Strawman battle #104

[S.Artesian]

Well, okay, then. We're back.

First, old business:

It's so tedious dealing with savants, because they know so much more than anybody else that they think that by saying something it becomes fact, even what they are saying is only, and at best, disinformation.

So then one has to go all the way back and retrieve the original assertions to show once again how the savants are really idiots, and offer nothing more than that "more" of the same old same old allegiance to the the methods, tactics, "strategies," that have been proven inadequate time after time.

OK, it's a tedious job, but I guess it has to be done. So what follows are the assertions from Hindsightless and What'shername, and my challenges. I'll leave it to others to decide if any our savants have made any concrete response to the challenges.



RL:Except, he relates to ordinary workers far better than any of us do. Sure, he's a reformist, but this is a labour dispute (in the USA) and you have to begin where workers are, and lead them further. He is excellent at doing that.

Revolutionaries can then push this much further still, widen the dispute and challenge nationalism, cod economics, the Democratic Party and the union bureaucracy for not doing what is needed to win this dispute.


SA: He pushes "their ideas further"? Really? That's wonderful. These people, like Moore, have been "pushing ideas further" like heroin pushers push heroin for the last 100 years, and in particular pushing the ideas that Moore pushes, his reformist pseudo-left populism with vigor over the past 40 years, and that certainly has worked out well for workers, hasn't it?

So tell us, what ideas did he push further in his little speech in Madison? That the rich need to pay their fare share? That "we need to take our country back, our democracy back"? Since when is patriotism, and lying [about democracy] "pushing" anything other than the pushing of a used-car salesman pushing another lemon off the lot?

What other ideas did he push that were so far left? Popular capitalism? Where good jobs, paying good wages, make America strong, beautiful, competitive and the bourgeoisie rich? Fantastic. That's your leftism? That's your infantile leftism, sucking up to a flack for the Democratic Party. That's your little wished-for popular front, if only the Democrats would have you.




RL: He has communicated more left-wing ideas to workers in the last ten years than the entire US left has in fifty.

SA: Yet another example of your chronic ignorance when it comes to the history of the US working class, and actual working class struggles. Sure this guy has contributed so much more than the League of Revolutionary Black Workers-- oh no doubt about it. Sure he's contributed more than Grace and James Boggs, than CLR James, than Malcolm X, than Robert Williams, than the Motor City Labor League, than Staughton Lynd.



RL: Yet more wasted effort on your part. Where do I disagree with any of this, or even imply that I do?

SA:don't care whether you agree or disagree. What does matter that rather than provide a single word of criticism, of actual comprehension of Moore's best-intentioned flacking for the Democratic Party, you praise Moore. You avoid any criticism. You evade discussion of class and real class-consciousness, substituting this garbage about "leading" and "pushing," and relating.


So much for what'shername. Now for Hindsightless:



H: Look...the gist of what was being said is that if you go to these workers now with materilist analysis of economic society and basically waving Marxist theory around....they are not going to listen to you.

SA: No, the gist of what is being said is that we should embrace, applaud a guy who stumps and flacks for the Democratic Party, who wants to restore "good capitalism," who wants to take the US back to the "good old days" of the New Deal etc. etc.

That's what all that praise for Michael Moore's speech is saying. There isn't a shred of critical analysis.

And I'm saying that's nothing that should be supported, applauded. That the speech is just the populist version of trade-union bureaucrat social democracy
.


H: Is he somehow a workers messiah to be praised and lauded? No...he is a liberal who supports a humanistic capitalist system based on civil society. a pipe dream...but way more to the left of the pipe dream than the current general position of those protesting....and certainly way more to the left than the current gourps these protesters look for for help.

SA: Right, sure. A pipe dream? It's not a pipe dream, it's disaster, or perhaps you think somehow "humanist capitalism" a la Moore, the type practiced by Kerry, whom he supported, Obama whom he supported, or General Wesley Clark is something other than a disaster for the workers. Look around. Moore's pipe dream is right in front of you.




H: But did you see the reaction of that crowd? Many of whome voted republican? Many of whome would have denounced Michael Moore mere months ago...they are now genuinly cheering him....do you understand what that means? What an incredibly powerful message that should be to you?

SA:
What those cheering Moore would have thought months ago is baseless speculation on your part. Worse than speculation, it's probably based on flat out ignorance of Wisconsin which has had a strong "liberal" tradition, the remnants of a very powerful student movement at the UW in Madison, and a history of progressivism.

You might want to actually know something about the history of a region, or a struggle before you start making statements that only reveal your total ignorance.



H: I'll tell you what that means...it means the workers are en masssse moving to the left of the system....opening their minds to new ideas and policies.

SA: Yeah, and Moore is filling those minds up as fast as he can with old ideas-- the old ideas of progressive Democrats, of union bureaucrats, of populist and popular capitalism. Point me to one new idea Moore articulated in that speech that hasn't been floated a thousand times before in the US by a thousand different little and bigger Michael Moores, Jesse Jacksons, etc etc etc?



H: And that perspective is a step further on the road to radicalisation.

SA: Yeah? Where and when has it ever gone down that way? Point exactly to the further steps taken down the road when buying into the crap about "capitalism with a human face" restoring "American democracy" and the "rich paying their fair share. " Show me, to twist a famous phrase from a movie, the anti-money.



H: You can not expect the workers to go, over night, from being fed decades of anti socialist and anti communist propaganda to red-flag waving revolutionaries who are ready to storm capitol hill and burn down wallstreet

SA: Strawman again. Let's set it on fire. Who said anything about that? Who said anything about storming the capital? Of course the workers have just done that, but who said anything about burning down Wall Street? What was said is that Michael Moore opposes and will retard every effort towards taking the first step to a real class-conscious movement, which is breaking with the Democratic Party in the US. Now maybe you have a different idea about what the necessary first step is in the US, so feel free to display your knowledge of the history of the US working class movement, its defeats, and show us what the first step should be.


_____________


Now, new business, and hopefully the last on this really good movie-maker who is vastly overrated as a "radical," much less a "socialist."


Our European cousins may not be aware of this, but Michael Moore is closely associated with moveon.org. What is moveon.org? The organization got its start in the Bush administration as an attempt to divert the anti-war movement from independent action in the streets, schools, communities and to voting for left-liberal "anti-war" Democrats.



That's what it did. That's what it does. In 2008, moveon.org worked doubly hard to canalize the river of hatred for the Bush regime into votes for Obama. Worked too.



Now one interesting thing about Moore is that in Sept. and Oct. 2008, Moore was explicit in his condemnation of the bank bailout, denouncing the bankers etc., calling it theft, and even appealing to his legion of admirers to contact then Senator Obama to urge him not to support the bailout. Moore's denunciations of Paulson, Bernanke, various senators, bankers etc were impassioned and continuous, but...


But after Obama is inaugurated, go ahead and search Moore's blog and see if you can find a piece authored by Moore including Obama in his criticisms. See if you find a piece by Moore denouncing Obama's backtracking on the Patriot Act; see if you can find a piece by Moore denouncing Obama's abandonment of single-payer healthcare; see if you can find a piece by Moore denouncing Obama's expansion of the employer-illegal immigrant workplace raid and incarcerate program; see if you can find a piece by Moore criticizing Obama for capitulating to the extension of the Bush era tax cuts; see if you can find a piece by Moore denouncing Obama's continuation of the war in Iraq, and expansion and intensification of the war in Afghanistan.


Try and find a piece by Moore where he criticizes the Democratic Party as a party, as an institution for its role in any of the above.



You will find a piece by Moore predicting that Obama will become the first in history to win 2 Nobel Peace Prizes. You will find a piece by Moore urging everyone not to "pile on Obama" and be too harsh. You will find a piece by Moore in which he proclaims that he still loves Obama.



The point is that when push comes to shove, and push has come to shove, Moore's role is that as a "left-cover" for the Democratic Party-- where he gets to parade his Proudhonian pseudo-socialism ["peoples' banks] as an "alternative" to the nasty banks of the Republican Party so that any opportunity for independent struggle "moves on" into the voting booth for his favorite candidates.


That's the guy people think "pushes the workers left," "really relates to workers;" the guy some people think we should emulate and "latch onto."

[PhoenixAsh]

Seeing as S.Artesian still want to be an elitist agitate who really dosn't care about what is being said but rather likes to argue made op positions and argument and who thinks workers are to be called suckers because snakes need to be called snakes and bullshit needs to be called bullshit:







Originally Posted by S.Artesian http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2042186#post2042186)
Both Hindsightless and what'shername make a series of assertions in support of the Michael Moore's presentation, and the significance of Michael Moore's appearance, and its "impact" on "moving the workers to the left."
FALSE

No...we do not. We are saying: Moores speech was applauded. Parts, large parts, of Moores speech are the same points we are making. The fact that workers cheer that means they agree with those points...focus on those points from our perspective and use that to explain the entire Marxist theory to get them to conclude Marxism is the only goal.




Those assertions have all been challenged. The challenge has asked for concrete examples of where what is alleged "can occur" has ever occurred where reformist left-bourgeois representatives have been "used" as a vector for establishing a class wide organization. You have challenged something we ghave NOT been saying and we haven't opposed the analysis you put foreward....so basically...you continue with pointles critcism



All the assertions and challenges are on page 25, with follow ups on page 26 of this thread. What YOU have not challenged is the assertion to revolutionise the workers from the position the workers have right now.



Our savants from across the Atlantic have yet to answer a single challenge to a single assertion with a concrete example from actual class struggles. Because the challenges were not contested at all...you have not proven a thing about what we are saying...you have proven Michael Moore is a liberal and has teh goal for humane apitalism...which has NOT been contested by us from the start.



Our savants have failed to answer a single challenge to a single assertion about the content, direction, and meanings of Moore's appeal for popular and populist capitalism.Yes....we have repeatedly stated that we agree with your analysis on that but you continue to refuse to see that.



Our savants have failed to answer the challenge as to what the single most important step the workers in Wisconsin and the workers in the US must take, or rather, must initiate to avoid repeating the failures, capitulations etc. that have followed whenever the "left" tries to "take advantage of," hitch its rather underpowered and square-wheeled wagon to those advocating "restoring America with good jobs with good wages."
Yes...because we have not argued that at all....what we have said is work to radicalise further to avoid those very same situations from he position of the workers right now.


Our savants only tell us that Moore "can relate better" to workers; that Moore is "loved" by the workers, and Marxists can't afford to criticize him and therefore his thumping for the likes of General Wesley Clark, John Kerry, or Barack Obama; Marxists can't afford to criticize his notion of "fair share" taxation; the left can't afford to reject the notions of patriotism, of New Dealism, that Moore so explicitly parades.
No...that is not what we are saying AT AL. As explained you do not START with denouncing. You recognize the fact that workers are at the position they are now and work from that.


Our savants tell us this because our savants know, better than anyone I guess, including the workers who are in Madison and across the country who talk a different talk than Moore, and walk a much different walk, that the working class "isn't ready" for any of that.Well...tell you what....lets hold a poll and ask the workers how they view socialism and Marxism and revolution....shall we?

Because for all your high asses rethorics...the workers ARE STILL CHEERING LIBERALS AND LEFT-DEMOCRATS AND VOTING FOR THEM



So first, if our savants can't answer directly the challenges to their assertions with evidence from past or current struggles of the success of their positions-- that indicates either there was no such success, or our savants really don't know better than anyone because they cannot provide any examples of success even if such success occurred, or somehow capitalism has so radically changed itself that what has been spectacularly unsuccessful in the past will now be successful. Yes...we have answered your so called challenges to things we have never said...repeatedly.....by pointing out those things in fact have not been tried...other than by left-democrats...

who where the people voting for again?



Perhaps there are other explanations. A less charitable one is that our savants are in fact idiots and simply don't know what they are talking about, which of course doesn't stop them from talking. I'm a charitable person by nature, so I don't think that, but it's a possibility. Yeah...right...very believable.



Next, whatever the degree of knowledge or lack thereof of our savants, they still have not produced any plan, program, conception of transformation. They agree that Moore's presentation is just a "beginning," a vector that the "left" can "latch" onto, to "move" the workers to greater class-consciousness. Well...for one we have not been able to because we are continuously attacked by you on things we have never said, by you putting words in our mouths, by you falsely represnting what we are saying, by making character assassinations and by direct ad hominems...

But hey...if you would have understood our point from the get-go and asked us what we meant and instead retreating to your trench or so called moral and revolutionary and elitist superiority...we would have actually gotten somewhere.



So exactly where are the transitions? Exactly what areas of Moore's presentation are our savants, representatives of that much more successful left in Europe [I mean, just look at the success the left has had in the UK-- Wow. Breathtaking, isn't it? Yep, seeing Tony Benn and Foot as "vectors" to class consciousness, linking up with the "lefts" in the Labor Party sure paid off for the British workers, hasn't it?], going to latch onto to move the working class? If you would have read the posts correctly you would have already seen this has been adressed...both what we think they should latch onto and why socialism was marginalized and failed in Europe.

But you have your head so far up your own bullshit rethorics and moral suprior bullshit that you have...once agian...failed to see that.

What we did not get to...because of your insistent base attacks is how we can exploit that and what we actually propose.



Fair taxation? Oh that's a real move to the left, no doubt.

Independent political organization of workers? How does that follow from Moore's cheerleading and blessing the Democrats? Let me guess: we follow the line of the Moores, the left-liberals, the Democrats and when it fails, then we point our fingers and cry "Traitor!" "The Democrats [or Social-Democrats for our European cousins] have betrayed the workers!" "Again!" That's worked so well in the history of working class struggles. Just look how much better off Europe has been following that path. No...Europe has NOT followed that path at all. Neither are we saying we should follow that path. and...once again...if you would have actually read what I was posting you would have seen that I already adressed that.

What we are saying is that workers should be the central position. What they believe should be our starting point and argue from there and infuse our theories from there.

And THAT has not been tried in Europe on a large enough scale..and where in europe it has been tried it DID work...


Expropriation [not nationalization] of the banks and recapture of all funds distributed from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve? That's a good one, and something I advocate, except I advocated it 3 years ago, when most were arguing that "the workers aren't ready for that." So are the workers ready for that now? What you are saying here is exactly my point....and in fact totally agrees with what we have been saying here all along


Short version for idiot savants: Answer the challenges, concretely, or shut up.
Thats exactly what we have been arguing....now apply that to yourself and we can actually start getting somewhere.

Great to see you are showing up at the show...be it a little late. Thanx for attending.
__________________

[S.Artesian]

All you've done is repeat your demonstration of gross ignorance and your inability to answer any challenge to your mythology concerning Michael Moore and his populist capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

SNIP STUPID RANT ABOUT HOW LIBERAL MOORE IS TO SOMEHOW SHOW THAT OUR ASSERTION THAT MOORE IS A FUCKING LIBERAL IS WRONG.

which...I aree is completely what we have been saying...only he doesn't get it...




To remind you:



Because he is a fucking liberal and do not feel the need to constantly recurgitate the same old Marxist anaylsis on how he is just a humane face on an evil concept and liberals are evil...and you know...generally retort to self masturbation within the radical community.

I take it as a given.



Now...S.Artesian is a bit confused.

Because what we have been saying is that it is unwise in the current situation to...as S.Artesian has suggested...walk into the crowds in Wisconsin and denounce Moore for being a class traitor and how his speech is a complete endorsement of the Democrats who have equally sold out...and that the current polictical believes make the workers of Wisonsin suckers for believing him, the democrats and the republicans.

What we have been saying is that the workers of Wisconsin think Moore is a hero, love him and genuinely believe in humane capitalism as a workable and sustainable concept. So..the guns blazing theory might not be such an intelligent approach.

What we also said was that Moores speech was more to the left than the democrats current position. Which we think is a positive step towards further radicalising the workers....so basically we are saying...nice...good step...now lets take it further

What we have suggested is that if you want to radicalise them further you do not go in guns blazing and denouncing and attacking their believes and heroes but start working from their believes to radicalise them further by expanding on them to take them to the next logical conclusion that Marxism is the answer and Moore and co are not offering a valid solution at all.

Its basically a method thing...but hell..S.Artesian is hell bend on somehow constructing an argument around how we said vote for the democrats and cheer on Moore.

[PhoenixAsh]

All you've done is repeat your demonstration of gross ignorance and your inability to answer any challenge to your mythology concerning Michael Moore and his populist capitalism.

Yes...because...like I have said a hunderd times before....that mythology only exists in your heads...NOT in our words....we have...how do I put this gently...

NEVER EVER CONTESTED THAT MICHAEL MOORE IS A LIBERAL WHO HAS THE GOAL TO ESTABLISH A HUMANE FORM OF CAPITALISM

CotR Edit- removed large red font. Dont do it again. Its considered spamming and will land you an infraction.

[S.Artesian]

Once again blindsight distorts what is being said so that he can have the great thrill of wrestling with strawmen. An uncharitable sort might think blindsight is a deliberate liar, but again I'm charitable by nature.

I never said that anyone should walk into a crowd denouncing Moore as a liberal. Or maybe you'd like to provide a quote where I say that, you ignorant, lying moron? I'm sorry did that sound uncharitable. Let me rephrase it: You lying piece of rancid rat fat? Sounds better to you? Sounds better to me?

I certainly did say 1. that on this supposed revolutionary-left list, supposed revolutionary leftists should not be uncritically praising and endorsing or latching on to Moore's speech because it simply does not do what they wish it would do-- "bring new ideas to the workers" "push workers to the left" blahblahblah and

2. I do think that in Wisconsin the issue is to not let the Dems, the bureaucrats and their "stars" canalize the movement into "vote for more Democrats," "give us back our country," "good wages for good jobs makes for good bourgeoisie" Proudhoning pseudo-socialist wanking.

I said we should be critical knowing Moore's record of support for Democrats, for ESTABLISHED Democrats who have created the very miserable situation in which the working class now does battle.

Is that clear enough for you, blindsight?

Probably not, since you make nothing but assumptions about how the workers "feel" about Moore rather than what tasks the struggle must accomplish.

What you have is "facebook" Marxism where you have "friends" and you "friend" the "friends" of other "friends." And if you just get enough "friends" why pretty soon you have a network...

In closing-- answer the challenges: where has the "opening of consciousness" supposedly generated in the mumblings of pseudo-left pseudo radicals ever pushed a movement forward? Where has it led to further radicalization, not of an individual or individuals but of a social struggle?

What single "new idea" has Moore introduced into the struggle in Wisconsin by his appearance, by his nauseating patriotism, his pathetic homage to good, honest capitalism, his oh so radical demand that the rich should "pay their fair share"?

[PhoenixAsh]

I never said that anyone should walk into a crowd denouncing Moore as a liberal. Or maybe you'd like to provide a quote where I say that, you ignorant, lying moron? I'm sorry did that sound uncharitable. Let me rephrase it: You lying piece of rancid rat fat? Sounds better to you? Sounds better to me?



we're supposed to practice a little bit of merciless criticism here,

and

You need to call a spade a spade; junk junk; bullshit bullshit. When somebody says "restore American democracy, restore American's dignity-- good jobs at good wages make good business," tell him to get his foot out of the door and go peddle his snake oil somewhere else.


Thank you for playing.




I certainly did say 1. that on this supposed revolutionary-left list, supposed revolutionary leftists should not be uncritically praising and endorsing or latching on to Moore's speech because it simply does not do what they wish it would do-- "bring new ideas to the workers" "push workers to the left" blahblahblah and We have never said anybody should praise Moore. What we have said is: don't go in denouncing Moore when you really do not have the crowds ear yet...but focus on the things we agree with and expand from there towards Marxist theory.


2. I do think that in Wisconsin the issue is to not let the Dems, the bureaucrats and their "stars" canalize the movement into "vote for more Democrats," "give us back our country," "good wages for good jobs makes for good bourgeoisie" Proudhoning pseudo-socialist wanking. Thats what we have been saying as well....you only again and agian refuse to acknowledge that and engage in baseless rants.



I said we should be critical knowing Moore's record of support for Democrats, for ESTABLISHED Democrats who have created the very miserable situation in which the working class now does battle.
Yeah...but the workers are not really critical about Moore....now are they. So instead of denouncing Moore...what we proposed was takmng the stuff we can use out of his speech and introduce Marxism to the workers through that.



Is that clear enough for you, blindsight?
It was clear enough from the start for us...and it has taken you up until now...and several of your elitsit crap and character assassinations later to finally discover this



Probably not, since you make nothing but assumptions about how the workers "feel" about Moore rather than what tasks the struggle must accomplish. Then...explain to me again how it is that after 130 years and several weeks or protest the voters of Wisonsin are still cheering Liberals, stil voting Republicans and Democrats..



What you have is "facebook" Marxism where you have "friends" and you "friend" the "friends" of other "friends." And if you just get enough "friends" why pretty soon you have a network...:laugh:


Yeah...you are going on my ignore list... I kind of have enough of your insults, character assassinations, complete misrepresentations, false accusations and continuous baseless ridicule.

[S.Artesian]

Thanks for showing that nowhere did I say walk into the crowd and denounce Moore as a liberal. Absolutely did say we are supposed to practice merciless criticism here.

And we do have to call junk, junk, and bullshit, bullshit anywhere. So yeah, I would advocate somebody, anybody who calls himself a Marxist challenging Moore right in front of all those loving workers, about "good jobs/good wages/good bourgeoisie/good capitalism," on his patriotic disinformation about the history of US "democracy."

Right there, and to his face. People have done tougher things than that, like challenge the Black Panther Party's endorsement of certain Democrats for the US Congress... right in the middle of an anti-war rally when a BPP spokesperson tried to make such an endorsement. Guess what? The person making the challenge received an ovation.... and lived to tell about it. Imagine that.

And again you never answer the challenges to your original assertions about Moore "moving workers to the left," "introducing new ideas."

On your ignore list? Aww... that hurts. How will the wolf survive?