Paul Craig Roberts: "Unless There Is A Violent Revolution."

[Rakhmetov]

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is amazing. Why would a former conservative change his ideological convictions???

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03292011.html

"Marx & Lenin Reconsidered"


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10072009.html

[graymouser]

Paul Craig Roberts is a paleoconservative (if not a white nationalist) whose column is also carried on the anti-immigrant site vdare.com. He's also supported the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and was quoted on the cover of a David Ray Griffin novel book. He occasionally says some things that might be considered "progressive" by people who don't know better, but in general I see his column's appearance in Counterpunch as a symptom of the ongoing left-right alliance that has come to shape the site in the last several years.

[Rakhmetov]

Paul Craig Roberts is a paleoconservative (if not a white nationalist) whose column is also carried on the anti-immigrant site vdare.com. He's also supported the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and was quoted on the cover of a David Ray Griffin novel book. He occasionally says some things that might be considered "progressive" by people who don't know better, but in general I see his column's appearance in Counterpunch as a symptom of the ongoing left-right alliance that has come to shape the site in the last several years.

Just because a bigotted website carries his articles does not mean that Roberts himself is a bigot. Do you know that right-wing militia groups circulate Chomsky's books? You also find Chomsky's books at right-wing gun shows.

[graymouser]

Just because a bigotted website carries his articles does not mean that Roberts himself is a bigot. Do you know that right-wing militia groups circulate Chomsky's books? You also find Chomsky's books at right-wing gun shows.
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/03/17/counterpunch-gives-platform-to-white-nationalism/

Roberts is part of the editorial collective of VDARE, not just a guy who happens to be posted on their site. That he's a bigot who occasionally says something you agree with shouldn't even be a factor in this.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Really? So I guess his numerous appearances on The Political Cesspool radio show are just coincidences too...

"The Political Cesspool is a weekly talk radio show founded by James Edwards, and syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network and Accent Radio Network. First broadcast in October 2004 twice a week from radio station WMQM, it has been broadcast on Stormfront Radio, a service of the neo-Nazi Stormfront website, and as of 2010 is broadcast on Saturday nights on WLRM, a Christian radio station in Millington, Tennessee. Its sponsors include the white-separatist Council of Conservative Citizens and the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denial group. According to its statement of principles, the show stands for the 'Dispossessed Majority' and represents 'a philosophy that is pro-White.'" - wiki

[Rakhmetov]

Really? So I guess his numerous appearances on The Political Cesspool radio show are just coincidences too...

"The Political Cesspool is a weekly talk radio show founded by James Edwards, and syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network and Accent Radio Network. First broadcast in October 2004 twice a week from radio station WMQM, it has been broadcast on Stormfront Radio, a service of the neo-Nazi Stormfront website, and as of 2010 is broadcast on Saturday nights on WLRM, a Christian radio station in Millington, Tennessee. Its sponsors include the white-separatist Council of Conservative Citizens and the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denial group. According to its statement of principles, the show stands for the 'Dispossessed Majority' and represents 'a philosophy that is pro-White.'" - wiki

I don't know if that is true. I would need corroborative evidence. Also, for the sake of argument, assuming what you say is true: How do you know Roberts is not appearing in this talk show because he has been excluded from many mainstream news & media outlets???? Maybe he is just trying to whip up rebellion among the unwashed, benighted Americans. To his credit, I haven't read or heard anything from Roberts demonstrating he is a bigotted individual. Do you have any proof to the contrary????

Check this out:

"Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American 'mainstream media.'

For the last six years I have been banned from the 'mainstream media.' My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column."

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

[Sosa]

You should've done your homework...this guys a nutjob.

[Delenda Carthago]

I don't know if that is true. I would need corroborative evidence. Also, for the sake of argument, assuming what you say is true: How do you know Roberts is not appearing in this talk show because he has been excluded from many mainstream news & media outlets???? Maybe he is just trying to whip up rebellion among the unwashed, benighted Americans. To his credit, I haven't read or heard anything from Roberts demonstrating he is a bigotted individual. Do you have any proof to the contrary????

Check this out:

"Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American 'mainstream media.'

For the last six years I have been banned from the 'mainstream media.' My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column."

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html


It would all be easier if you just say "damn dudes, i didnt kno".Tryin to defend this piece of shit is kinda funny.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know if that is true. I would need corroborative evidence. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php (a lot of other quality folks on there too; he's in esteemed company)


Also, for the sake of argument, assuming what you say is true: How do you know Roberts is not appearing in this talk show because he has been excluded from many mainstream news & media outlets???? Maybe he is just trying to whip up rebellion among the unwashed, benighted Americans. To his credit, I haven't read or heard anything from Roberts demonstrating he is a bigotted individual. Do you have any proof to the contrary????A better question would probably be why a white supremacist radio show would invite a "progressive" to appear in the first place.


"Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different. ......Well if he says it himself, it must be true!

Not everyone excluded from the mainstream media is necessarily promoting something useful. Conspiracy theorists with ideas about alien reptiles seizing control of the White House probably wouldn't get a lot of space in The New York Times for instance.

* * *

This is the problem with purely political criteria. Left, right, progressive, whatever. Political positions can be changed like underwear. And they say nothing of questions of class, which is what really matters. The bourgeoisie has a left and a right wing. There are socialisms of different classes. Go back and read the Manifesto.

It's like praising "rebellion" without looking at the underlying content. That would have lead you to get behind the South in the U.S. Civil War, when in reality, "an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, 'slavery' on the banner of Armed Revolt... the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict...." (Marx)

[graymouser]

I don't know if that is true. I would need corroborative evidence. Also, for the sake of argument, assuming what you say is true: How do you know Roberts is not appearing in this talk show because he has been excluded from many mainstream news & media outlets???? Maybe he is just trying to whip up rebellion among the unwashed, benighted Americans. To his credit, I haven't read or heard anything from Roberts demonstrating he is a bigotted individual. Do you have any proof to the contrary????
The man associates himself with white nationalists. He is on the editorial collective of a white nationalist web site. He appears on a white nationalist radio show. All of this boils down to active endorsement. What "corroborative evidence" do you need?

The public associations of Roberts are with white nationalists, 9/11 Truthers, and Counterpunch - who got AK Press to publish his latest book. (The last particularly strikes me as fucked up.) Like I said, he is a form of the left-right coalition that Counterpunch has been actively soliciting for a while now, which by defending Roberts you are promoting. That's very dangerous ground, and I'd recommend you fucking Google the guy before you go defending him.

[Rakhmetov]

Juan Fernando Carpio is on that list--- a hispanic of libertarian right-wing persuasion. Does the fact that Carpio appeared on the radio show mean he is a self-hating hispanic??? Or a bigot??? Maybe he was on that show just because he espoused libertarian values (albeit the right-wing variety).

[graymouser]

Juan Fernando Carpio is on that list--- a hispanic of libertarian right-wing persuasion. Does the fact that Carpio appeared on the radio show mean he is a self-hating hispanic??? Or a bigot??? Maybe he was on that show just because he espoused libertarian values (albeit the right-wing variety).
Dude claims to be a descendant of a Spanish conquistador. Are you really going to keep going down this road?

[DaringMehring]

And Chomsky was on Alex Jones.

I don't know him but seems to me this guy is probably politically garbage. But if he writes essays that take the working class side, and doesn't fill them up with racist dreck, then what reason is there to criticize the essays?

And, as the thread-starter asked, what is the significance of someone who was in the Reagan administration (and is apparently super-far right) writing an essay saying Marx and Lenin got it right?!

[graymouser]

And Chomsky was on Alex Jones.

I don't know him but seems to me this guy is probably politically garbage. But if he writes essays that take the working class side, and doesn't fill them up with racist dreck, then what reason is there to criticize the essays?

And, as the thread-starter asked, what is the significance of someone who was in the Reagan administration (and is apparently super-far right) writing an essay saying Marx and Lenin got it right?!
In context? Not much. Fascists and Nazis back in their periods of ascent had a great deal of rhetoric that sounded "left" to someone who wasn't politically well attuned. It never panned out once they were in power, of course.

Paul Craig Roberts is an old-school conservative and is very much anti-immigrant, although in the writing he directs towards progressives this is downplayed. He strikes me as an opportunist who's mostly using Counterpunch to sell books which promote a kind of nationalist, isolationist thought as "anti-imperialism" and "anti-capitalism." For instance, he is a sharp critic of modern capitalism for letting "our jobs" go to China or to undocumented (he uses the term illegal, but I won't) immigrants. This should be identifiable by progressives as right-populism. Why the hell should we be impressed if he says a nice thing about Marx and Lenin?

[DaringMehring]

I wouldn't say I'm "impressed" nor am I nominating this guy for any kind of political office or leadership. Yes, he is obviously right-populist.

But can you deny that the fact that this type of person is willing to publish something saying Marx and Lenin "got it right" must have some kind of political significance?

Probably he is a shameless self-promoter, as you say. But again, what does it say, that this guy sees praising Marx and Lenin as a means of self-promotion?

[Rakhmetov]

What do you think about this???


[/URL]


[URL]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110313_universal_deceit.htm (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110214_egyptian_revolution.htm)

[graymouser]

What do you think about this???


[/URL]


[URL]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110313_universal_deceit.htm (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110214_egyptian_revolution.htm)
I think you are linking a white nationalist site in defense of Paul Craig Roberts.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From the links (which are from a nativist/rightist website):

"Marx and Lenin, and their disciple Pol Pot..."

"The Soviet Empire... collapsed because the ruling class, the communists themselves, changed their minds, acknowledged the wrongness of their system, and let go of it."

I think you're embarrassing yourself.

[Jose Gracchus]

What the fuck is wrong with Counterpunch?

[graymouser]

I wouldn't say I'm "impressed" nor am I nominating this guy for any kind of political office or leadership. Yes, he is obviously right-populist.

But can you deny that the fact that this type of person is willing to publish something saying Marx and Lenin "got it right" must have some kind of political significance?

Probably he is a shameless self-promoter, as you say. But again, what does it say, that this guy sees praising Marx and Lenin as a means of self-promotion?
It says that he's selling to an audience who like Marx and Lenin. It's a small audience - but then that's all he can get since he became a crank. Paul Craig Roberts is a white nationalist, anti-immigrant, paleoconservative who also happens to endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories. Are we supposed to have some degree of respect for the guy because he said something nice about Marx?

[Obs]

i think you are linking a white nationalist site in defense of paul craig roberts.

"why can't i dig myself out of this hole?!"

[Sosa]

wouldn't it be easier to say you were wrong at this point? or will you continue your defense of this guy by linking right-wing websites?

[Rakhmetov]

I see this is the time for a SELF-CRITICISM Session :crying:

I will admit that I was wrong for promoting Roberts, but then again, I was not cognizant of all his views. I let his passing endorsement of some socio-economic views of Marx & Lenin cloud my judgement of his overall political ideology. :(

[el_chavista]

In Marx’s day, religion was the opiate of the masses. Today the media is. Let’s look at media reporting that facilitates the financial oligarchy’s ability to delude the people.
May be it is for the crisis time being -a revolutionary situation we seem to be far from taking advantage of- but this conservative writes cool :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

And Chomsky was on Alex Jones.

I don't know him but seems to me this guy is probably politically garbage. But if he writes essays that take the working class side, and doesn't fill them up with racist dreck, then what reason is there to criticize the essays?

And, as the thread-starter asked, what is the significance of someone who was in the Reagan administration (and is apparently super-far right) writing an essay saying Marx and Lenin got it right?!

Lassalle spearheaded the German workers' breakaway from the liberal Progressive Party, in no small part by secret dialogue with the conservative Bismarck.

Meanwhile, Third Periodism failed to the extent that it did not differentiate left-nationalists from the rest of the bunch.

There are lessons to be learned here.

[Jose Gracchus]

Presuming Lassalle's work was principled...this guy...isn't Bismarck. Or even close. More like a weird völkisch mystic from back then that no one listens to...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Lassalle spearheaded the German workers' breakaway from the liberal Progressive Party, in no small part by secret dialogue with the conservative Bismarck.

Meanwhile, Third Periodism failed to the extent that it did not differentiate left-nationalists from the rest of the bunch.

There are lessons to be learned here.

So now you're promoting Lassalle?

Who's next, Jim Jones?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ferdinand Lassalle: balanced assessment of a German workers' leader (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferdinand-lassalle-balanced-t150158/index.html)

[graymouser]

Lassalle spearheaded the German workers' breakaway from the liberal Progressive Party, in no small part by secret dialogue with the conservative Bismarck.
Lassalle's bizarre attempt to court Bismarck certainly made it easier for Marx and Engels to uproot his legacy and replace his ideas with their own in forming the social democracy. Doesn't have anything to do with a leftist-turning-libertarian courting a dried-up, paranoid white nationalist who happened to be in a reactionary cabinet a few decades ago.


Meanwhile, Third Periodism failed to the extent that it did not differentiate left-nationalists from the rest of the bunch.
That's both gnomic and irrelevant.


There are lessons to be learned here.
Maybe, but you're not drawing them.

[graymouser]

What the fuck is wrong with Counterpunch?
Alex Cockburn is too much of a contrarian for his own good, basically. His site has gone from being an indispensable tool on the left (back before 2008 I read it almost daily) to a place that hosts a paleocon with white nationalist ties, flirts with 9/11 truthers, and is generally drifting in a right-libertarian way. Hell, Cockburn has taken up denying anthropogenic climate change.

Counterpunch, by its nature, always had a little bit of a capacity for attracting nutcases. But in its case it seems to have gone into a vicious circle of nutbaggery, to the point where it promotes people like Roberts to the point of publishing his book.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lassalle's bizarre attempt to court Bismarck certainly made it easier for Marx and Engels to uproot his legacy and replace his ideas with their own in forming the social democracy. Doesn't have anything to do with a leftist-turning-libertarian courting a dried-up, paranoid white nationalist who happened to be in a reactionary cabinet a few decades ago.

That's both gnomic and irrelevant.

Maybe, but you're not drawing them.

The point is that some right-populist forces can be better partners of convenience for disseminating left programs within the working class than most liberals.

Read the History thread link. In Italy, Lassalle's posthumous reputation until the beginning of the 20th century was still bigger than those of the more "theoretical" Marx and Engels.

[graymouser]

The point is that some right-populist forces can be better partners of convenience for disseminating left programs within the working class than most liberals.

Read the History thread link. In Italy, Lassalle's posthumous reputation until the beginning of the 20th century was still bigger than those of the more "theoretical" Marx and Engels.
I read your link. It doesn't change the fact that Lassalle's ideas were wrong and were correctly superseded by Marxism.

And you haven't proven your point about right-populist forces. The fact is that the left needs to steer well clear of people like Paul Craig Roberts. You can't court people like this with clean hands, and the left-right alliance would require dropping key programmatic demands that should not be negotiable. There was a good discussion of this question (dealing mostly with the idea of a left-right antiwar coalition, which is de facto what Counterpunch is doing) from Socialist Action last year:

http://www.socialistaction.org/marie6.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

The point is that some right-populist forces can be better partners of convenience for disseminating left programs within the working class than most liberals.

Read the History thread link. In Italy, Lassalle's posthumous reputation until the beginning of the 20th century was still bigger than those of the more "theoretical" Marx and Engels.

I read your link. It doesn't change the fact that Lassalle's ideas were wrong and were correctly superseded by Marxism.

Lassalle was a much better political agitator than Trotsky ever was. His Open Letter is woefully underrated.


And you haven't proven your point about right-populist forces. The fact is that the left needs to steer well clear of people like Paul Craig Roberts. You can't court people like this with clean hands, and the left-right alliance would require dropping key programmatic demands that should not be negotiable. There was a good discussion of this question (dealing mostly with the idea of a left-right antiwar coalition, which is de facto what Counterpunch is doing) from Socialist Action last year:

http://www.socialistaction.org/marie6.htm

I made way more controversial posts last year or two years ago on left-right alliances of conveniences than schmoozing with Paul Craig Roberts (luckily I was corrected before refining limited left-right common work further). Moreover, I made even more controversial posts on the subject outside the board with a couple of more mature RevLeft posters.

Nonetheless, here's another sample:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/secti-t148561/index.html?p=1997882 (re. common work for proportional representation)

Guess which populist party comrade Zanthorus and I were referring to with regards to its position relative to the UK Lib Dems?

P.S. - Visit the relevant thread in the Third Periodist user group.

[Dimentio]

Not everyone excluded from the mainstream media is necessarily promoting something useful. Conspiracy theorists with ideas about alien reptiles seizing control of the White House probably wouldn't get a lot of space in The New York Times for instance.


I wonder what would happen if national news would put up conspiracy theories like if they were real? Like if we would see a newscast saying, "today, HAARP attacked Japan because the Zionist states are angry at Japan for not allowing immigrants". :lol:

[Gorilla]

I wonder what would happen if national news would put up conspiracy theories like if they were real? Like if we would see a newscast saying, "today, HAARP attacked Japan because the Zionist states are angry at Japan for not allowing immigrants". :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6ThpZ1iyFY

[graymouser]

Lassalle was a much better political agitator than Trotsky ever was. His Open Letter is woefully underrated.
What a bizarre qualification! And what a weird derail.


I made way more controversial posts last year or two years ago on left-right alliances of conveniences than schmoozing with Paul Craig Roberts (luckily I was corrected before refining limited left-right common work further). Moreover, I made even more controversial posts on the subject outside the board with a couple of more mature RevLeft posters.
So are you trying to excuse Counterpunch's work toward a left-right alliance? Because I really think that "schmoozing" with white nationalists is beyond the pale for people who call themselves leftist revolutionaries. It's not a question of tactics, it's programmatic compromise in support of a deadly enemy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So are you trying to excuse Counterpunch's work toward a left-right alliance? Because I really think that "schmoozing" with white nationalists is beyond the pale for people who call themselves leftist revolutionaries. It's not a question of tactics, it's programmatic compromise in support of a deadly enemy.

Has Counterpunch published any anti-immigrant sentiment a la Lou Dobbs, or has it retained an anti-war focus?

[graymouser]

Has Counterpunch published any anti-immigrant sentiment a la Lou Dobbs, or has it retained an anti-war focus?
They've continued more or less putting out similar things to what they did before - and they've generally covered for Paul Craig Roberts by not putting forward his pieces that actually touch on immigration. Again, are you covering for them and saying that alliance with white nationalists is fine as long as you maintain an acceptable "focus"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

They've continued more or less putting out similar things to what they did before - and they've generally covered for Paul Craig Roberts by not putting forward his pieces that actually touch on immigration. Again, are you covering for them and saying that alliance with white nationalists is fine as long as you maintain an acceptable "focus"?

I never said "white nationalists." I said "some right-populist" forces.

Read this thread too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-popular-and-t148739/index.html

The poster I quoted mentioned PR as an acceptable field for joint-work-of-convenience with some right-populist forces. For me, ditto with anti-war agitation and related work. It depends on who's on the other side, and the issue at hand.

Both Trotsky and Stalin were politically bankrupt on the question of "fronts." Social corporatism is not the way to go.

[Amphictyonis]

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is amazing. Why would a former conservative change his ideological convictions???

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03292011.html

"Marx & Lenin Reconsidered"


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10072009.html

I've written Cockburn and company and asked why they circulate his articles- the reply I received was a sort of "well, we're trying to reach a large audience" and my reply was a sort of "well, it's hard for me to read counterpunch with the combination of both liberal and paleo-conservative bunkum I see". Counterpunch seems to be a melting pot of liberals, 'greens' and paleoconservatives. It's not a great site for sound socialist analysis.

[graymouser]

I never said "white nationalists." I said "some right-populist" forces.

Read this thread too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-popular-and-t148739/index.html

The poster I quoted mentioned PR as an acceptable field for joint-work-of-convenience with some right-populist forces. For me, ditto with anti-war agitation and related work. It depends on who's on the other side, and the issue at hand.

Both Trotsky and Stalin were politically bankrupt on the question of "fronts." Social corporatism is not the way to go.
You really have no ground to be calling anyone "politically bankrupt," with your whole defense of "Caesarism." And "social corporatism" is not a real political term. But anyway.

Anti-war work is a good example of this, because there really are right-populist forces at work around the anti-war movement, and there has been a good deal of dialogue with them. However, in the US today what is deepening and broadening the anti-war movement is a commitment to drawing together the issues of the war and the economy. The crucial slogan of "Money for education, jobs, and healthcare - not for war" has enabled us to broaden our reach and become suddenly relevant to dozens of struggles around the country, in a way that we never could with simply "Bring the troops home now."

If we went into a front with right-populist forces, whether they were white nationalists like Paul Craig Roberts or more simply right-wingers like the Libertarians or the 9/11 Truthers, we wouldn't be able to raise this demand. It'd be limited to the demand "bring the troops home now," which while it's a good demand, has simply lost its traction on a mass scale. As long as you are in an "agitational front" with right-populism there is no way to effectively move toward transitional demands that no longer accept the logic of the capitalist system. (I'm not claiming that "money for xxx not for war" is transitional, but it's a step in the right direction.) The "PR" collaboration with the right wing is still a faustian bargain we can't afford.

[RED DAVE]

The point is that some right-populist forces can be better partners of convenience for disseminating left programs within the working class than most liberals.Which "right-populist forces," specifically, are you advocating partnership with?


Read the History thread link. In Italy, Lassalle's posthumous reputation until the beginning of the 20th century was still bigger than those of the more "theoretical" Marx and Engels.Uhh, things have changed in the past 110 years or so.

Let's see: You support Kautsky, one of the authors of the massive betrayal of the world working class at the beginning of WWI. And you obviously have a jones for Lasalle, who tried to form an alliance with Bismark. Who's next on your list? Bernstein? Willy Brant?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You really have no ground to be calling anyone "politically bankrupt," with your whole defense of "Caesarism."

Permanent revolution is politically bankrupt too, and that's Third World Caesarean Socialism.


And "social corporatism" is not a real political term.

How is it not a "real political term"? Not all corporatism is fascist, being a group of political siblings (hint: not twins, triplets, etc. but very related).


If we went into a front with right-populist forces, whether they were white nationalists like Paul Craig Roberts or more simply right-wingers like the Libertarians or the 9/11 Truthers, we wouldn't be able to raise this demand.

"Libertarians" or whatever are not what I had in mind with regards to "some right-populist forces."


As long as you are in an "agitational front" with right-populism there is no way to effectively move toward transitional demands that no longer accept the logic of the capitalist system.

Transitory action platform agitation (not worthy of the term "transitional demand" at all) starts with some form of economism. Trotsky merely continued the slippery slope argument of Boris Krichevskii.


The "PR" collaboration with the right wing is still a faustian bargain we can't afford.

"Democracy" didn't bring Hitler about, since he maneuvered into the government before seizing power.


Who's next on your list? Bernstein? Willy Brant?

They coalesced with liberals, so by definition they're excluded from Populist Front considerations.

[Amphictyonis]

While you boys were arguing about Paul Craig Reagan (Roberts) I killed a dragon and gained 15 points!

[graymouser]

How is it not a "real political term"? Not all corporatism is fascist, being a group of political siblings (hint: not twins, triplets, etc. but very related).
You constantly bastardize terminology that Marxists used so that they could try to understand the world they were living in. It's the surest sign of a political crank. "Social corporatism," being related to a political notion that itself was incoherent (fascist corporatism), gains the same incoherency.


"Libertarians" or whatever are not what I had in mind with regards to "some right-populist forces."
Well, then stop beating around the bush and tell us what right wingers you are salivating to do PR work with! I'm not a mind reader, and am presenting real world examples, not ones from your imagination.


Transitory action platform agitation (not worthy of the term "transitional demand" at all) starts with some form of economism. Trotsky merely continued the slippery slope argument of Boris Krichevskii.
Actually, transitional demands transcend economism by demanding that every purely economic struggle become a political struggle.


"Democracy" didn't bring Hitler about, since he maneuvered into the government before seizing power.
I never said he didn't. But the only thing that can stop fascists is counter-mobilization. You can't do this while kissing their asses for "PR" purposes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You constantly bastardize terminology that Marxists used so that they could try to understand the world they were living in. It's the surest sign of a political crank. "Social corporatism," being related to a political notion that itself was incoherent (fascist corporatism), gains the same incoherency.

I think the old term "social fascism" has been lost on you.


Actually, transitional demands transcend economism by demanding that every purely economic struggle become a political struggle.

That's precisely Krichevskii's line. There's a difference between focusing on political struggles, a number of which then spill over into economic struggles, and the notion of growing political struggles out of economic ones.


I never said he didn't. But the only thing that can stop fascists is counter-mobilization. You can't do this while kissing their asses for "PR" purposes.

Now look who's putting words into my mouth? I never said "fascists." I said "some right-populists." :rolleyes:

[graymouser]

I think the old term "social fascism" has been lost on you.
The old term "social fascism" was a pseudo-Marxist term used to isolate and disorient the Communist Parties, and the slogan contributed in a concrete way to the rise of "real fascism" in Germany. Attempting to rehabilitate it or add nuance is a disgusting joke, like most of your attempts at "Marxism."


That's precisely Krichevskii's line. There's a difference between focusing on political struggles, a number of which then spill over into economic struggles, and the notion of growing political struggles out of economic ones.
When the working class is immersed in economic struggles, it is necessary to fight to convert them into political ones. Which of course you wouldn't understand.


Now look who's putting words into my mouth? I never said "fascists." I said "some right-populists." :rolleyes:
Stop being vague and tell us what "right-populists" you are champing at the bit to do "PR work" (i.e. class collaboration) with.

[chegitz guevara]

Jacob, you've really gone off the deep end. Get involved in some real movement work, instead of just doing pure thinking.

The problem of our times is not trying to recapture the movements of the past, but creating a new one for our times.

[Gorilla]

I can't really follow this thread. Is someone arguing for a popular front with the Mises Institute or something?

[Crux]

Jacob, you've really gone off the deep end. Get involved in some real movement work, instead of just doing pure thinking.

The problem of our times is not trying to recapture the movements of the past, but creating a new one for our times.
And here I was suddenly very happy that Die Neue Zeit is politically irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The old term "social fascism" was a pseudo-Marxist term used to isolate and disorient the Communist Parties, and the slogan contributed in a concrete way to the rise of "real fascism" in Germany.

It's not a term used exclusively by Marxists. The Greek "Inclusive Democracy" guy Fotopoulos uses it to describe Blair, Schroeder, and their ilk. The surveillance state of Blair is a notable but not necessary symptom.

How can you dispute the indisputable fact that "social democracy" is not just reformist, but inherently corporatist? [And no, as I said earlier, fascism is not better called "corporatism" because not all corporatism is fascist.]


When the working class is immersed in economic struggles, it is necessary to fight to convert them into political ones. Which of course you wouldn't understand.

Actually, I've read a lot, lot more about this subject than you have. You should look up Broad Economism.


Jacob, you've really gone off the deep end. Get involved in some real movement work, instead of just doing pure thinking.

The problem of our times is not trying to recapture the movements of the past, but creating a new one for our times.

The bigger problem, comrade, is the fact that there's too much emphasis on academic analysis, prognosis, etc. while the "movementism" keeps moving slowly here and there with sloganeering, and not enough emphasis on out-of-the-box worker solutions.

[RED DAVE]

Which "right-populist forces," specifically, are you advocating partnership with?Considering the fact that you seem to have little or no actual experience in being an activism, an answer to this very specific question would be nice.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

I too would like a concrete example of which "right populists" are acceptable.

[palotin]

Just to be clear, this effort at an alliance between left and right is not confined to Counterpunch. Alexander Cockburn now publishes regularly in the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles. For Chronicle's relationship to white nationalism, simply Google 'Sam Francis', 'Thomas Fleming' and 'League of the South', or just check out the current issue which features a review of French racial nationalist Guillaume Faye's book Archeofuturism, which is published by the same press behind National Anarchist Troy Southgate's printed works.

The other paleocon paper of note, which tends to do a better job of confining its neo-confederate/white nationalist sympathies to a subcurrent, The American Conservative, has actively pursued an anti-war left/right alliance. Last year an entire issue was devoted to this subject, with published versions of presentations at a colloquium attended by such luminaries as The Nation's publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel. Cockburn has a column in that as well, though I in no way want to suggest that he is the common denominator in all this.

Personally, I recognize that there are legitimate right-wing reasons to oppose American militarism and am not going to reject out of hand the possibility for tactical alliances against the Security State. But, and it's an impossibly large 'but', any such alliance must be of the most provisional sort. Cockburn and co. do not give any indications that they are particularly concerned with the aura of legitimacy they confer on racists when they unconditionally keep public company with them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stop being vague and tell us what "right-populists" you are champing at the bit to do "PR work" (i.e. class collaboration) with.


Which "right-populist forces," specifically, are you advocating partnership with?


I too would like a concrete example of which "right populists" are acceptable.

In the Canadian political situation, for instance, "Red Tories" might be acceptable. They've been driven out of the Conservative Party and lack of proportional representation has hindered any attempt to regain mass support. Again, it's about proportional representation, anti-war efforts, and maybe a few other points here and there, and little else.

Meanwhile, I don't know where you'd place the American "Radical Center" on the populist political spectrum.

[RED DAVE]

In the Canadian political situation, for instance, "Red Tories" might be acceptable. They've been driven out of the Conservative Party and lack of proportional representation has hindered any attempt to regain mass support. Again, it's about proportional representation, anti-war efforts, and maybe a few other points here and there, and little else.(emph added)

You are politically (a) dumb as dirt; (b) ignorant; (c) a social democrat.

This is what you want to ally with in Canada:


Red Toryism derives largely from a British Tory and imperialist tradition that maintained the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified, if members of the privileged class contribute to the common good. Red Tories supported traditional institutions like religion and the monarchy, and maintenance of the social order. Later, this would manifest itself as support for the welfare state. This belief in a common good, as expanded on in Colin Campbell and William Christian's Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, is at the root of Red Toryism.(emph added)

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory#Philosophy


Meanwhile, I don't know where you'd place the American "Radical Center" on the populist political spectrum.(emph added)

Meanwhile, you are sputtering like a candle about to go out. There is no "Radical Center" in American politics. What you are dealing with is liberalism.


Michael Lind, in his 1996 publication Up From Conservatism, writes that, though American radical centrism is today a minority political philosophy, it was, in fact, the dominant political philosophy within the United States from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt through Lyndon Johnson — a philosophy that was shared both by the presidents of that era and the majority of the American people. Therefore, Lind argues, the American "radical" centrism of today is simply the adamant pursuit for a return to the once-mainstream political principle of New Deal economic progressivism coupled with a moderate cultural conservatism. This modest cultural conservatism would be exemplified on the political stage simply by the "radical centrist" politician's refusal to politicize or advocate culturally-liberal issues like abortion or gay rights. However, the radical centrist politician might spurn any influence or pressure coming from the Religious Right and other socially conservative groups (i.e. pro-life advocates, school prayer advocates, etc.)(emph added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)#History_of_the_terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_%28politics%29#History_of_the_terms )

Every time you post, you demonstrate that you're a social democrat. Why not move over to Other Ideologies and get it over with. Maybe you can make an alliance with the Technocracy crowd.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is what you want to ally with in Canada

I read a British "Red Tory" article that caricatured Margaret Thatcher to make her look like Che Guevara. It wasn't complimentary. :rolleyes:


Meanwhile, you are sputtering like a candle about to go out. There is no "Radical Center" in American politics. What you are dealing with is liberalism.

That's not liberalism at all. Note the "moderate cultural conservatism" that's incompatible with liberal philosophy, and also the economic aspect of the Radical Center can be more left-populist than liberal. Read more of Lind's recent articles instead of the wiki.


Every time you post, you demonstrate that you're a social democrat. Why not move over to Other Ideologies and get it over with. Maybe you can make an alliance with the Technocracy crowd.

Look who's the social-democrat! Keep tailing the tred-iunion yellow bureaucratic scum. United Fronts are as politically bankrupt as Popular Fronts. :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

I read a British "Red Tory" article that caricatured Margaret Thatcher to make her look like Che Guevara. It wasn't complimentary.You just completely and dishonestly ignored the political content of what I posted and made a major political charactization based on a caricature. You are advocating an alliance with standard right-wingers, which shouldn't surprise anyone at all.


Tory and imperialist tradition that maintained the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified, if members of the privileged class contribute to the common good.You are, at best, a social democrat.


That's not liberalism at all. Note the "moderate cultural conservatism" that's incompatible with liberal philosophy, and also the economic aspect of the Radical Center can be more left-populist than liberal. Read more of Lind's recent articles instead of the wiki.You are gobbling like the political turkey you are. Liberals can be culturally conservative, liberal, even flirt with radicalism. But they are politically liberal. You obviously don't understand liberalism or American politics in general.


Look who's the social-democrat! Keep tailing the tred-iunion yellow bureaucratic scum. United Fronts are as politically bankrupt as Popular Fronts. :rolleyes:So says the man who advocates caesarist dictatorship over the working class. As for working inside unions, when you've got a better strategy, that you have attempted to put in practice, by all means let us know.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are advocating an alliance with the standard right-wingers, which shouldn't surprise anyone at all.

"Standard right-wingers" don't like right-populism. I could lump Georgists, mutualists, Islamic banking advocates, etc. into my Populist Front Tactics and Communitarian Populist Front Strategy proposal.


So says the man who advocates caesarist dictatorship over the working class. As for working inside unions, when you've got a better strategy, that you have attempted to put in practice, by all means let us know.

The Chartists (or at least the Left Chartists) and the pre-war SPD executed one better strategy while the Paris Commune executed another: proletarian-not-necessarily-communist class parties and Communitarian Populist Fronts.

[RED DAVE]

You are advocating an alliance with the standard right-wingers, which shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
"Standard right-wingers" don't like right-populism.You are one politically ignorant motherfucker. All you have to do is look at US politics right now and you will see right wingers of all stripes creaming in their pants about the tea baggers who are classic right-wing populists.


I could lump Georgists, mutualists, Islamic banking advocates, etc. into my Populist Front Tactics and Communitarian Populist Front Strategy proposal.Lump away. Your politics are a bag of garbage into which and out of which you dump anything that strikes your fancy.


So says the man who advocates caesarist dictatorship over the working class. As for working inside unions, when you've got a better strategy, that you have attempted to put in practice, by all means let us know

The Chartists (or at least the Left Chartists) and the pre-war SPD executed one better strategy while the Paris Commune executed another: proletarian-not-necessarily-communist class parties and Communitarian Populist Fronts.Gobbledy gook and red herrings.

Your strategy, which is what we are discussing, is an alliance with right-wing populists right now. This is at best social democacy and at worst ... who the fuck knows? It is more and more clear that your so-called Marxism is a cover for a great affection for authoritarianism.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

It's not a term used exclusively by Marxists. The Greek "Inclusive Democracy" guy Fotopoulos uses it to describe Blair, Schroeder, and their ilk. The surveillance state of Blair is a notable but not necessary symptom.
If Fotopoulos uses the term "social fascism," that only helps to discredit him in the eyes of anyone who understands the history of the Comintern. It's a theory crafted from pure horseshit and has no more value than that. Your insistence that it can be rehabilitated through a nonsense "social corporatism" is further signal that you are an irrelevant crank.


How can you dispute the indisputable fact that "social democracy" is not just reformist, but inherently corporatist? [And no, as I said earlier, fascism is not better called "corporatism" because not all corporatism is fascist.]
How can I dispute it? Because social democrats didn't bring bosses into the workers' unions! That is the essence of corporatism. For all social democracy's sins, trying to add corporatism to the list is a filthy lie.


Actually, I've read a lot, lot more about this subject than you have. You should look up Broad Economism.
Are you really calling me out on not being well-read enough? For fuck's sake, man. You know who the first Google hit on "broad economism" is? You. Reading Lars Lih and the ramblings of the demented CPGB neither makes you well read nor shows an iota of understanding.

Ironically Socialist Action, through its understanding of united front work and political mass action as being fundamentally working class action, is dramatically less "economist" by any measure than the other Trotskyist groups out there. But you know, that contradicts your misunderstanding of Trotskyism so it rolls off, like water off a duck's back.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your insistence that it can be rehabilitated through a nonsense "social corporatism" is further signal that you are an irrelevant crank.

It's the difference between class independence and strategic class collaboration.


How can I dispute it? Because social democrats didn't bring bosses into the workers' unions! That is the essence of corporatism. For all social democracy's sins, trying to add corporatism to the list is a filthy lie.

No it isn't. What about those tripartite arrangements between Government, Businesses, and Unions? That was derived from "economic parliaments" conceived on the left and among the fascists, but these "parliaments" were not based on either equal ordinary suffrage or direct representation. Go read Hilferding for the left take and the Charter of Carnaro and one specific Hitler remark in Mein Kampf.

[RED DAVE]

It's the difference between class independence and strategic class collaboration.Considering that you seem to approve of LaSalle's attempt to form an alliance with Bismark, I sincerely doubt that you understand these concepts. After all, you are

I notice that you have not yet commented on my exposure of your bullshit about American and Canadian politics.


No it isn't. What about those tripartite arrangements between Government, Businesses, and Unions? That was derived from "economic parliaments" conceived on the left and among the fascists, but these "parliaments" were not based on either equal ordinary suffrage or direct representation. Go read Hilferding for the left take and the Charter of Carnaro and one specific Hitler remark in Mein Kampf.No one has ever said that the social democrats are not guilty of class collaboration, but you obviously don't understand the difference between social democracy and fascism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Considering that you seem to approve of LaSalle's attempt to form an alliance with Bismarck

You've clearly forgotten our earlier exchange on the short duration of and probably extreme conditions for such coalition:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-private-capitalism-t146042/index.html?p=2018072


I notice that you have not yet commented on my exposure of your bullshit about American and Canadian politics.

I don't think you know half as much as you say you know about the Radical Center, let alone Red Toryism.

[RED DAVE]

Considering that you seem to approve of LaSalle's attempt to form an alliance with Bismarck
You've clearly forgotten our earlier exchange on the short duration of and probably extreme conditions for such coalition:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-private-capitalism-t146042/index.html?p=2018072You clearly approve of class collaboration with a bourgeois monarchy. Marx had Lasalle's number:


I asked him a question regarding the numerical strength of the Lassallians in the ranks of the Internationalists.

"The party of Lassalle," he replied, "does not exist. Of course there are some believers in our ranks, but the number is small. Lassalle anticipated our general principles. When he commenced to move after the reaction of 1848, he fancied that he could more successfully revive the movement by advocating cooperation of the workingmen in industrial enterprises. It was to stir them into activity. he looked upon this merely as a means to the real end of the movement. I have letters from his to this effect."

"You would call it his nostrum?"

"Exactly. He called upon Bismarck, told him what he designed, and Bismarck encouraged Lassalle's course at that time in every possible way."http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/022.html

What a guy!


I notice that you have not yet commented on my exposure of your bullshit about American and Canadian politics.
I don't think you know half as much as you say you know about the Radical Center, let alone Red Toryism.I notice that you have not yet commented on my exposure of your bullshit about American and Canadian politics.

RED DAVE