A "good" thing if Ron Paul wins...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Under his platform there is the fact that he states he will pull all troops back to the US which is good (if actually done). However, do you guys think that it would be good for Ron Paul to win, so his Ultra-Capitalist agenda can help jump start the working classes into action?

I mean, his constant battle against government aid to the poor and sick, and against the government regulation. His extreme laissez faire view pint would in turn cause the working class to be dragged further down into debt and despair.

Would that in turn finally cause the working class in the US to say "that is enough"?

Maybe it would be a means to an end in some way?

I don't know I am just thinking out loud. Not that I support Ron Paul in anyway, or any other political figure in the world today. I'm just trying to think of a brighter side of things. What do you guys think?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think he would make Democrats more appealing to working class people.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think he would make Democrats more appealing to working class people.

That's not what I would be aiming for. I find it frustrating beyond belief that people just go "this year I'll vote Republican" and when they get screwed as usual they go "but THIS time I'll vote Democrat!" and then back and forth til infinity and beyond...

As if anything will change because of this or that vote...

[Smyg]

Only good thing I can see is people realising how fucked up the right is...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That's not what I would be aiming for. I find it frustrating beyond belief that people just go "this year I'll vote Republican" and when they get screwed as usual they go "but THIS time I'll vote Democrat!" and then back and forth til infinity and beyond...

As if anything will change because of this and/or that vote...
Well of course it's not what we would be aiming for if Ron Paul was elected but Democrats would definitely try to steer any movement against Ron Paul's measures into their election campaign strategies like they did in Wisconsin. So I don't necessarily see things turning so great for the left just because Ron Paul gets elected.

[A Marxist Historian]

That's not what I would be aiming for. I find it frustrating beyond belief that people just go "this year I'll vote Republican" and when they get screwed as usual they go "but THIS time I'll vote Democrat!" and then back and forth til infinity and beyond...

As if anything will change because of this or that vote...

Yes. A few years of Paul as president, and a lot of working people would be saying bring back the Democrats, and maybe invading other countries is not such a bad thing after all if the alternative is something like Ron Paul. A great way to make US imperialism popular with US working people.

Problem is the obvious one. You need a real alternative that people can take seriously, a revolutionary working class party with serious roots in the trade unions and mass organizations that people can take seriously. Until then, it will continue to be the Demos or Republicans or apathy and despair.

-M.H.-

[Misanthrope]

American presidential elections really don't have any basis in the real world.. It's like professional wrestling.

[ВАЛТЕР]

American presidential elections really don't have any basis in the real world.. It's like professional wrestling.

Haha I LOVE that comparison. So true! :)

[socialistjustin]

I dont like "the worse, the better" strategy or line of thinking as it wont work and millions more people will be fucked while his policies are signed into law. So everybody will get fucked and we will no closer to revolution.

[Sasha]

he got as much chance of winning as al sharpton ever had for the democrats...

[Commissar Rykov]

he got as much chance of winning as al sharpton ever had for the democrats...
So less than zero? The reality is the Bourgeosie would never let a nutter like Paul into power as he is a danger to Capital due to his shitty theories and batshit insane ideas.

[Rufio]

I dont like "the worse, the better" strategy or line of thinking as it wont work and millions more people will be fucked while his policies are signed into law. So everybody will get fucked and we will no closer to revolution.
I agree, I see this whether implicitly or not in quite a lot of letist talk. I don't think it works like that, the US is the most right wing country in the developed world, the result so far is the tea party. If you look at where they have the biggest, most organised and active lefts, it's the countries with 'centre left' governments (in the developed world at least).

Plus as you say, it's hard to want things to be worse for people in the hope that this will make them more active, even if it did work I'd find that difficult to advocate.

[MattShizzle]

the US is the most right wing country in the developed world

QFT. And that's why it's the best place to be wealthy and the worst to be poor outside the 3rd world (and a worse place to be poor than even some 3rd world countries.)

[Tabarnack]

American presidential elections really don't have any basis in the real world.. It's like professional wrestling.

True, american presidents are selected, not elected...

[Rocky Rococo]

Electing Ron Paul president would make about as much difference as electing Barack Obama did, which is to say, none nil nada zilch. Just a new Chief Spokesmodel for Hegemony.

Just Spectacle, Dancing With the Political Stars, tawdry and empty of any content that could be useful to anyone but the existing ruling elite. That ruling elite in turn gets to behave like an American equivalent of the Iranian "Guardian Council", winnowing down the field of "acceptable" candidates by alternatively designating them as "electable" or "unelectable". The only functional definition of this "electability" appears to be "viewed as a ready and reliable executor of the will and interests of the hegemonic elite."

May they all rot in hell, under bright tv lights.

[CynicalIdealist]

I'm beginning to wonder if I would choose Paul over Obama if I was forced to choose between the two of them. However, due to Ron Paul's foreign policy views (his only saving grace), he'll never get the corporate donations/media attention necessary to win.

So yeah, don't even worry about it.

[Mnemosyne]

If it was down to Paul and Obama, my vote would be with Paul 100%.

Almost everything I have read on this forum so far about Paul has been overwhelmingly false... for what it's worth.

[Crux]

HJqlqZ13qeE
He's also anti-Choice and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I am sure we could list much much more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. The President as a lone figure isn't a powerful enough figure to carry out ambitious campaign promises. Look at how Obama's promise to close Guantanamo Bay ended up.

2. Ron Paul is an enemy of working people. Full stop.

3. The idea that we should hope for things to get really bad so that working class people rise up is anathema to the empathy that we as Socialists should have. It is also something that is often voiced by people who aren't of the working class, as they then cannot empathise with what it would mean, for example, to cut off all government aid, healthcare and free education.

[Mnemosyne]

No. He isn't anti-choice- he is anti federal mandate. He would overturn Roe vs. Wade because it is unconstitutional.

Abortion should be a local and state decision. Sorry, but you can't eliminate the religious goons out there- so let them go live in their own version of Utopian Alabama and we can have solace without them. ;)

Actually- the president can do quite a few things. 1) he can Veto bills... a power Obama, Bush and most of the lemmings before them weren't terribly fond of because they were under the corporate thumb. 2) anything which was unconstitutionally done via executive order can be UNDONE... IE: invasion of Iraq, Libya, foreign occupation of more than half the planet... the list goes on.

Enemy of the working people? Please explain this. The true enemy of the working people: the massive corporate elite, has full power right now.

You think that free education, healthcare and aid could not exist if not done by government?
TRUE socialism and altruism have only ever been evidenced in libertarian societies. Only when the people are truly free can they afford (not just monetarily) to do as they please- which for many is to care for others and for some, it isn't.

This is why socialism has never, and in my opinion, will never, function as a correct example of the system. You cannot force everyone to give a shit. Those who DO care and are willing to give in taxes for it to be distributed by the government as assistance, have been proven in plenty of studies (sociological experiments on altruism) to give MORE when it is without the middle man.

We need to remember that political systems are usually created in a dark room by candlelight via brooding idealism. Cultural anthropology, psychology and sociology create the truths we need to consider when dealing with the practical application of these systems.

In a classical libertarian society, should say, New York as a state decide to become entirely socialist, this would be 100% within their power to do. (Hence the term Libertarian Socialist) However, in a socialist society, libertarianism can not exist.

Do I think Ron Paul is the savior of mankind? Most definitely not. Do I think he is genuine and would work to form a less restrictive society for people to live and function within? (as in, the one created by our constitution) Absolutely... assuming he doesn't get assassinated first.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you a capitalist, Mnemosyne?

[Hexen]

Are you a capitalist, Mnemosyne?

Very most likely, should s/he be restricted?

[KevlarPants]

This is why socialism has never, and in my opinion, will never, function as a correct example of the system. You cannot force everyone to give a shit. Those who DO care and are willing to give in taxes for it to be distributed by the government as assistance, have been proven in plenty of studies (sociological experiments on altruism) to give MORE when it is without the middle man.

Socialism doesn't force you to give a shit. It makes it so that there isn't anything for you to give a shit about.

[Seth]

Yeah, states can be as tyrannical as they want as long as just the federal government isn't taking your rights.

One of the things that made me disillusioned with libertarianism in the first place. It's quite literally empty and contradictory, about states and capitalists, not individuals.

[Crux]

No. He isn't anti-choice- he is anti federal mandate. He would overturn Roe vs. Wade because it is unconstitutional.

Abortion should be a local and state decision. Sorry, but you can't eliminate the religious goons out there- so let them go live in their own version of Utopian Alabama and we can have solace without them. ;)
He is anti-choice and has stated so clearly, it is true that he does not want any federal laws prohibiting abortion, but that's about it. This is an undefensible position. This is rolling back women's rights.

[Seth]

Also it's pretty hypocritical for anyone on the right to ever accuse Obama of ever having a cult again. Ron Paul's is easily worse. The only difference is that it's much smaller, the only thing that makes them relevant is that they've mastered the interwebs, unlike larouche or something.

[Hexen]

Yeah, states can be as tyrannical as they want as long as just the federal government isn't taking your rights.

Well the working class never had "rights" to begin with all along....It's actually the wealthy few (the capitalists) are the ones who have rights.

[Tim Cornelis]

Enemy of the working people? Please explain this. The true enemy of the working people: the massive corporate elite, has full power right now.

Allowing for 24-hour shifts, and meager wages, doesn't sound like an ally of the working class.


TRUE socialism and altruism have only ever been evidenced in libertarian societies. Only when the people are truly free can they afford (not just monetarily) to do as they please- which for many is to care for others and for some, it isn't.

Altruism is universal, it exists in every single society, in every time-period.


This is why socialism has never, and in my opinion, will never, function as a correct example of the system. You cannot force everyone to give a shit. Those who DO care and are willing to give in taxes for it to be distributed by the government as assistance, have been proven in plenty of studies (sociological experiments on altruism) to give MORE when it is without the middle man.

It seems you think wealth redistribution is socialist whilst it is clearly not.


In a classical libertarian society, should say, New York as a state decide to become entirely socialist, this would be 100% within their power to do. (Hence the term Libertarian Socialist) However, in a socialist society, libertarianism can not exist.

No, the state cannot decide that (even leaving the theoretical discussion--socialism in one country--aside), it would be constitutionally limited in power. Socialism cannot exist in a classical liberal society because private property would be defended by law (i.e. force). Thus, if we were to implement socialism (by socializing property) we would be arrested.

EDIT: As Seth pointed out:

"Yeah, states can be as tyrannical as they want as long as just the federal government isn't taking your rights."

"In a classical libertarian society, should say, New York as a state decide to become entirely socialist, this would be 100% within their power to do. (Hence the term Libertarian Socialist) However, in a socialist society, libertarianism can not exist."

So if the state of New York decides to be fascist, a truly "libertarian" society would allow for it since it isn't the federal government?

EDIT 2:

It isn't called "libertarian socialist" because a state in a classical liberal (libertarian) society can choose to be socialist. It's called libertarian socialism because it aims at the maximisation of freedom through the elimination of social hierarchy. Otherwise, if the state of New York decided to become 100% fascist it would be called "libertarian fascism" because they decided to do so.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In brief I feel it is dangerous and counter productive for libertarian ideas to become popular. They are obviously wrong and work to retard the development of class consciousness. Paul does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the republican primary but it would not be good for him to do well or for socialists to give him any support or publicity.The far right can do that very well on their own without any help from leftists.

None of the republican candidates are rational. In addition, despite media hype none of them are at all popular. The role of leftists right now should be to point out exactly how scary and dangerous their ideas are, without however giving the least bit of support to the Dems.Socialists should point out that the republicans are able to get away with their bizarre irrationality and outright lies because of the absence of a meaningful left alternative in the US.

[graymouser]

No. He isn't anti-choice- he is anti federal mandate. He would overturn Roe vs. Wade because it is unconstitutional.
Pardon my French, but who gives a fuck if Roe v. Wade is "unconstitutional"? The constitution was a document written to determine the rules of the contest for power between the rising northern bourgeoisie (split at that time between the merchants and the relatively small industry) and the southern slavocracy. It broke down at the Civil War when the industrial bourgeoisie and the slavocracy could no longer function together and both needed to win decisive supremacy. The worship of this scrap of paper is part of why politics in the US is a cesspool.

The right to an abortion was won in a period of intense social conflict, and with social movements in the streets for it. A constitution is not a fixed thing hanging above history and social relations, and it only goes precisely as far as the social relations underlying it. The whole game of whether a law is "constitutional" or not is simply one part of a broad spectrum of weapons in the political debate, it isn't some eternal truth. Roe v. Wade happened because social pressure without it would have been too great, and it was a victory of the period's radicalization.


Abortion should be a local and state decision. Sorry, but you can't eliminate the religious goons out there- so let them go live in their own version of Utopian Alabama and we can have solace without them. ;)
And that means we should take a massive step backward, and abandon women in every state where social conservatives can get a majority in the legislature? What an act of political cowardice and surrender.

We should instead demand that the state governments be abolished, root and branch. Hell, it should've been done after the Civil War - the failure to take action on this has allowed all sorts of injustices to be perpetrated on a state by state level. State legislators do not live on pure concentrated corruption and venality, but they come pretty goddamn close. Why should these filth and their corrupt little political machines be granted even more power?


Enemy of the working people? Please explain this. The true enemy of the working people: the massive corporate elite, has full power right now.
Yes, and the working class and its allies will only ever achieve power by dumping all of their representatives, whether progressive, conservative or libertarian. Paul stands for a lunatic element in the petty bourgeoisie who dream of a wonderland of deregulated capitalism which would mean a return to the conditions of 19th century capitalism for the vast majority.

It wouldn't move the cause of socialism ahead one iota - in fact, Paul's vision would mean more "right to work" states and the destruction of what little remains of organized labor, with no real alternative. The whole working class movement would be scattered and atomized, hired and fired at will, and the rich would finish sucking things dry. Now, I don't think they would go with Ron Paul because he doesn't support their grand imperialist vision; but as the crisis deepens, the first fascist forces could find their support in the very same movements that work to elect Ron Paul.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think looking for some kind of a compromise between Socialism and Libertarianism is defeatist and counterrevolutionary. No compromises should be given, this is an all or nothing affair.

[#FF0000]

In a classical libertarian society, should say, New York as a state decide to become entirely socialist, this would be 100% within their power to do. (Hence the term Libertarian Socialist) However, in a socialist society, libertarianism can not exist.

Nah this isn't true. New York alone wouldn't be able to produce enough to get rid of the capitalist mode of production. At best they'd organize a different way to produce under capitalism.

[eric922]

I never thought I'd say a Ron Paul supporter outside the OI sections of these forums. Ron Paul is a senile old fool, dreaming of a utopia that never existed. He has made up this magical free-market paradise where the market will solve all problems.

He even admits it has never happened. He was on the Daily Show the other night and Jon asked him if he wanted a return to the Industrial Revolution type economics and Ron Paul said something like "no that was pure free-market capitalism." Sorry, to say, Paul but that is as close as you will get to a pure free-market, because the government must exist to prop up capital. His theories and ideas are completely unrealistic.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think you understand Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism or politics/political economy at all, for that matter.

Whether he is genuine or not is irrelevant, he's a genuine right-wing libertarian. Genuinely free markets = genuine Corporate power + genuine poverty. Look at the history of the USA.

If you think that the President can override both the military-industrial complex and the power of corporations, then you really are as naive as you're letting on.

I can't even be bothered to explain why an extreme-right libertarian pro-free markets ideologue is an enemy of working class people.:rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

I never thought I'd say a Ron Paul supporter outside the OI sections of these forums. Ron Paul is a senile old fool, dreaming of a utopia that never existed. He has made up this magical free-market paradise where the market will solve all problems.

And libertarian magic dust. Don't forget about the libertarian magic dust.

[Mnemosyne]

Wow so many replies! You folks really come crawling out of the woodwork when Ron Paul is mentioned yes?

I do not contain enough concern on the subject to address each of you in an effort to vehemently defend Paul... so I will do my best to respond to all subjects by memory... I am Mnemosyne after all. :)

For starters- I am not a 'Ron Paulite'. I said I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama should he get the nomination... which I stand by. Voting is absolutely useless but to refrain from participation on principle does nothing either.

On the subject of abortion.
Being a woman who has had one and who absolutely promotes using both the miscarry pill and the procedure AS a form of contraception, please do not lecture me on women's rights. I do not believe that any medical procedure should be guaranteed by the federal state. What is more important to me is that a bundle of cells which acts like a parasite dependent upon it's host for survival... does not have protected rights either. If a state wants to outlaw a procedure, I think that is fine. As a libertarian I do not agree with identifying rights for groups, only individuals.

Which brings me to the constitution... the document is what you make it. If we consider it in it's original text developed at the convention, I think it was an excellent idea. I am completely supportive of a union formed by various individual states who essentially each run their own ship based upon their own collective ideologies. I am unable to comprehend the reason behind the statements on the Civil War... which was a complete folly due to poor policy on behalf of the federal government to in fact, follow the constitution. I have a tingling sensation that someone will respond to this with the comment of 'So you think states should be able to legalize slavery?!?!?!?' No. Slavery, in my very humble opinion should have never been an issue in the first place as freedom of all individuals was already addressed in the constitution. It was an absolute failure of the people of the time to not enforce it and a sad compromise made during the Constitutional Convention.

Succession on the other hand should be entirely within any group or state's rights.

Now I come to my comments on socialism:
Whoever spoke on my mentioning of taxes and redistribution of wealth- yes, this is not pure socialism in the economic sense, but it is a socialism mentality. Pure socialism is simply distributing the wealth right out of the gate. However- I know of no instance where pure and correct socialism has existed... I have only seen it exist in the shadows of taxes on personal income or as a lost cause in fascist dictatorships. The 'Socialist Native American' argument is a good one, but anarchism and libertarianism describe those existences much more accurately.
If you have an example, please let me know. :)

New York become socialist?
If New York wanted to be socialize property they absolutely could. The entire point behind the constitution is that the Federal government does not govern the people, but protect them as individuals. Otherwise- to what benefit did any state or territory have of joining? The 5th amendment is the only area where private property 'rights' are mentioned... and I think you'll find that the exact words are, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If the people of New York state believe that 'just compensation' would be the benefits that come with a socialist society... so be it.

Altruism. Yes, altruism is 'real', as is objectivism, but this was not my argument. My discussion was of it as a governing sociological philosophy. Something, that I think you will find has only existed within Libertarian and Anarchistic societies across the globe.

On the argument of the working class: saying that he supports 24-hour shifts and meager wages is a poor argument and shows that your mindset is limited to the box of wage labor. A society who does not exist as an indentured servant to the state opens a door to unlimited possibilities in the areas of production and income.

Quite a few comments about capitalism equaling corporate power.... completely false. Otherwise the corporations today would not fight tooth and nail against a free market.

In my experience, it seems that many people attempt to understand how a free market works by applying it's principles to the way things are today. The big problem is that this excludes the guiding force behind capitalism which is as Adam Smith said... you can only have a truly free market when you have a truly free society.

Our society is not free and thus, no market system we were to impose on it now could be.

Being anti-wage labor and anti-currency.... I wouldn't really call myself a capitalist so don't press the ban button just yet. ;)

I must reiterate that my argument is not "RONPAUL2012"... my argument is that our current authoritarian corporatist elitism is a *****. Any opposition to the norm I see as a good thing. I will gladly give my vote to a genuine and honest man over a corporate puppet any day of the week.

Even IF Ron Paul could not do anything against the 'powers-that-be', including the military industrial complex... I believe his presidency would bring more awareness to the problem. Even IF Ron Paul implemented policies that would pave the streets for disaster... such happens to be the perfect environment for a revolution, which, as far as I can tell, is going to be the only action which begets actual change.


I do hope I covered all the issues and no one felt left out. :)

[MustCrushCapitalism]

"but THIS time I'll vote Democrat!" and then back and forth til infinity and beyond...


Most likely, but we still have some hope. Some. Very, very little.