how being a more objective leftist includes dismissing left wing sources and touting liberal think tank studies.

[RadioRaheem84]

The American Democrats are not the solution. They are part of the problem. But at the same time, unfortunately the democrats are all the American people have between them and one of the most reactionary organizations this side of the House of Saud.

Bush did no more than what was wanted from him by corporate America. Clinton did all that was wanted from him by Wall Street. The same is happening with Obama. They do what their private backers tell them to do.

They don't do what right wing militia men tell them to do. The Republicans, will not try to bring Armageddon to the US. That is mostly pandering to a base, as much as Obama pandered to the liberal progressive base.

We're not talking about one party being more worker friendly than the other because they happen to have a more worker friendly base. We are talking about two parties bought and sold by competing market interests. Republicans; oil and gas. Democrats; Wall Street. And so on.

We actually see more of difference in policy based on who bought who rather tan seeing a difference in policy based on their constituents.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think the stereotype of the "left-wing" Democrats came about only because of FDR vs. Hoover. You may have made the case of Eisenhower being better than Truman, but I don't think you made a strong enough case between LBJ and Nixon.

What about Gerald Ford?

I would also add that this discussion hasn't separate the Democratic legislators from the Democratic presidents, or the Republican legislators from the Republican presidents.

[RadioRaheem84]

The case wasn't so much to indicate that Republicans can be always better than Dems but that it's futile to try to have them compete to be working class parties.

In reality, the social policies that favor the working class seem more or less what they leave alone (as in Reagen leaving whatever welfare he didn't slash in tact) or what they "reform", as in Clinton making social services run more "efficient" by introducing market initiatives into the social system (or outright privatizing).

There is always some benefit to the owning class in most social policies.

[RadioRaheem84]

What about Gerald Ford?

The bastard who left NYC fall to the bankers. Fuck him.

[Lucretia]

You have to understand that sure, it's like applying bandaid to a severed limb, but the alternative is to drive a rusty corkscrew into that wound even further.

Yet another restatement of the LOTE by somebody who apparently thinks this is a major intellectual contribution to political thought. Sorry, but you are not the first person to insist that, because people must support one of the two bourgeois parties, if you do not support the democrats then you must necessarily be supporting the republicans.

I and so many people on this board have addressed the stupidity of this argument too many times to count, yet it keeps popping up over and over again like a weed in a garden plot.

There are more than two choices here. A third choice includes the option of not electorally supporting either party and working against them through grassroots activism.

The idea here is that, while democrats on paper are to the left of Republicans, voting for them often creates a society that is more right-wing in the short-term and the long-run. Remember all the shit hitting the fan as a result of US torture policies and civil liberties when Bush was in office? Look at what happened when the lesser of two evils was installed - a democratic congress and president. Virtually the same policies are now institutionalized, if not worse policies, and you hear almost no significant protest of this, and certainly not nearly the degree of protest you saw during the Bush presidency. Nobody is claiming this is because the democrats are evil, wicked people who have bad intentions. It is because of systemic failures in how politics works in this country, failures that cannot be corrected by supporting the LOTE. While the dems are, in the abstract, in terms of their professed positions, to the left of republicans, they are nevertheless not left-wing enough - not by a long shot, especially in terms of how they actually govern - to make voting for them worth the sacrifice of suppressing left-wing grassroots activism that inevitably occurs when leftists adopt a LOTE mindset.

[NGNM85]

You would have to be really influenced by the PR machine and ignore facts published by good left Wong voices, if you want to go down the lesser of two evils canard.

This is completely untrue. Nobody even remotely in the mainstream says what I was saying. The implication that you have to subscribe to any illusions in order to make this argument is similarly bogus, you merely have to be consistent in your ethics. Well, my ethics. I guess that’s predicated on agreement on a number of points, in terms of ethics, politics, philosophy, etc.


The two studies that NGN touts are so spurious as they ignore the fundamental economic questions concerning policy, instead it's just standard blather about how inequality looks better under a Dem. Pure dress up considering inequality was worse under the 90s with the passage of welfare reform. Inequality and poverty worsened worldwide because of the free wheeling neo-liberal 90s; "the new economy".

You have no clue what you are talking about. This is completely spurious. It’s like Republicans who just ignore climate science because of some fantastical ‘Left-wing agenda.’ I produced two separate studies, with hard economic data going back half a century. Now, you can provide contrary data, if it weren’t for the fact that it doesn’t exist, or you could provide evidence of methodological flaws in these studies, if you actually had evidence indicating as such, which you also, clearly, don’t have. You’re entitled to your opinions, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. You cannot dismiss two impeccable scientific studies simply because you don’t like the results.

http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html (http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html)



I've posted stuff up here before from great left wing sources on the subject and NGN gives us what I believe was Brookings Institute Study, yet he thinks I am being too idealogical. Funny, how being a more objective leftist includes dismissing left wing sources and touting liberal think tank studies.

I’m not dismissing any pertinent sources, Left, or Right. Also you're demonstrated lack of basic understanding of the terms 'Left' and 'Right' makes me increasingly skeptical about such promouncements.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, I posted a whole google book on the subject by a reputable economist from UMass Amherst. The book contained enough information to render your conclusions useless. It was spearheaded by a labor studies department at a very socialist friendly university department.

Instead, you give me two reports; one by one of the most wonkish think tanks out there, the Woodrow Wilson School for Public Affairs and the other from a stock traders website?

Have you not read the reports themselves or understand their methodology? Have you not read their sources?


Since Franklin Roosevelt’s third term (1941–44), Democrats have generally presided over faster growth and stronger stock markets than Republicans; Republican administrations have been friendlier for disinflation and the bond market. Also, Republicans tend to preside over recessions early in their terms, with growth accelerating as time passes; Democrats tend to preside over earlier accelerations followed by slowdowns as the term matures.All this stupid study cares about is economic growth (GDP) and seeing which party has a bigger dick to swing in making more money for the owning class. I think it makes for a worse case if the Democrats are stronger at helping finance capital.

Economic growth is one of the worst indicators of how the working class is fairing in an economy. It really says nothing to standard of living except for the small reference to inequality using the Gini index. As one commentator even pointed out; correlation is not causation. Income may have risen for some people but it all points to how far the purchasing power goes. In fact more Americans were in debt during the Clinton "boom" years than in Reagan's. With each passing President, Rep or Dem, the wages have been going down and more people have relied on debt finance to make ends meet. The income disparity in this country is ridiculous and yet you take heart in that under a Dem things will be bit better?

Point is, you shouldn't just come in here with studies you probably don't read yourself or just glance at all the fancy math and assert "these are facts dammit"!

[Die Neue Zeit]

The case wasn't so much to indicate that Republicans can be always better than Dems but that it's futile to try to have them compete to be working class parties.

In reality, the social policies that favor the working class seem more or less what they leave alone (as in Reagen leaving whatever welfare he didn't slash in tact) or what they "reform", as in Clinton making social services run more "efficient" by introducing market initiatives into the social system (or outright privatizing).

There is always some benefit to the owning class in most social policies.


The bastard who left NYC fall to the bankers. Fuck him.

Would be a general rule to say, after WWII and within political reason, that Democratic control of both Houses and Republican control of the Presidency is socially better than having any Democratic Presidency?

[CAleftist]

Well, last I checked in America what little social welfare they have, things like food stamps, the Civil Rights Act, social security, the right to have a union, well, those were the product of people working with Democrats, not Republicans.

And you have, with rare exception, Democrat nominated judges to thank for the fairly unmitigated political speech rights that exist and the fairly strong environmental laws (at least on the books).


More like "Democrats working with people" than "people working with Democrats."

The two-party system in America was designed by the ruling class and for the ruling class. Both parties represent ruling class interests. Why should we waste time on either of them?

In 2008, Wall Street contributed more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans, and Obama won many of the wealthiest counties in the nation in terms of votes.
In 2004, Bush got more money from Wall Street than Kerry, and many of those same wealthy counties that voted for Obama, also had voted for Bush.

The bottom line here, is that the ruling class is less interested in parties and more interested in the bottom line.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, and hating poor people, is evil, and its a trait of a heart-less person. Note that many jokes of american comedians of cable-TV Comedy Channel have blame the poor people tactics in many of their jokes. I don't even understand how can people laugh at those sick jokes, there are even black comedians saying anti-black people jokes and anti-gay jokes. I swear this society is sick and evil.



.



Liberals do tend to be classist, they blame the kind of poor rightwing people often referred to as white trash and rednecks for being ignorant people and view them as an "Other". The Marxists are wise enough to see that the "class enemies" are not poor conservatives who are the victims of a bad education, a rural and isolated culture, and excessive traditionalism.

If anything, Obama is more to the left than most Democrats on this. I remember his statement about people clinging to their guns and religion in the face of the alienation of modern society.

[MarxistMan]

1JSBhI_0at0
Anarchists, maoists, stalinists, trotskists, marxists unite into a United Leftist Front to overthrow the real enemy (The 5% oligarchic ruling class). Know your enemy !!






This is completely untrue. Nobody even remotely in the mainstream says what I was saying. The implication that you have to subscribe to any illusions in order to make this argument is similarly bogus, you merely have to be consistent in your ethics. Well, my ethics. I guess that’s predicated on agreement on a number of points, in terms of ethics, politics, philosophy, etc.



You have no clue what you are talking about. This is completely spurious. It’s like Republicans who just ignore climate science because of some fantastical ‘Left-wing agenda.’ I produced two separate studies, with hard economic data going back half a century. Now, you can provide contrary data, if it weren’t for the fact that it doesn’t exist, or you could provide evidence of methodological flaws in these studies, if you actually had evidence indicating as such, which you also, clearly, don’t have. You’re entitled to your opinions, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. You cannot dismiss two impeccable scientific studies simply because you don’t like the results.

http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html (http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html)




I’m not dismissing any pertinent sources, Left, or Right. Also you're demonstrated lack of basic understanding of the terms 'Left' and 'Right' makes me increasingly skeptical about such promouncements.

[x359594]

The bastard [Gerald Ford] who left NYC fall to the bankers. Fuck him.

Ditto, especially for his support of the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia; he ordered the US military to provide logistical support and re-supply the invading armed forces.

Not to mention his complicity in the murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffet. (Orlando's son Francisco lives in my neighborhood and he has no use for Ford, nor his accomplices Kissinger, Bush I and Donald Rumsfeld.)

[RATM-Eubie]

Jesus Christ im just shaking my head at this thread right now and rolling my eyes:rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Jesus Christ im just shaking my head at this thread right now and rolling my eyes:rolleyes:

Why?

[PhoenixAsh]

The liberal/rebel alliance on RevLeft will be destroyed when they find the socialist deflector shields are quite operational.



hmm...lets run with that.

then you might have noticed the empire came about from relying on the trade federation and the exploitation of that federation on other planets.

The trade federation paid for the opposition to republic during the clone wars and was insturmental in its overthrow. Eventually it was completely incorporated into the empire as subservient to the empire.

The empire also based its main political aim to expansion and subjegation of the independent star systems to empire rule and supported local dictators in their subjegated star systems to keep control over the local population.

Now...comparing the empire to socialism...would in fact be completely wrong since its more akin to fascism in both politics and economics. Not to mention its imperialist aspirations.

So......yeah...pretty much kudo's for using a fascist system to promote socialist ideas in an attempt to bash supposed anti-revolutionaries! ;););)

[RadioRaheem84]

You would think that when it came down to it, liberals would side with right wingers, like they always do.

[PhoenixAsh]

You would think that when it came down to it, liberals would side with right wingers, like they always do.


Some will...some will not. Its not a homogenous group.

[RadioRaheem84]

Some will...some will not. Its not a homogenous group.

While true, as a whole, I tend to think that the establishment will.

I always differentiate between the base and the power.

Liberals in power, as Chomsky has pointed out several times (and dominated his early career), the liberal establishment is notoriously ruthless to leftists.

Liberals at the base, will tend to side with the people but at the same time like you said, some will trust the establishment and still support them.

Same is happening with the splits on Obama in the liberal/progressive camp.

[x359594]

...Liberals in power, as Chomsky has pointed out several times (and dominated his early career), the liberal establishment is notoriously ruthless to leftists...

That's a sub-theme of Chris Hedges' book The Death of the Liberal Class. One of the chapters is devoted to a thumbnail history of the liberal establishment's attacks on the left.

[NGNM85]

NGN, I posted a whole google book on the subject by a reputable economist from UMass Amherst.

Both of my studies were produced by reputable economists.


The book contained enough information to render your conclusions useless.

Not really. I didn’t read the whole thing, actually only a couple pages, what I was actually interested in was the appendix in the back, what was, for my purposes, the most interesting part of the book. Unfortunately, Robert Pollin does not break his figures down by administrations, but, rather ten-year increments. On the overlapping metrics there doesn’t seem to be any conflict, whatsoever. Of course, I assumed as much.


It was spearheaded by a labor studies department at a very socialist friendly university department.

Instead, you give me two reports; one by one of the most wonkish think tanks out there, the Woodrow Wilson School for Public Affairs and the other from a stock traders website?

See, again, you’re just inferring some bias and completely rejecting everything out of hand. Again, like the wholesale rejection of climate science by the right, this is totally irrational. This criticism is totally baseless. We do have to look at sources, and look at things critically. However, that should include supposedly ‘ideologically pure’ sources, as well. We should guard against the thoroughly bogus endeavor to box ourselves in to a wind tunnel of ideological purity. It’s bad for everybody, but it’s especially bad for us. Revolution! magazine does not encompass the sum total of human knowledge. Trotsky was criticized for agreeing on some points with the fascists in his criticism of the Soviet Union, his response was that it isn’t important who said it, it’s important that it’s true.


Have you not read the reports themselves

Have you?


or understand their methodology? Have you not read their sources?

Yes, as they are available, and can be evaluated. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. They match official estimates, you can verify it as many times as you like and you’ll still come to the same conclusions. You also haven’t provided any substantive evidence to suggest there is. In fact, your ebook seems to confirm these conclusions.


All this stupid study cares about is economic growth (GDP) and seeing which party has a bigger dick to swing in making more money for the owning class. I think it makes for a worse case if the Democrats are stronger at helping finance capital.

This is simply not so. For example, the Lisico report measures GDP, (As you pointed out.) and, income inequality, employment/unemployment, inflation, and the stock market. The Bartels study also, similarly includes a number of different metrics.


Economic growth is one of the worst indicators of how the working class is fairing in an economy. It really says nothing to standard of living except for the small reference to inequality using the Gini index.

It wasn’t a ‘small reference.’


As one commentator even pointed out; correlation is not causation. Income may have risen for some people but it all points to how far the purchasing power goes. In fact more Americans were in debt during the Clinton "boom" years than in Reagan's. With each passing President, Rep or Dem, the wages have been going down and more people have relied on debt finance to make ends meet.

Income inequality in America rose from about the 30’s to the 60’s, but has been increasing, as a general trend, ever since. Income inequality increased under both administrations, but almost twice as much under Reagan. Unemployment decreased under both administrations, but less so under Clinton, etc.


The income disparity in this country is ridiculous

Yes.


and yet you take heart in that under a Dem things will be bit better?

No, that phrase implies some emotional reassurance.

No, I am making an assessment based on political and economic trends over the last 50-60 years. Generally speaking, the working class tends to suffer less under Democratic administrations. That still isn’t an endorsement.


Point is, you shouldn't just come in here with studies you probably don't read yourself or just glance at all the fancy math and assert "these are facts dammit"!

I have read both studies. Although, I haven’t read the Bartels study since shortly after it came out. I stumbled onto the Liscio report fairly recently.


… as Chomsky has pointed out several times…

I find it really interesting the way you alternate between utterly denouncing Chomsky and then praising him in the context of an attack on arguments he has made. There seems to be a schizophrenia at work, here.

[Dunk]

Is political spectrum two-dimensional, or does it contain a third dimension?

Left and Right, Authoritarian and Libertarian seem two reasonable axis to me, and I've often thought "What idea presently represents the border between left and right?" I very much doubt the dividing line between left and right is an idea that is universally concrete, just as the bourgeoisie of the late 18th century were radicals of their time, but are now overwhelmingly conservative with a handful of very powerful reactionaries.

So, if the dividing line is a shifting thing, then today, in my humble opinion, the dividing line between left and right in the United States is between someone who believes that a poor person is poor because they have chosen to be poor, and someone who believes that a poor person is poor because they overwhelmingly have had no choice in the matter. We might call anyone near the fence on either side "centrists" or "center-left" or "center-right", because I think these two thoughts - which represent massively different ways of thinking, can occur simultaneously within the same person.

Of course, some of us may think that the dividing line between left and right is whether you are pro or anti-capitalism. Maybe, but I think that's not currently the case. Perhaps in the future it will be.

[RadioRaheem84]

Both of my studies were produced by reputable economists.


One by an economist at the Woodrow Wilson School, a liberal think tank that funnels in graduates into the Brookings Institute. The other was was stock traders looking to see how they cash in on administrations. Apparently, Democrats are better for a bull market than Republicans, which in this day and age, is actually bad for the working class.


See, again, you’re just inferring some bias and completely rejecting everything out of hand. Again, like the wholesale rejection of climate science by the right, this is totally irrational. This criticism is totally baseless. We do have to look at sources, and look at things critically. However, that should include supposedly ‘ideologically pure’ sources, as well. We should guard against the thoroughly bogus endeavor to box ourselves in to a wind tunnel of ideological purity. It’s bad for everybody, but it’s especially bad for us. Revolution! magazine does not encompass the sum total of human knowledge. Trotsky was criticized for agreeing on some points with the fascists in his criticism of the Soviet Union, his response was that it isn’t important who said it, it’s important that it’s true.


Are you this much of a nimrod? Seriously? When it comes to things like natural science there is little room to be "ideologically pure". But when it comes to the social sciences and especially politics and economics, you can expect a Marxist to be skeptical because of the giant presumed non sense of the bourgeois, not to mention the bias and agenda of their studies.


Yes, as they are available, and can be evaluated. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. They match official estimates, you can verify it as many times as you like and you’ll still come to the same conclusions. You also haven’t provided any substantive evidence to suggest there is. In fact, your ebook seems to confirm these conclusions.


So they match official estimates? That is your arguments? If I took official estimates as serious as you, I would believe that the unemployment rate in this country is far lower than it actually is, something is constantly corrected by left wing and progressive sources. But of course you prefer the reputable opinion of two liberal studies for any contradicting information is simply dogmatic nonsense.

The book I published shows what I have been saying all along; that since the end of the FDR administration, standards of living for the workers have been going down, not eb and flowing between Republicans and democrats. That no President did as much damage as Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress. That the economy ever since the Carter Volcker shock of the late 70s, both parties have adopted neo-liberal policies that have affected workers abroad and at home, drastically lowering living standards.



This is simply not so. For example, the Lisico report measures GDP, (As you pointed out.) and, income inequality, employment/unemployment, inflation, and the stock market. The Bartels study also, similarly includes a number of different metrics.


The problem with these reports as they tend to only use official numbers and their methodology is one based on the idea that if the economy is good then the people are doing well, when most of the time (especially since the 80s) this has been the opposite case. Again, I am sorry if I am skeptical of taking in on the sources and methodology of a study that is geared toward making investors and traders more money. Some of it maybe be true but it's grounded in false pretenses.
Even Joseph Stiglitz said GDP isn't always the best measure as to how a nation's citizens are doing. A nation could triple production, the corporations could make three times as much money, GDP rises but that says nothing about the working class. They could be working sweatshop hours. A company in the States could fire half of it's employees and tell the other half to work longer for less pay, boom, the companies profits sores and it's another notch for GDP growth.

India in 2007 recorded it's highest year of GDP growth at 9%, second fastest to China. The Economist was sure to be on top of that, praising India's new economy to no end. But the income disparity within the country doubled and standard of living standards fell to record low. Official estimates from the country were still not as reliable as independent sources because they skewered the image of what was really going on in India.


No, I am making an assessment based on political and economic trends over the last 50-60 years. Generally speaking, the working class tends to suffer less under Democratic administrations. That still isn’t an endorsement.


This may have been true under FDR in transition from Hoover, but beyond that I see little difference. If there is any difference, I usually tend to look at the local level.



I find it really interesting the way you alternate between utterly denouncing Chomsky and then praising him in the context of an attack on arguments he has made. There seems to be a schizophrenia at work, here.


I have never denounced Chomsky. Are you bonkers? I've questioned his arguments sometimes but never denounced him, in fact I have always said that he's made a great ally in the class struggle.

Now you just blew what could've been a great debate. I don't think I will challenge you anymore considering that last statement of yours was way, way, off base to the point of irrelevancy. It was a mere desperate jab.

I will just let you post your inane stuff on here and let you gloat at how you have "facts"! while everyone else is a knuckle dragging ideologue for challenging your "FACTS"!!

[NGNM85]

But of course you prefer the reputable opinion of two liberal studies for any contradicting information is simply dogmatic nonsense.

I still haven’t seen any substantive evidence contradicting these conclusions.


The book I published shows what I have been saying all along; that since the end of the FDR administration, standards of living for the workers have been going down,

From what I can see the book doesn’t offer figures before 1960, while both the Bartels study and the Lisico study go back earlier. Also, living conditions for the American working class peaked around the 60’s, and have generally declined since that time. Which brings us to…


not eb and flowing between Republicans and democrats.

The rate of this decline has not been constant, it has had peaks and valleys, it has accelerated and decelerated, alternately. Conditions for the working class have been deteriorating for 40 some odd years, but have generally been less bad under Democrat administrations.


That no President did as much damage as Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Well, that’s two different entities. Clinton often had to wrestle with a generally hostile congress, with some exceptions, most notably; NAFTA, which was generally opposed by congressional Democrats, and was passed by the Republican majority.


That the economy ever since the Carter Volcker shock of the late 70s, both parties have adopted neo-liberal policies that have affected workers abroad and at home, drastically lowering living standards.

That’s fairly accurate.


The problem with these reports as they tend to only use official numbers

Do you have different numbers?

Again, real unemployment is higher than official estimates, however, these numbers are intrinsically linked.


and their methodology is one based on the idea that if the economy is good then the people are doing well,

Not, at least, not entirely.


when most of the time (especially since the 80s) this has been the opposite case.

It is true that there is a growing disconnect between the status of Wall St. and Main St.


Again, I am sorry if I am skeptical of taking in on the sources and methodology of a study that is geared toward making investors and traders more money. Some of it maybe be true but it's grounded in false pretenses.

That sounds reasonable on it’s face, but is devoid of substance.


Even Joseph Stiglitz said GDP isn't always the best measure as to how a nation's citizens are doing. …

That’s correct.


This may have been true under FDR in transition from Hoover, but beyond that I see little difference. If there is any difference, I usually tend to look at the local level.

There is a little difference. (Emphasis on little.) The difference is also greater at the state or local level. Not only do I not dispute this, but that’s what I’ve been saying for some time. However, again, on the national scale, even a small difference can have major consequences.


I have never denounced Chomsky. Are you bonkers? I've questioned his arguments sometimes but never denounced him, in fact I have always said that he's made a great ally in the class struggle.

Not always.

Also, you praise him on one front, while vehemently denouncing other things that he has said, essentially, what I’ve been saying, which isn’t that much different.


Now you just blew what could've been a great debate.

I sincerely doubt it. I am extremely pessimistic about the value of any valuable exchange of ideas. We’ve locked horns a number of times (You seem to have a personal investment in this.) yet I am at a loss to recall any reasoned, substantive exchange. If such a thing ever occurred, it was an insignificant anomaly.


I don't think I will challenge you anymore…

I’m not going to hold my breath.

[Amphictyonis]

Both of my studies were produced by *bourgeois economists.


*Fixed by the honesty police.

[NGNM85]

*Fixed by the honesty police.

What point do you think you are making?

[RadioRaheem84]

What point do you think you are making?

One that I think many others in here have claimed about you.

[MarxistMan]

vYaqEgyrh1M
Political writter Joe Bageant says that the middle class is real evil. You know the people who shop at Sears, Target, Sams and who eat at Olive Garden and Red Lobster. They are self absorved assholes who dont care about the poor homeless and oppressed. They live a good life and they dont need change. Many liberal-progressives who are followers of Amy Goodman, and read counterpunch.org and commondreams.org are middle class bourgeoise leftists


I would go further than just liberals who are rich or who are in top possitions in the US government. Because I tried to be friendly with people of http://www.commondreams.org and man, they behave like if they are on amphetamines or steroids. They are real unfriendly. Because the some weeks ago, i wrote "Hello my friend" in some comments i made, and a member of that website, told me that i am not his friend.

They use all kinds of insults, pejorative terms, and lots of bashing just like Glenn Beck and Republicans. Damn, no wonder Obama is so evil in that Washington, DC Political evil environment.

In other words middle class bourgeoise liberal progressives are not cool people, they are not good people, they behave just like self-absorbed republicans

So liberals froim websites like commondreams and other middle class progressive liberal discussion boards blame Obama for not fulfilling all his campaign promises but they themselves are not much better than Obama


.

.

.



That's a sub-theme of Chris Hedges' book The Death of the Liberal Class. One of the chapters is devoted to a thumbnail history of the liberal establishment's attacks on the left.