Winning Over the Ron Paul Crowd

[DasFapital]

My brother is a fervent Ron Paul supporter. We agree on most everything about foreign policy, religion and the environment but when it comes to economics he is convinced the free market is the way to go. Its obvious that Ron Paul is bed with people who don't have the best interests of the working class in mind. Has anyone here had successes in converting Ron Paulians?

[The Idler]

Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics? | Anarchist ... (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html)

[Jimmie Higgins]

My brother is a fervent Ron Paul supporter. We agree on most everything about foreign policy, religion and the environment but when it comes to economics he is convinced the free market is the way to go. Its obvious that Ron Paul is bed with people who don't have the best interests of the working class in mind. Has anyone here had successes in converting Ron Paulians?No I haven't. Blind faith seems to be a thing with the die-hards. I've had some success winning individual arguments with people who aren't die-hards, people who were attracted to Ron Paul as an "anti-war" alternative. Often these people were kind of weird cynical liberals who went on to support Obama instead and only turned to Ron Paul because John Kerry had been so pro-war. So these people basically overlooked Paul's libertarian economic ideas and it was easy to argue that his politics were a dead-end for people against the war - they wanted some quick-fix election solution like Obama supporters.

If a Ron Paul supporter does believe that the market can be a utopia as soon as the bad "big-government" bureaucrats and evil unionists let the good bosses do their thing, then their support of Ron Paul is a side-issue to their faith in markets. Go from there if you want to try and argue with them, separate the political ideas from their attraction to Paul as a figure.

[campesino]

I typed out a long response, and lost it, due to getting logged out.

too lazy to re-type.

try disillusion them with capitalism.

explain that in capitalism there is a government that makes and enforces the laws and that the government can be manipulated with money/political contributions. that those who have the money, can use their money to manipulate the government to their interest. what they call "crony capitalism"
they might respond with "they're will be anti-bribery, anti-corruption laws"
and respond with "who makes and enforces the laws.?"

[Ocean Seal]

They're really hard to win over. Its like winning over religious fanatics. Its very difficult to say that libertarianism doesn't work because it never has been tried. Unless you point to the gilded age or something, but then they'll say oh well that wasn't true "libertarianism".

[Deicide]

They're really hard to win over. Its like winning over religious fanatics. Its very difficult to say that libertarianism doesn't work because it never has been tried. Unless you point to the gilded age or something, but then they'll say oh well that wasn't true "libertarianism".

That's an argument used against us Commies all the time ;)

And a lot of ''Communists'' use the ''it wasn't true Communism'' line.

[Peoples' War]

Ask him what is to stop the most powerful corporations and private military/security firms from imposing a new state?

[Ocean Seal]

That's an argument used against us Commies all the time ;)

And a lot of ''Communists'' use the ''it wasn't true Communism'' line.
Its a fair point, but at least most people give legitimate reasons for how their brand of communism comes into being whereas lolbertarians just expect the state to disappear while they defend statist structures like corporations and so on.

[wsg1991]

libertarians on the right can be converted , but now is not the time ,

we need ron Paul to win the election first , he can be a difference in Foreign politics . But the failure of his economic policies is what you need to administer new ideas to such people

[Eagle_Syr]

I was briefly a huge supporter of Ron Paul and libertarianism a few years ago.

It is possible to convert hard right-wingers to Marxist ideology, but difficult. As I've said, I used to adhere, more or less, to Fascism (Mussolini, not Hitler) and even wrote essays defending the ideology. The last thing I'd ever feel connected to was the Left.

But in my case, I have always felt a sense of injustice in my heart both because of the things that have happened and the things I have seen and learned about. Relatives lost to wars, being nearly homeless on several occasions, not going to to the doctor for years...and watching the wastefulness and exploitation of those who claim you should be content.

I think you need to find people who have a strong moral compass, who know something is wrong, and help them understand exactly what.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you meet a Paulbot who's not an outright right wing racist... it's safe to assume he doesn't really follow politics, nor know much about RP. That's been my experience anyway.

I"ve never converted any. So I have no proscriptions. I can just say that they're mostly hipsters who don't vote or do anything political anyway. So they're not much of a "threat."

Two of my friends were/are big ol' Paulbots who would go on and on with me about how we don't need a communist revolution, but rather we need (R[Evol]ution! So primary Tuesday I came over and asked, "how'd the voting go?"

The response; "oh shit! I didn't even KNOW it was vote day..."

[Eagle_Syr]

If you meet a Paulbot who's not an outright right wing racist... it's safe to assume he doesn't really follow politics, nor know much about RP. That's been my experience anyway.

That's not at all true. Writing off his supporters is intellectually lazy. The truth is, he has broad support from the youth and they genuinely think capitalism, as libertarians present it, is a moral ideology.

We have to show them otherwise, not dismiss them


I"ve never converted any. So I have no proscriptions. I can just say that they're mostly hipsters who don't vote or do anything political anyway. So they're not much of a "threat."
But they would be if a workers' revolution happened


Two of my friends were/are big ol' Paulbots who would go on and on with me about how we don't need a communist revolution, but rather we need (R[Evol]ution! So primary Tuesday I came over and asked, "how'd the voting go?"

The response; "oh shit! I didn't even KNOW it was vote day..."
Voting will always be as useless for the libertarian cause as for the Marxist cause.

Voting works just to keep the game going between the D and the R

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not at all true. Writing off his supporters is intellectually lazy. The truth is, he has broad support from the youth and they genuinely think capitalism, as libertarians present it, is a moral ideology.

We have to show them otherwise, not dismiss them


But they would be if a workers' revolution happened


Voting will always be as useless for the libertarian cause as for the Marxist cause.

Voting works just to keep the game going between the D and the R

I must have phrased myself incorrectly, because you've totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. My apologies :lol:
1) I didn't mean to write them off. I meant to show that they are often intentionally uninformed. On top of that, most don't really know anything about his politics and economics. They're just really into "legalize weed, end the war." If you bring up his call to reinstitute segregation (make no mistake, that's exactly what he proposes) the most likely response is, "i'm sure you just misunderstand him."

2) They're not going to listen to your politics and economics either. They don't care. "End the war, smoke pot." That's all they heard. In fact, most of the Paulbots I know generally support communism, and not just in a "nice in theory" way. The point is that they are intentionally uninformed. They're mostly the anti-politics "personal revolution" crowd; meaning idealists. Perhaps this is the route we should take, materialism, I don't know.

3) We can't know which side Paulbots would take in the Revolution. The mises.org types are a given, they will support the state against us, hands down. Yet your general Paulbot is not a misesian, but a neo-hippie. In fact, seeing the large numbers of pascifists that support him, it would be safe to assume they would choose no side (which could or could not make them the enemy, but that's another discussion).

4) By "threat" I meant that they're not going to get Dr Paul elected. I wasn't calling for people to vote. I was pointing out that they don't.

I might still be wrong, but I hope that clears up any confusion about what I was saying :D

[Raúl Duke]

Ron Paul has a cult of personality that is (or was) pretty obscure in its politics to its own luke-warm supporters. Back in 2008, quite some people were clueless hippies or whatnot who liked the whole "end the war" sthick but were pretty ignorant on his reactionary policies regarding economics and his stance on the civil rights act.

Now, it seems to have evolved a bit where even these hippies buy into the whole "free markets will make things better!" It also became more "cult of personality-ish"/dogmatic when RonBots pathetically tried to protect their Dear Leader from allegation of racism, homophobia, etc. They're also pretty keen to do entryism into Occupy and convert everyone to their master.

Winning them over varies to who you talk to...they do have quite a few "true believers" who arguing with is the same as arguing with a wall.

[Eagle_Syr]

1) If you bring up his call to reinstitute segregation (make no mistake, that's exactly what he proposes) the most likely response is, "i'm sure you just misunderstand him." He has never called to re-instate segregation. You are misunderstanding him.

What he proposes would allow segregation ("free choice" as he calls it), but it isn't an outright call to bring back legal segregation


2) They're not going to listen to your politics and economics either. They don't care. "End the war, smoke pot." That's all they heard. In fact, most of the Paulbots I know generally support communism, and not just in a "nice in theory" way. The point is that they are intentionally uninformed. They're mostly the anti-politics "personal revolution" crowd; meaning idealists. Perhaps this is the route we should take, materialism, I don't know. He attracts alot of idealists and people who know that change is needed. This can be advantageous for us.

[Revolution starts with U]

He has never called to re-instate segregation. You are misunderstanding him.

What he proposes would allow segregation ("free choice" as he calls it), but it isn't an outright call to bring back legal segregation

I'm a sceptic, of people first. If you hang out with white supremacists, say racism is dead, and call to allow segregation... well..

Look, anybody who lives in the state, especially the southern or midwestern states should be immediately able to see that a call to "allow" segregation is a call FOR segregation. There's nothing illogical about it, I'm just listening to what his words say, not what he says.



He attracts alot of idealists and people who know that change is needed. This can be advantageous for us.

This I agree with. I just don't know a way to get them off his bandwagon. They dismiss any evidence because they are INTENTIONALLY apolitical... the ones who aren't die hard rightists.

[Eagle_Syr]

I'm a skeptic, of people first. If you hang out with white supremacists He doesn't

say racism is dead He doesn't


and call to allow segregation...

Look, anybody who lives in the state, especially the southern or midwestern states should be immediately able to see that a call to "allow" segregation is a call FOR segregation. There's nothing illogical about it, I'm just listening to what his words say, not what he says.
No, you are misunderstanding his argument. His argument is a propertian argument regarding "free choice". He is saying that people do not have to associate with others of another race if they are racist, as long as they do so privately, i.e. through "private property"

He has never called for the re-instatement of legally enforced segregation


This I agree with. I just don't know a way to get them off his bandwagon. They dismiss any evidence because they are INTENTIONALLY apolitical... the ones who aren't die hard rightists.
Class consciousness

[aty]

I have actually "won" one over, ok maybe not over to communism but. I started with asking if all the means of production that have not been accumulated by fair means in mutual trade would be expropriated when creating this new "free market society". Then I asked how he thought the initial land grab had occured, and who gave these persons the right to steal land and natural resources from everyone else.

And from there you can explain how capitalism is just a continuation of this privileged elite who owns all the means of production(means of production that never was theirs to own).

The liberals have a very hard time with this kind of argument actually. Many liberals are sort of stuck in the "liberal line" of philosophers and economicans that they never hear these basic arguments.

[Eagle_Syr]

Exactly. Land ownership is one of the most unjust, inhumane policies that has ever existed, because by definition it allows one class, the landowners, to literally be parasites and live off of the exploited labor of those who work the land.

Indeed, libertarians who defend property have a hard time defending why land can be owned since it is the product of nobody's labor. The homesteading principle and geolibertarianism are fair responses, to be sure, but still empower a privileged, landed parasitic elite.

[Ocean Seal]

Voting will always be as useless for the libertarian cause as for the Marxist cause.

Everything will be useless for the libertarian cause because it isn't grounded in materialism and is rather an ideological circle jerk about personal freedom. Besides Paulbots aren't exactly the most active "direct action" crowd so they don't really have any option besides voting and complaining that they are surrounded by sheeple.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That's an argument used against us Commies all the time ;)

And a lot of ''Communists'' use the ''it wasn't true Communism'' line.

No, no no... We just haven't Reached Communism yet!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, i have gotten a Ron Paul cultist to at least respect the socialist ideals of justice, equality and admit to the Labor Theory of Value. You have to act like you are similar to them, if they say "But i don't wanna have the state control everyone!" Then say "Good, i am a communist, not a State Capitalist, i agree with you, fuck the state! Get rid of the military the police, your corrupt judges!" then the uneasiness of you being a "commie" that wants to eat them goes and they feel like their whole conception of what they thought communists want, disappears and you can start talking scientifically and logically to them about what convinces you to call yourself a "communist", for instance like the fact that Labor Productivity has increased 85% since 1979 but workers real wages have stagnated since the 70's... how this lead to wide inequality etc. and that the only solution is a "self-determination of labor" (Yes, i invented this word and i use a lot of right wing rhetoric for my arguments since right wingers normally react to such trigger words). Also certain propaganda words like "welfare queens" and "get a job" that are brainwashed into their brains by the corporate media, I use to make my arguments, only i turn them on their head; for instance, i say "those corporate well fare queens getting billion dollar subsidies!" or "Making more money out of money (Capitalists) is a cancer on human working people. Get a Job, Bankster and Corporate CEO Bums!" Stuff like that seems to entertain them and make them take sides with you for the sheer word choice, since they know in fact that i am only spouting logical facts.

[Revolution starts with U]

He doesn't
He certainly does, and I can provide pics if you'd like.

He doesn't

He certainly did and I can provide quotes if you'd like.


No, you are misunderstanding his argument. His argument is a propertian argument regarding "free choice". He is saying that people do not have to associate with others of another race if they are racist, as long as they do so privately, i.e. through "private property"

He has never called for the re-instatement of legally enforced segregation

I never said he called for legally enforced segregation. He does call for the return to segregation tho. That cannot be denied, unless one is naive enough to believe the words of a bourgeois politician.

Class consciousness
Sure, but has it worked for you?

No, no no... We just haven't Reached Communism yet!

[Comrade Jandar]

Solution: Gulag for political re-education.

[Eagle_Syr]

He certainly does, and I can provide pics if you'd like.

I don't believe it. Even if some white supremacists support him, he does not support them


He certainly did and I can provide quotes if you'd like
Please do.


I never said he called for legally enforced segregation. He does call for the return to segregation though.

No, he calls for it to be allowed via the mechanism of private property. It's like the difference between saying crack cocaine should be legal and "let's all do crack!"

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't believe it. Even if some white supremacists support him, he does not support them

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_N2xt724wWs/TtkLjAhvoJI/AAAAAAAAFRs/9nOgLRnBvWs/s400/Ron%2BPaul%2Band%2BDon%2BBlack%252C%2BWhite%2BSupr emacist%2Band%2BFounder%2Bof%2B***************%252 C%2Band%2BHis%2BSon%252C%2BDerek%2BBlack%252C%2BAl so%2Ba%2BPiece%2Bof%2BShit.jpg

Don Black is the other guy in the photo.
You can look here too for other examples of his intimate relationship with the white supremacy movement.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/01/ron-paul-exposed-as-white-supremacist-by-anonymous/



Please do.

Here

America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I'm trying to find the video but I distinctly remember someone asking him if he thought that repealling the Civil Rights Act would lead to renewed segregation and his response was "come on, people aren't like that anymore."


No, he calls for it to be allowed via the mechanism of private property. It's like the difference between saying crack cocaine should be legal and "let's all do crack!"
This analogy might work if majorities of the population in certain regions wanted to smoke crack but couldn't. Yet in the real world, majorities of some states would have no problem segregating against blacks.


EDIT: his exact words; "there would be 0 signs (saying no blacks) and those shops would go out of business." Mathews than shows him a segregations sign and he says "that's ancient history (60 years ago)."

[Revolution starts with U]

Video here

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-says-he-would-have-voted-against-the-1964-civil-rights-act/

[Eagle_Syr]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_N2xt724wWs/TtkLjAhvoJI/AAAAAAAAFRs/9nOgLRnBvWs/s400/Ron%2BPaul%2Band%2BDon%2BBlack%252C%2BWhite%2BSupr emacist%2Band%2BFounder%2Bof%2B***************%252 C%2Band%2BHis%2BSon%252C%2BDerek%2BBlack%252C%2BAl so%2Ba%2BPiece%2Bof%2BShit.jpg

Don Black is the other guy in the photo.
You can look here too for other examples of his intimate relationship with the white supremacy movement.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/01/ron-paul-exposed-as-white-supremacist-by-anonymous/

He does not involve himself with white supremacists at the present moment, as far as I know.


I'm trying to find the video but I distinctly remember someone asking him if he thought that repealling the Civil Rights Act would lead to renewed segregation and his response was "come on, people aren't like that anymore."
How exactly is that him calling for segregation? It's just him blabbering about libertarianism, about "free choice of association"


This analogy might work if majorities of the population in certain regions wanted to smoke crack but couldn't. Yet in the real world, majorities of some states would have no problem segregating against blacks.

Libertarianism would say that this is simply free choice based on private property

You are either deliberately or unintentionally twisting his ideology. I'm no fan of libertarianism, believe me; but I do understand the distinction between calling for segregation to be allowed, and supporting legally enforced segregation

[campesino]

fuck the ron paulbots. they are just the most loud of a marginal group. I will preach what i preach and whoever comes and changes their mind, great, whoever ignore, avoid or attack communism, fuck'em

[campesino]

He does not involve himself with white supremacists at the present moment, as far as I know.

How exactly is that him calling for segregation? It's just him blabbering about libertarianism, about "free choice of association"



Libertarianism would say that this is simply free choice based on private property

You are either deliberately or unintentionally twisting his ideology. I'm no fan of libertarianism, believe me; but I do understand the distinction between calling for segregation to be allowed, and supporting legally enforced segregation

who cares if we are misrepresenting his ideology the right has no respect for truth, so should we show respect for their lies?

the ideology of capitalism/private property being beneficial to liberty is a lie.

[Eagle_Syr]

who cares if we are misrepresenting his ideology the right has no respect for truth, so should we show respect for their lies?

the ideology of capitalism/private property being beneficial to liberty is a lie.

I agree, but we will come across as ignorant and will never win them over so long as they think we are simply misunderstanding them.

[Revolution starts with U]

He does not involve himself with white supremacists at the present moment, as far as I know.

Anonymous says otherwise. Read the article bro, I didn't post it for nothing.


How exactly is that him calling for segregation? It's just him blabbering about libertarianism, about "free choice of association"

Read the thread again... I said "he says racism is dead" you said "he doesn't" I said "he does and I can quote him."
Check the video, he certainly does say "it's not like that any more."


Libertarianism would say that this is simply free choice based on private property

Yes, and how does this make your analogy any better?
Majorities of people in Alabama want to:
A) Smoke Crack
B) Segregate against blacks

Which do you think is more true?


You are either deliberately or unintentionally twisting his ideology. I'm no fan of libertarianism, believe me; but I do understand the distinction between calling for segregation to be allowed, and supporting legally enforced segregation
I addressed this when I said "I never said he wants to return to legally enforced segregation. He wants to, tho, allow segregation which means he wants to return to (let's say privately enforce) segregation."

[Eagle_Syr]

Read the thread again... I said "he says racism is dead" you said "he doesn't" I said "he does and I can quote him."
Check the video, he certainly does say "it's not like that any more." He is saying racism is not in the mainstream any more.


Yes, and how does this make your analogy any better?
Majorities of people in Alabama want to:
A) Smoke Crack
B) Segregate against blacks

Which do you think is more true?
This is irrelevant. He says the Alabamians have the right to decide what to do as "individuals". If most choose to be racist, that is their choice.


I addressed this when I said "I never said he wants to return to legally enforced segregation. He wants to, tho, allow segregation which means he wants to return to (let's say privately enforce) segregation." No. I want to allow heroin to be legal, but I don't want to use it or have others use it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you even listening to what I am saying? :confused:


He is saying racism is not in the mainstream any more.

Ya, that's what I said he said. Which means he thinks that if we allow business to segregate it won't happen, because racism is a thing of the past. That's rich coming from a guy with known ties to the white supremacy movement.


This is irrelevant. He says the Alabamians have the right to decide what to do as "individuals". If most choose to be racist, that is their choice.

Ya, and if Alabamans have a right to be racist, are racist, and we allow them to segregate, they are going to segregate based on race. Is this really that hard to understand? He's calling for a return to segregation.


No. I want to allow heroin to be legal, but I don't want to use it or have others use it.
Again this analogy might hold if majorities of people wanted to do heroin, which were that the case I would probably drop my call to end the criminalization of heroin.

[campesino]

I agree, but we will come across as ignorant and will never win them over so long as they think we are simply misunderstanding them.

so? who cares what they think or about winning them over. they misrepresent us. these people do not matter. they will leave their ideology when they get disillusioned. all we can d is let them see their policies being carried out so they can be disillusioned. but for now they are capitalist dreamers, and until reality wakes them up, they will remain so.

[Astarte]

To understand the potential, or actually, lack of potential in regards to "winning over the Ron Paul crowd", the question of class is indispensable.

Particularly, it must be remembered that the Paulite types represent the most reactionary layers of the petty bourgeoisie. This does not mean that the petty bourgeoisie as a whole is reactionary, and cannot be won over, but that by its very nature, it is a contradictory class owing to, in many cases, the "pre-capitalist" economic mode it attempts to engage in under modern capitalist hegemony.

In my opinion the Paulites, comprised of the most reactionary layers of the petty bourgeoisie are essentially lost, any working class people that have illusions in the Paulite movement can potentially be won over, but this is only because of their class, and it will take real experience as a member of the wage earning class along with knowledge for them to abandon Ayn Randism. If you want to win over petty bourgeoisie, better to steer clear of Ayn Randite Ron Paulites, and focus on small shop keepers who employ no one but themselves and are more grounded in reality.

[MuscularTophFan]

My father told me he was the only Republican candidate he would have considered voting for. I admit for a while I also thought very highly of Ron Paul. And than I learned more about him and than I distanced myself from him. Ron Paul has this really powerful cult of personally to him that I can't really explain.

Ron Paul's economic views are the most right wing of any of the GOP candidates. If Ron Paul had been elected president he probably gotten American into a depression by some of the insane stuff he purposed to do. He literally wanted to abolish the FED and abolish basically all of the government and go back to the gold standard. We would be hauling carts of gold around to pay for stuff. That's fucking insane.

Ron Paul also had many right wing views on social issues. He oppose abortion in all circumstances, and he supports the so called "Defense" of Marriage Act, which tramples on states right which Ron Paul claims he supports. He never addressed the immigration issue at all. And let's not forget that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.

Ron Paul also claims to be a constitutionalist but he would allow states to do ANYTHING they wanted. Does Ron Paul not realize that the US Constitution applies to all 50 US states?

Also please stop calling Ron Paul a libertarian. He's not a real libertarian because no true libertarian can support capitalism. Ron Paul is an anarcho capitalist. Pure and simple.

[Ready4Revolution]

Uh, I have some experience with it.
If he's not too closed minded, blind to other opinions, you could try the argument I used to persuade my friend away from Ron.
Ask if he considers himself a libertarian. He'll probably say that he is. Ask him what it means to him. He might answer something along the lines that he believes in keeping government control and regulation out of people's private lives. Well, ask him what the difference between being subject to the gov's various rules and selling your life over to the corporations and being subject to their rules is. The typical right-libertarian will probably say something along the lines of that it was a voluntary contract between two consenting individuals, and that government is not voluntary. Ask him what he considers citizenship, then. Also, the hard hitter that I used was asking if he believes in the so-called "Non-Aggression axiom/priniciple" that seems to be the plank of all right-libertarian philosophy. If he's of any philosophical depth while identifying as a libertarian, he'll probably say yes. Well, ask him if the working class are subject to that prinicple as well, or just the big money and hiearchy.
Meh. I'm a noob.
But, I am by no means justifying either gov or corporation coercion, I am a libertarian socialist, like the OP.

[Binh]

Maybe this video will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8rWyQgl-T4

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ron Paul using arguments from the post-reconstruction era to apologize for US Slavery:

ZAIEiqNO4Dc

No one says "segregation forever" now, but politicians still play on these tropes in coded ways. "States Rights" was the battle cry of the segregationists and so people know full well what is meant when a politician says he's for state's rights and against blacks "playing the race card"... and to be clear about it they can stand in front of a Confederate Flag for added emphasis and say things like: "I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.":rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Confederacy wanted to make all new states pro-slavery states
+
Confederacy struck first
=
You're a dumb shit, "Dr" Paul :rolleyes:

[MuscularTophFan]

Deal with it Paul cultists. It's officially over today.

Ron Paul misses cut to address delegates at Tampa convention

http://www.startribune.com/politics/162665586.html

Ron Paul ain't going to Tampa. Ron Paul ain't gonna contest Romney for the Republican nomination. Ron Paul ain't gonna be president. The "Ron Paul Revolution" is over.

[Raúl Duke]

To understand the potential, or actually, lack of potential in regards to "winning over the Ron Paul crowd", the question of class is indispensable.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I've met a petty bourgeois Paulbot...
Libertarianism in general may seem like an ideology geared towards the petty bourgeois...

But from what I can observe, a lot of Paultards are disillusioned young people who are politically naive and first came into the fold because of his anti-war, etc stances and then some slowly bought into the whole "End the Fed," gold standard, free market crap perhaps mostly out of a desire to be "alternative" to the Democrats and Republicans. They're also usually "politically dorky" types who despite being naive thing they "know the answer" and that this answer is "Ron Paul." Their insufferable attitude (the kind who thinks he's "political pundit maximus" kind and "seldom wrong"), their zeal, and their uncritical devotion to their "Dear Leader" actually turns away the 'apolitical' youth while I've actually had a better reaction talking to them with anti-capitalist themes back when Occupy existed in my town.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

what the fuck do you care if people support ron paul. Its the freaking USA what do you think that those people will support the labor party instead?

America is a waste of time,their people were already brain washed by media propaganda. People seek knowledge in CNN,and fox and other red neck channels,no surprise there.

Americans are sure that obama is a socialist,this already tells you that USA is already an brain washed country that will fuck up the whole world.


look even watch this video to prove what kind of idiots are in USA.
YNq78dZ3TnE

I really fell sorry for any socialist,commie,anarchist that lives in USA but face it your country is fucked up.

[Le Socialiste]

what the fuck do you care if people support ron paul. Its the freaking USA what do you think that those people will support the labor party instead?

America is a waste of time,their people were already brain washed by media propaganda. People seek knowledge in CNN,and fox and other red neck channels,no surprise there.

Americans are sure that obama is a socialist,this already tells you that USA is already an brain washed country that will fuck up the whole world.

I really fell sorry for any socialist,commie,anarchist that lives in USA but face it your country is fucked up.

Thanks for the solidarity, comrade. :rolleyes:

[campesino]

what the fuck do you care if people support ron paul. Its the freaking USA what do you think that those people will support the labor party instead?

America is a waste of time,their people were already brain washed by media propaganda. People seek knowledge in CNN,and fox and other red neck channels,no surprise there.

Americans are sure that obama is a socialist,this already tells you that USA is already an brain washed country that will fuck up the whole world.

I really fell sorry for any socialist,commie,anarchist that lives in USA but face it your country is fucked up.

I feel that if the revolution were to take place in america, most of the world would follow suit. So, i see it as a special role to be a leftist in the USA. This sentiment is not based on nationalism, but on the fact that the USA is the most major of capitalist countries, if capitalism is done away with here, there will be severe repercussions across the globe.

[MuscularTophFan]

I feel that if the revolution were to take place in america, most of the world would follow suit. So, i see it as a special role to be a leftist in the USA. This sentiment is not based on nationalism, but on the fact that the USA is the most major of capitalist countries, if capitalism is done away with here, there will be severe repercussions across the globe.
Speaking of propaganda one of the biggest propaganda lies out there is that the current US government is "capitalist." There is no such thing as capitalism anywhere in the entire world. Anyone who claims that is just as brainwashed as Faux news viewers who think Obama is a socialist.

[Luís Henrique]

There is no such thing as capitalism anywhere in the entire world. Anyone who claims that is just as brainwashed as Faux news viewers who think Obama is a socialist.

What?!

Luís Henrique

[cynicles]

I think the fact that the US is the major capitalist nation and centre of global imperialism is exactly why it population is so out of step on so many things in opinion. Israel, global warming, a willingness to explore Marxism and real Anarchism, the willingness of labour to fight back etc etc. You're just that much more saturated in the ideology of capitalism in America, its ethos permiates the air like a foul stench creeping over the plains. What sucks is being in Canada and watching infiltrate it's way up accross the border, I'm predicting that in several years time anti-american sentiment in Canada is going to take a majour spike after everything the Harper government has done, and I'm sure thats not a good thing since it tend to distract from teh centrality of capitalism as the issue.

[Luís Henrique]

Back to the OP,


My brother is a fervent Ron Paul supporter. We agree on most everything about foreign policy, religion and the environment but when it comes to economics he is convinced the free market is the way to go. Its obvious that Ron Paul is bed with people who don't have the best interests of the working class in mind. Has anyone here had successes in converting Ron Paulians?

There are no Ron Paulians where I live, so, no, I can't brag about "converting" Ron Paulites at all.

It seems to me that they are an exclusively American phenomenon, due to two particularities in American history: first, the peculiar abundance of land in the States, combined with the absence of a fully developed pre-capitalist exploitative mode of production (North of Mason-Dixon, anyway), that allowed American workers to realistically see themselves as prospective owners of means of production for so much time; and, second, the peculiar role of anticommunism as a national, and nation-defining, ideology in the United States, fostered by the fact that for half a century the US and the Soviet Union were the only two actual global powers and consequently necessarily bitter rivals in the great power games they played.

If so, it could be that the expression of anti-capitalist sentiments in the United States is blocked or thwarted, being extremely difficult to express them in a progressive, labour-oriented way. In that way, Ron-Paulism may well be a symptom of such suppression and thwarting, partially consisting in the crippled expression of anti-capitalist sentiment through capitalist, or capitalist-sounding, categories and terminology.

As such, the main and outstanding characteristic of Ron-Paulism is an discursive inversion, in which the real capitalist world is misanalysed as anything-but-capitalist, and "capitalism" is misconstrued as an ideology to oppose the capitalist (but misunderstood as non-capitalist) status quo.

Evidently, if this is correct, then the un-doing of Paulite ideology necessarily passes through the dispelling of such terminological conundrum. But there is an additional difficulty here, in that their peculiar use of the term "capitalism" has been sacralised (and became indeed a core ideological tenet), so that I doubt a direct confrontation of it can bring any Ron-Paulite back to his or her sences. So it would be necessary to circumvent this terminological issue by addressing the actual problems in capitalist society while temporarily refraining to correct their terminology, which is evidently difficult, and could even lead the person trying to do it into dangerous mistakes, because Paulite terminology isn't adequate to an actual analysis of a capitalist society, and because we aren't used to it and would quite probably end up mixing their terminology with ours, with quite probably misleading consequences.

Anyway, the point of such a debate doesn't seem to me to bring Paulites to oppose capitalism, but rather to bring them to realise that the precise way they chose to oppose capitalism (while calling it something else) isn't going to work, and, more than that, that the ghostly entity they call "capitalism" cannot exist in the real world without collapsing immediately into what we call capitalism, ie, the present system of things.

It seems to me that this requires discussing with them the actual consequences of economic competition; they don't seem to realise that competition necessarily leads to concentration, unless some external entity represses such concentration. Furthermore, it requires discussing with them the actual consequences of their proposed suppression of coercitive State functions without the eradication of private property and social inequality. They seem to believe "property" is a metaphysical relation between individuals and things, not a social relation between different individuals, and consequently to be unable to realise the necessity of State repression of threats against property. If this can be done with success, I imagine that their main ideological barriers against socialist reasoning could be possibly overcome.

Luís Henrique