President Talks About Gay Rights During Inaugural Speech [Archive]

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 00:12

http://monthlyreview.org/2001/05/01/the-queergay-assimilationist-split

Apparently, you’re not familiar with the socio-economic divides within the gay community. Instead you’re cheering some token remarks by the President as evidence of progress.

There are gays within the community that have vested interests in seeing the community build itself around a niche market and care less for social justice involving gays unless it involves enhancing this niche market. Many of them dislike the more vocal activist elements and even shun the activism of the past.

In an essay entitled “Endorsement of D’Amato=Betrayal,” Carmen Vasquez argued that those who question whether the progressive social justice agenda serves queers should ask the thousands of gays and lesbians on general assistance for whom budget cuts mean the difference between low-income housing and the street. Vasquez suggested the queer/gay assimilationist split “is a rift between those who want to be normal at any cost and those of us who believe gay liberation (and therefore reproductive rights) is a central and inviolable tenet of our struggle for freedom.”11 (http://monthlyreview.org/2001/05/01/the-queergay-assimilationist-split#en11) The idea of normal sexuality implies a culture of privilege that guarantees social injustice. A movement positioned to attain civil rights in some distant future, but to act today as power brokers for those who accept the prevailing social and economic system, has no room for sex radicals or gender deviant people of any kind, and much less for activists who seek to challenge the current social system. Leslie Cagan explains that,
…the divisions that we see in the gay movement now can certainly be traced back to the earliest days. In fact, it has only been magnified as we’ve gotten bigger and more institutions and organizations have been built. But there really is a profound difference between those people whose real agenda is about integrating out gay people into the various structures of this culture: the economic, the social, the cultural, the political.… And that’s one sort of thread, one perspective in this community. The other one which I certainly align myself with, as [do] the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process, is that we are critical of the whole ball of wax. And its not about integrating ourselves into this, its about adding. What the struggle for gay liberation does is to add another level of understanding about the nature of the oppression that we’re up against.
Debate over the D’Amato endorsement and the Millennium March dominated the November National Gay and Lesbian Task Force meetings held in November 1998 in Pittsburgh. The Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process held a number of open meetings during the conference. “You’ve betrayed women, people of color and poor people by endorsing D’Amato,” Robert Haaland of the San Francisco Tenants’ Union told Human Rights Campaign representatives during one session. Suzanne Pharr argued that a progressive movement has to address multiple concerns. She said, “To have single-issue politics means that we think that we’re only queer, and we’re not. We want to live fully in this society. Liberation is not about liberation of just a piece of oneself.…Do you want to create a better world or do you want to create a better world for queers?”12 (http://monthlyreview.org/2001/05/01/the-queergay-assimilationist-split#en12)

Read on, NGN. This is a very problem a lot of minorities have faced when dealing with civil rights in the United States.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd January 2013, 00:19

Some social conservative morality is rational. The gay lifestyle is more selfish because they don't take part in patriarchy, they don't have children, they can't be fathers so they don't need to get married. The only reason for gay marriage appears to be to condone a selfish, consumerist lifestyle.
Plenty of LGBT people have children of their own. Plenty more adopt. Plenty of heterosexual people have no children and want no children. So, what's your point?

It's the same as condoning drinking heavily or adultery, sodomy is objectification, it doesn't lead to happiness or fulfillment and it shouldn't be condoned.
So who appointed you and other social conservatives the arbiters of what does and doesn't make other people happy or fulfilled?

I've got a gay friend who doesn't go to gay pride marches, is against gay marriage and stopped being involved in the gay "scene" because he has some self-respect and he wants to develop himself.
Why does every bigot have a "I have a ____ friend" anecdote?

graffic

22nd January 2013, 00:26

Some LGBT people do adopt but it's not the same. They are not productive. And hardly any heterosexual couples "don't want children". A lot of couples who don't have children don't have them because of contraception problems or other problems. A much smaller number choose not to have any and yes, they are pretty selfish and I would go out on a limb and speculate that most of them probably would be happier if they had a child or two and perhaps even regret not having children.

Men are happier with their own family. Presumably you're aware of this so I have no idea why you bothered posting a reply.

Tenka

22nd January 2013, 00:45

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd January 2013, 01:01

Some LGBT people do adopt but it's not the same. They are not productive. And hardly any heterosexual couples "don't want children". A lot of couples who don't have children don't have them because of contraception problems or other problems. A much smaller number choose not to have any and yes, they are pretty selfish and I would go out on a limb and speculate that most of them probably would be happier if they had a child or two and perhaps even regret not having children.
Selfish = "seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." I fail to see how not having children qualifies as "being without regard for others." You seem to want to reduce human relationships to the level of livestock breeding productively, which is a totally fucked up worldview.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 01:01

http://monthlyreview.org/2001/05/01/the-queergay-assimilationist-split (http://monthlyreview.org/2001/05/01/the-queergay-assimilationist-split)

Apparently, you’re not familiar with the socio-economic divides within the gay community. Instead you’re cheering some token remarks by the President as evidence of progress.

I actually didn't make any value judgments, whatsoever, regarding the President's statement, this is something that you are projecting. However; this statement is absolutely one of any number of indications of the progress that has been made towards LGBT equality. I also find it very difficult to be upset that the President expressed support for gay marriage.

There are gays within the community that have vested interests in seeing the community build itself around a niche market and care less for social justice involving gays unless it involves enhancing this niche market. Many of them dislike the more vocal activist elements and even shun the activism of the past.

Read on, NGN. This is a very problem a lot of minorities have faced when dealing with civil rights in the United States.

Oh, Christ. I'm not completely sure what point you are trying to make by linking to this ponderous, and convoluted essay. It appears as if you are perhaps trying to point out that equal legal status for homosexuals is only but a small step, that does little, at least, in any immediate sense, to protect gays, and lesbians (or anyone else) from the predations of capitalism. If this is, in fact, the message that you are attempting to convey, my response is; no shit.

Ostrinski

22nd January 2013, 01:07

I figured it was only a matter of time until someone started a thread on this, so here goes;Hmm. Okay, I actually don't think this is the case at all. No one in their right mind still cares how much lip service the president pays to progressive causes anymore as he has reneged on them enough times so as to make any further lip service for such things almost a parody of the causes in question i.e. LGBT rights.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 01:23

Hmm. Okay, I actually don't think this is the case at all.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

No one in their right mind still cares how much lip service the president pays to progressive causes anymore as he has reneged on them enough times so as to make any further lip service for such things almost a parody of the causes in question i.e. LGBT rights.

In that case, I would ask you the same question I asked Lenina Rosenweg; What is it that you think the administration should be doing, in terms of advancing LGBT rights?

Lenina Rosenweg

22nd January 2013, 01:45

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 01:58

The Democrats did not expend much political capital, nationally or locally, in fighting for lgbt rights. On a state basis the Dems only supported same sex marriage when it was not politically risky. In Washington State it seems evident that the state Dems supported marriage equality as a distraction from the massive cutbacks in the state budget they were forcing though.

That's mostly accurate. It's also true that politicians, by nature, tend to be cautious and conservative creatures.

Obama did not support same sex marriage but "evolved" on the issue until opinion polls showed the majority of Americans support it and even then his support was very tepid.

That's pretty accurate.

What should Obama have done? The same thing he should have done with "single payer" national healthcare,
the same thing he should have done in bringing the criminal bankers to account, the same thing he should have done with nationalizing the insurance, auto, and banking industries and placing them under democratic public ownership, the same thing he should have done with closing Gitmo, ending the Forever War, demilitarizing the US economy, ending the racist war on drugs and what's been termed the New Jim Crow. When Obama was first elected there was mass outrage and people were seriously expecting Obama to be a "transformative leader" and bring about real change.The guy could have led a mass movement for radical change.

The fact that he didn't and the reasons why should be self evident.

Obama won't be running again and mainstream lgbt rights groups like the HRC, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, etc are solidly embedded in the Democratic Party.Mentioning Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and other civil rights battles of the past are an easy way of looking progressive while doing well, jack shit,

Those all sound like excellent ideas, however; it should be pointed out that the President does not have the power to unilaterally do most of those things.

You've made a number of suggestions about the welfare state, drug law reform, foreign policy, etc. However; you still did not answer my question. What would you like to see the administration do (Note; future tense.) to advance gay rights?

sixdollarchampagne

22nd January 2013, 03:09

The Democrats did not expend much political capital, nationally or locally, in fighting for lgbt rights. On a state basis the Dems only supported same sex marriage when it was not politically risky. In Washington State it seems evident that the state Dems supported marriage equality as a distraction from the massive cutbacks in the state budget they were forcing though.

Obama did not support same sex marriage but "evolved" on the issue until opinion polls showed the majority of Americans support it and even then his support was very tepid.

What should Obama have done? The same thing he should have done with "single payer" national healthcare, the same thing he should have done in bringing the criminal bankers to account, the same thing he should have done with nationalizing the insurance, auto, and banking industries and placing them under democratic public ownership, the same thing he should have done with closing Gitmo, ending the Forever War....

The fact that he didn't and the reasons why should be self evident.

Obama won't be running again and mainstream lgbt rights groups like the HRC, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, etc are solidly embedded in the Democratic Party.Mentioning Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and other civil rights battles of the past are an easy way of looking progressive while doing well, jack shit,

I thought the first two paragraphs of Lenina's post, above, were valuable: they told me facts I did not know before. The third paragraph, listing all the betrayals through inaction, of the Democratic administration, was impressive.

Given that, at this late date, it was/is totally predictable that any Democrat, in office or seeking office, will betray, given that, as Lenina concedes, the truth about the Democrats is "self evident," shouldn't the far-left have mercilessly attacked the illusions people had in Obama and his pro-war, imperialist party? What I observed in the 2008 campaign was just the opposite: with very few honorable exceptions, the whole US "left" lined up behind the Democratic candidate (though I haven't looked up CWI's position on the 2008 election – maybe they didn't).

And, so, as always, when adults claim to have been fooled by the Democrats again, I wonder: how many times do the Dems get to betray, before politically aware people grasp the obvious, that betrayal is the Democratic Party's modus operandi? If I know that, surely others do too.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 03:43

I thought the first two paragraphs of Lenina's post, above, were valuable: they told me facts I did not know before. The third paragraph, listing all the betrayals through inaction, of the Democratic administration, was impressive.

Given that, at this late date, it was/is totally predictable that any Democrat, in office or seeking office, will betray, given that, as Lenina concedes, the truth about the Democrats is "self evident," shouldn't the far-left have mercilessly attacked the illusions people had in Obama and his pro-war, imperialist party? What I observed in the 2008 campaign was just the opposite: with very few honorable exceptions, the whole US "left" lined up behind the Democratic candidate (though I haven't looked CWI's position on the 2008 election – maybe they didn't).

And, so, as always, when adults claim to have been fooled by the Democrats again, I wonder: how many times do the Dems get to betray, before politically aware people grasp the obvious, that betrayal is the Democratic Party's modus operandi? If I know that, surely others do too.

It's because no matter how much the Dems shift rightward, politically "savvy" people will always consider them the lesser of two evils. Mitt Romney was so scary to them that they would drop all dreams of a viable alternative and vote Democrat, probably knowing full well that the Dems will betray them.

And I also want to add that this constant "betrayal" is not really betrayal. It's a concerted effort by the Dems to lure a voting bloc to the polls. Much like the right wing panders to the Christian right.

Lenina Rosenweg

22nd January 2013, 03:51

That's mostly accurate. It's also true that politicians, by nature, tend to be cautious and conservative creatures.

That's pretty accurate.

Those all sound like excellent ideas, however; it should be pointed out that the President does not have the power to unilaterally do most of those things.

You've made a number of suggestions about the welfare state, drug law reform, foreign policy, etc. However; you still did not answer my question. What would you like to see the administration do (Note; future tense.) to advance gay rights?

Obama is the chairman of the executive committee of the ruling class.I don't really "want" nor expect him to do anything progressive or opposed in any way to those whose interests he's been chosen to represent.

In the best of all possible worlds though I would like to see the administration take political risks and actually lead a movement for lgbt (not just gay) rights.I would like to see an aggressive mass mobilization for equality for all those who are seen as different by society.A mass education campaign. Strong anti-hate crime laws.Obama could have intervened in the horrific CeCe McDonald case-this would have been far more meaningful than any cheesy inaugural speech.He could have spoken out against the extreme homophobic bullying of the NYCPD.

http://supportcece.wordpress.com/

Such a campaign for lgbt liberation can ultimately only be successful if its solidly rooted in a movement for worker's democracy-worker's control over production and distribution and challenges capitalist property relations. For permanent equality there also needs to be a dramatic change in the family system-equality for women and some sort of communalized housework and child rearing.

I am not holding my breath.

In 2008 the CWI very critically supported Nader, although admittedly this received criticism from elsewhere on the left.After the election instead of saying to Obama supporters, "how can you be so naive?", we said we fully empathize with people's desire for radical change but pointed out how ytthe corporate sponsored Democrats by definition are incapable of producing this change.

Ostrinski

22nd January 2013, 03:53

Indeed, RadioRaheem. There is no betrayal to be found or to be spoken of on the part of the Democrats as there is no real instance where they have been treacherous to their class, the bourgeoisie, at least not one that I can think of.

I'll say this, though, as there is a betrayal that takes place every four years here in the United States and in other countries during election season. That treachery is not when the Democrats all but unexpectedly do something the left doesn't like - the treachery, is when the left goes out and votes and/or shills for those very Democrats.

tl;dr, it's not the Democrats that betray the left and the working class, it's the left that betrays the left and the working class when they make conscious efforts to get Democrats into office.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 04:31

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 05:01

There aren't any viable alternatives, especially in the presidential race.

They won't come from the mainstream. What kind of radical says stuff like you do?

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 05:06

Obama is the chairman of the executive committee of the ruling class.I don't really "want" nor expect him to do anything progressive or opposed in any way to those whose interests he's been chosen to represent.

You may not expect the President to do anything really bold, and progressive, but, clearly, you want him to. I've just been trying to get you to sketch out what that; 'something' might be.

In the best of all possible worlds though I would like to see the administration take political risks and actually lead a movement for lgbt (not just gay) rights.

When I said; 'gay rights', I did not mean to imply I was excluding the 'B', or the; 'T', I figured that was sort of implicit, and I like to mix things up a bit.

I would like to see an aggressive mass mobilization for equality for all those who are seen as different by society.A mass education campaign.

What does this mean?

Strong anti-hate crime laws.

What do you feel was lacking from the '09 Matthew Shepard Act?

Personally; I'm totally against hate crime laws.

Obama could have intervened in the horrific CeCe McDonald case-this would have been far more meaningful than any cheesy inaugural speech.He could have spoken out against the extreme homophobic bullying of the NYCPD.

http://supportcece.wordpress.com/

That's more of a symbolic gesture, but at least it's something specific.

Such a campaign for lgbt liberation can ultimately only be successful if its solidly rooted in a movement for worker's democracy-worker's control over production and distribution and challenges capitalist property relations. For permanent equality there also needs to be a dramatic change in the family system-equality for women and some sort of communalized housework and child rearing.

First of all; that's way beyond the power of the presidency. Second; none of these things are really exclusive to the gay community.

In 2008 the CWI very critically supported Nader, although admittedly this received criticism from elsewhere on the left.

Rightfully so, although for the wrong reasons, I suspect. They should have been criticized for this because Nader never had a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning, and supporting his candidacy was tantamount to supporting President-then-candidate George Bush. In fact; Nader's campaign was a significant factor that led to George W. Bush becoming our 43rd President.

After the election instead of saying to Obama supporters, "how can you be so naive?", we said we fully empathize with people's desire for radical change but pointed out how ytthe corporate sponsored Democrats by definition are incapable of producing this change.

Radical change, like the working class taking control of the means of production, almost certainly will not occur via parliamentary means, and I can virtually guarantee it won't come about through the Democratic party. However; at this time, the working class isn't even seeking control over the means of production. What people want is jobs, affordable healthcare, and education, etc.

Major reforms don't just drop from the sky like presents, from the elites. That would be atypical. Reforms and concessions are always enacted in the White House, in Congress, in the courts, or in the state legislatures, that's where it always ends, but they begin in the streets. That's where we come in.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 05:24

They won't come from the mainstream.

There is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, of a third party candidate being elected President, in any kind of conceivable near future.

What kind of radical says stuff like you do?

One that knows what they are talking about. Just look at the track record of third party candidates. Even when the Socialist movement in this country was probably as large as it has ever been, dramatically larger than it is, now; Eugene Debs only got 6% of the vote. Nader got less than 3%. The most impressive third party presidential candidate in recent history was Ross Perot, in 1992, with almost 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. Furthermore; in the wake of Citizens United, the cost of running a presidential campaign, or any other kind, for that matter, has spiked substantially. Who, especially on the Radical Left, has that kind of capital? That's ignoring the party infrastructure, the hordes of experienced political operatives, etc., etc. I could go on, and on. The fact is; at this moment, there is no possibility, whatsoever of a third party candidate being elected president.We'd need to completely overhaul our campaign finance system (Which is not a bad idea.) to even make such a thing possible.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 05:27

I'll say this, though, as there is a betrayal that takes place every four years here in the United States and in other countries during election season. That treachery is not when the Democrats all but unexpectedly do something the left doesn't like - the treachery, is when the left goes out and votes and/or shills for those very Democrats.

tl;dr, it's not the Democrats that betray the left and the working class, it's the left that betrays the left and the working class when they make conscious efforts to get Democrats into office.

So; you're suggesting Radicals should vote Republican. That's.......interesting. However; I don't find it very persuasive.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 05:41

There is absolutely no possibility, whatsoever, of a third party candidate being elected President, in any kind of conceivable near future.

One that knows what they are talking about. Just look at the track record of third party candidates. Even when the Socialist movement in this country was probably as large as it has ever been, dramatically larger than it is, now; Eugene Debs only got 6% of the vote. Nader got less than 3%. The most impressive third party presidential candidate was Ross Perot, in 1992, with almost 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. Furthermore; in the wake of Citizens United, the cost of running a presidential campaign, or any other kind, for that matter, has spiked substantially. Who, especially on the Radical Left, has that kind of capital? That's ignoring the party infrastructure, the hordes of experienced political operatives, etc., etc. I could go on, and on. The fact is; at this moment, there is no possibility, whatsoever of a third party candidate being elected president.We'd need to completely overhaul our campaign finance system (Which is not a bad idea.) to even make such a thing possible.

So in essence what you're saying is the system holds a radical alternative candidate back at all costs, making it harder these days more than ever for a party to even form......and you want to work within that same system to enact social change?

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 05:42

So; you're suggesting Radicals should vote Republican. That's.......interesting. However; I don't find it very persuasive.

That's not what he said and you know it. Unless you're implying some bullshit Dem talking point about how voting third party is a vote for the right wing.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 05:50

That's not what he said and you know it.

It is; if you understand it. I don't think he understands what he is saying.

Unless you're implying some bullshit Dem talking point about how voting third party is a vote for the right wing.

It's not a talking point, it's a mathematical fact. A vote for an unelectable candidate, on either end of the spectrum, only helps the opposite side.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 06:24

So in essence what you're saying...

Not exactly. Part of the problem is that you are fusing two disparate statements.

...is the system holds a radical alternative candidate back at all costs, making it harder these days more than ever for a party to even form......

I don't think it's a deliberate conspiracy, or anything, although some actions have been taken to exclude third parties, etc. It's definitely not in the interests of the establishment parties to widen the playing field. However; for a number of reasons, the Democratic party has largely supported campaign finance reform. The thing is that what we really need is public campaign financing, which would probably necessitate a Constitutional amendment, which would be most easily obtained through pressuring the individual state legislatures.

The biggest roadblock is campaign finance. Before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates, running campaigns was an expensive business. Now that there are no limits; the cost is growing rapidly. Because of this, the control which special interests (Read: 'corporations.') are able to exert over our political process is increased. The increasing cost narrows the field of potential candidates to the select few who can acquire the prerequisite capital. Furthermore; if they want to stay in office, they had better toe the line, lest some corporation, or lobbyist group write a six-or-seven figure check payable to their opponents' reelection campaign. As I've been saying; this is, clearly, a massive loss for the working class.

and you want to work within that same system to enact social change?

Again; what I want isn't really the issue. I want an end to poverty. I want an end to war. I want the physique of a 17-year-old, etc., etc.

At this moment; we are not living in a revolutionary period. The working class is not ready to seize the means of production. It doesn't even look like we're close. That being the situation; it is the task of Radicals to be on the front lines fighting for the working class, defending their interests when necessary, and when at all possible; forcing reforms, and enacting concessions to empower the working class. You do that by defending, or, ideally, expanding the welfare state. You do that by legalizing gay marriage. You do that by reforming our drug laws so more workers, primarily blacks, and latinos, don't get incarcerated. You fight these; 'right to work' laws which are a fucking blatant assault on unions. Etc., etc. As I've said; these battles, if we are successful, must, inevitably end in the White House, Congress, the courts, or the state legislatures. Believe me; if there was any other way... Now; if we acknowledge that, and we're serious about that, one part of that is determining who holds those offices. Does it make any sense to devote all this energy protesting, etc., for gay rights, and then not voting against a candidate who runs on a homophobic platform? How is that constructive?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

22nd January 2013, 10:45

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

22nd January 2013, 10:59

Gays shouldn't be equal under the law because it condones a more selfish lifestyle that people with a conscience would rather not condone, not because they are homophobic, far from it, but because humans are happier when they are not selfish so people would prefer to condone and encourage what makes people happier and what is best for people and society.

Hehehe..oh you're not kidding!? :crying:
'Condones a more selfish lifestyle'...nope, nothing bigoted or homophobic there.
Idiot.

graffic

22nd January 2013, 13:19

Selfish = "seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." I fail to see how not having children qualifies as "being without regard for others." You seem to want to reduce human relationships to the level of livestock breeding productively, which is a totally fucked up worldview.

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence. The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create. Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

22nd January 2013, 13:40

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence. The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create. Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

YAAAAAAWN, yes, anyone who supports homosexual rights of any kind is just playing the PC card for brownie points blah blah blah. (Sure Obama may be doing this, who knows, but I'm not and I'm willing to bet most others on this forum aren't either).
But you're so right, if we let these selfish homosexuals do what they want and not make babies and / or have the wrong kind of 'marriage' or legally recognised union, we're doomed as a species. Doomed I tells ya!!
It's equally frustrating and amusing that you hold these views. Hope to fuck you never hold a position of authority or power.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

22nd January 2013, 13:50

You are in denial about what makes people happier.
Perhaps you should allow people to have the relationships and families that make them happy.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd January 2013, 15:07

You are in denial about what makes people happier. Men are happier with their own families. There's a number of people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies. If you legalize same sex marriage that person has an option to live for himself in a gay lifestyle and not reproduce or have his own family instead of being correctly swayed culturally towards the better and more fulfilling latter model.

If people are happier with their own families, how does denying marriage to same-ex couples help them achieve happiness?

Actually choosing to not have children does show a disregard for others. Giving life is a major component of our existence.

As a bald biological fact, it cannot be denied that humans in general are capable of reproduction. But just because something can be done (in this case, having children) does not mean that something should be done.

The homosexual sex act isn't "sexual love" the same way that heterosexual sex is because a component of "sexual love" is to reproduce and to create.

So sterile people shouldn't have sex? Why not?

Heterosexual sexual love brings life, which is the opposite of death. To anyone with self-respect that makes that act more erotic and embracing than any other type of sex act.

Heterosexual activity does not necessarily bring life. See my point above concerning sterile folk.

That might not be a politically correct or "right on" opinion but I don't really care because in political terms the whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity-seeking rather than a serious project. It's symptomatic of an elite more concerned with gesture than reality. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. The term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

No it is not. Marriage is a contract. Why should same-sex couples be barred from making such contracts with each other?

Jason

22nd January 2013, 15:23

It's because no matter how much the Dems shift rightward, politically "savvy" people will always consider them the lesser of two evils. Mitt Romney was so scary to them that they would drop all dreams of a viable alternative and vote Democrat, probably knowing full well that the Dems will betray them.

Perhaps Obama won because of the increasing Latino population which gains no advantage by voting Republican. Even Bush, who backed milder immigration reform (than most Republicans) only got 44 percent (Romney won 27 percent). Romney took a hardline against immigration which sealed his fate.

graffic

22nd January 2013, 15:51

Presumably you're aware that the institution of marriage doesn't condone sterile people having non-reproductive sex or couples objectifying one another etc. Presumably you're aware that whether sterile people can't have reproductive sex, whether couples get married and hate having sex, whether couples get married and only enjoy non-productive oral sex or whether they prefer to watch pornography and masturbate in loneliness and never have kids...none of this has any baring on the institution of heterosexual marriage. The heterosexual sexual act itself is symbolic and still based on reproduction and creation even if it doesn't produce a result all the time. You're saying that a couple who want a baby but have problems in the bedroom such as the husband not being able to get it up is comparable to the homosexual sex act which doesn't in the first place have in any single way a possibility to reproduce. That's like saying someone who kept trying to create something but kept failing is the same as someone who wasn't trying at all to create anything and just doing it for pleasure are the same. That's insane.

Same sex marriage explicitly condones non-reproductive sex and encourages culturally a selfish lifestyle that should be discouraged culturally for reasons of happiness ad fulfillment and desiring the best in society.

You describe "marriage" as a contract. That's your own interpretation of marriage when in reality the term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd January 2013, 16:00

Presumably you're aware that the institution of marriage doesn't condone sterile people having non-reproductive sex or couples objectifying one another etc.

No, I've heard of no such thing. A couple does not have to be fertile in order to be happily married.

Presumably you're aware that whether sterile people can't have reproductive sex, whether couples get married and hate having sex, whether couples get married and only enjoy non-productive oral sex or whether they prefer to watch pornography and masturbate in loneliness and never have kids...none of this has any baring on the institution of heterosexual marriage.

In that case, why shouldn't same-sex and sterile couples get married?

Same sex marriage explicitly condones non-reproductive sex and encourages culturally a selfish lifestyle that should be discouraged culturally for reasons of happiness ad fulfillment and desiring the best in society.

I thought you said marriage had nothing to do with sex?

If people find happiness and fulfilment in pursuing childless relationships, who are you to tell them otherwise? It's not as if people are being forced to remain childless.

You describe "marriage" as a contract. That's your own interpretation of marriage when in reality the term 'marriage' is specific, and is rooted in the notion of a heterosexual relationship.

Says who? Every solicitor who has ever had to deal with a divorce case would disagree with you.

graffic

22nd January 2013, 16:17

roy

22nd January 2013, 16:36

I disagree that people are happy and fulfilled without having any children.
I think people are happier with children and men are happier with their own family.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so.

The heterosexual sex act is symbolic. It's symbolic of reproduction, creation and giving life. "Love" to me, and sexual love is symbolic of "life". Love is the opposite of death.

"Homosexuality" being culturally encouraged does bring "sex" out into the open in public discourse. In mainstream heterosexual society "sex" is in the background which makes it more erotic and embracing. Declaring one to be proud of being gay or "out and proud" automatically brings "sex" to the forefront because it defines itself by being a different from the normal type of sexuality and relationship.

If you want to legalize same sex marriage and encourage the homosexual lifestyle culturally you clearly don't want the best for society. You don't understand what makes people happy and fulfilled. The whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity seeking rather than a serious project. It's identity politics in the bourgeoise consumerist sense. It's not a serious project. Prudence doesn't sell and encouraging lax attitudes to sex allows corporations to com modify sex and exploit animalistic instincts in cynical advertising.

How is anyone supposed to argue against baseless rambling? You're a homophobe. Simple.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd January 2013, 16:48

I disagree that people are happy and fulfilled without having any children. I think people are happier with children and men are happier with their own family.

What makes you think that you know people better than they know themselves?

The heterosexual sex act is symbolic. It's symbolic of reproduction, creation and giving life. "Love" to me, and sexual love is symbolic of "life". To me, love is the opposite of death.

All that symbolism and shit is stuff that's been artificially tacked on - it's not inherent to sexual acts or romance. If love really is the opposite of death, then why have lovers been known to slay one another in fits of jealous rage?

This dichotomy you have in your head concerning love and death is overly simplistic and does no reflect reality.

"Homosexuality" being culturally encouraged does bring "sex" out into the open in public discourse. In mainstream heterosexual society "sex" is in the background which makes it more erotic and embracing.

The only reason you think heterosexuality is "in the background" is because you're so used to seeing it around that it doesn't jump out at you as much as homosexuality does. Humans are sexual creatures - I'll tell you what's erotic and embracing, the idea that people should be free to pursue consensual relationships without having to conform to patriarchal and heterosexist expectations of behaviour.

Declaring one to be proud of being gay or "out and proud" automatically brings "sex" to the forefront because it defines itself by being a different from the normal type of sexuality and relationship.

Being "out" does no such thing. Just like heterosexuals, LGBT folk have their own preferences when it comes to sex in a relationship - from entirely platonic to fuck-buddies.

If you want to legalize same sex marriage and encourage the homosexual lifestyle culturally you clearly don't want the best for society. You don't understand what makes people happy and fulfilled.

Which is why I'm not telling people what they should be doing, unlike you.

The whole gay marriage fuss smacks of desperate popularity seeking rather than a serious project. It's identity politics in the bourgeoise consumerist sense. It's not a serious project or ideological.

Try telling that to LGBT people who want to marry a same-sex partner.

Prudence doesn't sell and encouraging lax attitudes to sex allows corporations to com modify sex.

Just because prudence doesn't sell doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sex is commodified because monetising basic human desires is what capitalism does, not because of some abstract "moral" failing.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 17:06

NGM - you don't seem to understand the difference between political struggles and economic struggles, the offensive and defensive sections of class struggle respectively.

Political struggle is engagement with all levels of politics:

in elections for propaganda purposes (since the bourgeoisie will never allow a true radical candidate to win)
at the local neighbourhood level
at a national, campaigning level
including all protests, demonstrations and most importantly solidary, wildcat and secondary strikes leading to a mass strike that paralyses both the bourgeois state and the capitalist economy

Economic struggle is, in times of capital offensive, being able to defend what we already have:

limited hours working day
the existence of the minimum wage
welfare
working conditions
pensions
etc.

The economic struggle is not code for: 'right, there's no chance of revolution guys so lets hope for some reforms now since it's the best we can do'. That attitude, which you display so frequently and so wrongly in the name of radical politics, has nothing to do with being a revolutionary; it is straight up reformism and does little to help the working class, because in 2016 there will be a new President who will take away any little crumbs that activists have exhausted themselves in trying to grab from the Democrats' table.

It's a hopeless strategy and it's a continued source of annoyance to me that you peddle it on this board.

Oh and please, DO NOT de-construct this post and reply line-by-line. Just think about the bigger picture, ok. :thumbup1:

This bifurcation between what you call; 'political struggle', and; 'economic struggle' makes no sense, whatsoever. A much more accurate, and sensible characterization would be; 'defensive' struggle, where we are responding to an assault upon the working class, and; 'offensive' struggle, where we are attempting to advance the interests of the working class, to gain new ground, by demanding reforms, and concessions to empower the working class. You'll note I've made this distinction often, and repeatedly. Several times, in fact, in the course of this very conversation.

You still misuse the word; 'Reformism.' 'Reformism' refers to Socialists who believe that Socialism can be established nonviolently (Which Marx believed, at least, in the West.) through parliamentary means. Look it up, for fucks' sake, if you don't believe me. I've explained this to you several times. I have also been equally explicit that I do not subscribe to Reformism, and I have consistently criticized Reformism. All of these things you already know. At this point it's becoming difficult not to conclude there's some deliberate ignorance going on, here.

Making healthcare and education more accessible absolutely helps the working class. Overturning institutional barriers that discriminate against homosexuals and, thus, divide the working class against itself, absolutely helps the working class. Reforming our absurd, and obscene drug laws so less workers get incarcerated absolutely helps the working class. There's no other way to see it.

This idea about reforms, and concessions inevitably disappearing in the next election is ridiculous. Gay marriage is here to stay, in 10 states. Soon, depending on the Supreme Court, probably the whole country. The drug law reforms passed , here, in Massachusetts, and several other states, are here to stay. The Affordable Care Act, for all it's flaws, is here to stay, which means, among other things, that 31 million Americans will have health insurance, who, otherwise, would not. If you can't see that helps the working class; you should see an optometrist. Social security, and Medicare while under assault, which is something that should be opposed as millions of Americans depend on these programs, and because it's a blatant attack on the working class, aren't going anywhere fast, because the American public wouldn't tolerate it. These are all real gains that have been won, they were not presents from the master class. You can be as upset as you want about that; that's your pathology.

You're continued derision, and contempt for reforms, and concessions won in the class struggle, and the people who fought for, and, in some cases died for them, is unseemly, and irrational. More disturbing is the implicit contempt for the working class, within it. What you're really saying is; Who gives a fuck if poor kids eat? Who gives a fuck if gays can marry? Why should I give a shit if workers have health insurance? That doesn't display support for the working class, that displays indifference, or even outright hostility to the working class.

As to your claims of ineffectivesness; you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Again; what you're really saying is that the history of the Radical Left, in the West, is a history of failure. That western Radicals have achieved absolutely nothing, whatsoever, ever. That's remarkably ignorant, and obviously false to anyone who knows anything. It's so insane it's almost not worth refuting.

The problem is that you're an ultra-Leftist, plain and simple. You're not the only one. Thus; out of your misguided insistence on ideological purity, which is what you people really care about, you oppose any form of incrementalism, because from this standpoint; anything short of immediate, violent overthrow of the existing order is tantamount to ideological treason. This attitude totally disregards reality. To hear a Marxist spouting such idealistic, even fantastical rhetoric is, frankly, comical. There is no evidence that the masses are remotely close to seizing the means of production, in any kind of conceivable immediate future. I mean; trying to reason with you is pretty much a wasted exercise, anyhow, but I find it difficult you can be so blind as to not perceive that. In such instances, which is where we are, at this minute, there's no denying it, it is the task of Socialists to empower the working class, so it can hopefully, eventually perform this function. We can't have the revolution all by ourselves, only the working class can do that. If it happens; it won't be because the masses were stirred to action by your sparkling oratory, but, rather; because the material conditions will be ripe for it, because the existing institutions will be exhausted. At that point, if we ever get there; nothing will be able to stop it.

I'll end with a quote from Malatesta;

'I believe that one must take all that can be taken, whether much or little: do whatever is possible today, while always fighting to make possible what today seems impossible.

For instance, if today we cannot get rid of every kind of government, this is not a good reason for taking no interest in defending the few acquired liberties and fighting to gain more of those. If now we cannot completely abolish the capitalist system and the resulting exploitation of the workers, this is no good reason to quit fighting to obtain higher salaries and better working conditions. If we cannot abolish commerce and replace it with the direct exchange among producers, this is no good reason for not seeking the means to escape the exploitation of traders and profiteers as much as possible. If the oppressors’ power and the state of the public opinion prevent now from abolishing the prisons and providing to any defence against wrongdoers with more humane means, not for this we would lose interest in an action for abolishing death penalty, life imprisonment, close confinement and, in general, the most ferocious means of repression by which what is called social justice, but actually amounts to a barbarian revenge, is exercised. If we cannot abolish the police, not for this we would allow, without protesting and resisting, that the policemen beat the prisoners and allow themselves all sorts of excesses, overstepping the limit prescribed to them by the laws in force themselves...
I am breaking off here, as there are thousands and thousands of cases, both in individual and social life, in which, being unable to obtain ‘all’, one has to try and get as much as possible.'

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/against.html

#FF0000

22nd January 2013, 17:14

There is a difference between participating in elections (by voting democrat, no less) and taking part in actual struggle, NGNM.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 17:24

There is a difference between participating in elections (by voting democrat, no less) and taking part in actual struggle, NGNM.

No kidding. I don't why he doesn't get that we're actively engaging in struggle without partcipating in the mainstream of politics. He acts like you have to hold your nose and be involved in a liberal organization fighting for whatever pet cause in order to be a true radical. :laugh:

He accused someone of saying that true radical vote for Republicans but he is actually telling us that true radicals engage in mainstream parliamentary bourgeois politcs?

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 17:35

There is a difference between participating in elections (by voting democrat, no less) and taking part in actual struggle, NGNM.

Like I said; after looking at the 2012 RNC platform; I fail to see why you would support the Republican party, which is what you're really saying, you just don't realize it.

It's all part of the same thing; fighting for the working class. If you care about the working class; you always want the best possible (Emphasis o the word; 'possible.') outcome for the working class, even if it's only to choose between a bad outcome, and a worse one. That's what; 'caring' means. Imagine you're a parent with a child with terminal cancer, and, furthermore; let's presume you actually love this child, you care about this child. You will not say; 'This sucks, I want a new kid that doesn't have terminal cancer.' You won't say; 'Fuck it, he's gonna die anyhow; so I'm going to go home, and make a
sandwich.' If you actually care about this child; you will do everything, and anything to make their short stay on this earth as pleasant as possible, even if it's only to ameliorate their discomfort for a second. That's what; 'caring' means. Armed with this new understanding, we can say that if you care about the working class, you always want the best possible outcome for the working class, and you do everything in your power to achieve that, even if it means voting for the lesser evil. Even a cursory analysis will reveal that owing to the differences between the establishment parties, which, again, is largely due to the fact they reflect different elite constituencies, the working class does better under Democratic administrations, than Republican administrations. Not fantastic, but better. That's the litmus test. Furthermore, as I said to RadioRaheem; the battles for smaller increments of justice; gay rights, labor struggles, reproductive rights, the welfare state, etc., etc., these smaller skirmishes in the class war, may begin in the streets, but, if we are successful, they must inevitably end in the White House, in Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the courts. It is for this reason that we clearly have a vested interest in deciding who holds those offices. How does it advance reproductive rights to elect Pro-Life politicians, and judges? How does it advance gay rights to elect blatantly homophobic politicians? How does it help labor unions to elect politicians who express nothing but contempt for; 'union thugs'? Even dictators must occasionally bend to certain pressures. However; we can choose to make it easier, or to make it harder. I choose easier.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 17:43

No kidding. I don't why he doesn't get that we're actively engaging in struggle without partcipating in the mainstream of politics.

Then you're only participating in part of the struggle, the part you feel comfortable with.

He acts like you have to hold your nose and be involved in a liberal organization fighting for whatever pet cause in order to be a true radical. :laugh:

If you care about the working class, which is the most fundamental sufficient condition of being a Socialist; you always want the best possible outcome for the working class. Always. Without question. You care about this abstract notion of; 'ideological purity' first, and the working class, second. That's why you're an ultra-Leftist. From this perspective; every form of incrementalism, any half-step, no matter how great, or small, is ideological treason, and thus; the history of the western Left is a history of failure.

He accused someone of saying that true radical vote for Republicans but he is actually telling us that true radicals engage in mainstream parliamentary bourgeois politcs?

Marx didn't have any qualms about it. Lenin urged British Socialists to campaign for the Labour party. This is just ultra-Left nonsense.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 17:44

This bifurcation between what you call; 'political struggle', and; 'economic struggle' makes no sense, whatsoever. A much more accurate, and sensible characterization would be; 'defensive' struggle, where we are responding to an assault upon the working class, and; 'offensive' struggle, where we are attempting to advance the interests of the working class, to gain new ground, by demanding reforms, and concessions to empower the working class. You'll note I've made this distinction often, and repeatedly. Several times, in fact, in the course of this very conversation.

You still misuse the word; 'Reformism.' 'Reformism' refers to Socialists who believe that Socialism can be established nonviolently (Which Marx believed, at least, in the West.) through parliamentary means. Look it up, for fucks' sake, if you don't believe me. I've explained this to you several times. I have also been equally explicit that I do not subscribe to Reformism, and I have consistently criticized Reformism. All of these things you already know. At this point it's becoming difficult not to conclude there's some deliberate ignorance going on, here.

Making healthcare and education more accessible absolutely helps the working class. Overturning institutional barriers that discriminate against homosexuals and, thus, divide the working class against itself, absolutely helps the working class. Reforming our absurd, and obscene drug laws so less workers get incarcerated absolutely helps the working class. There's no other way to see it.

This idea about reforms, and concessions inevitably disappearing in the next election is ridiculous. Gay marriage is here to stay, in 10 states. Soon, depending on the Supreme Court, probably the whole country. The drug law reforms passed , here, in Massachusetts, and several other states, are here to stay. The Affordable Care Act, for all it's flaws, is here to stay, which means, among other things, that 31 million Americans will have health insurance, who, otherwise, would not. If you can't see that helps the working class; you should see an optometrist. Social security, and Medicare while under assault, which is something that should be opposed as millions of Americans depend on these programs, and because it's a blatant attack on the working class, aren't going anywhere fast, because the American public wouldn't tolerate it. These are all real gains that have been won, they were not presents from the master class. You can be as upset as you want about that; that's your pathology.

You're continued derision, and contempt for reforms, and concessions won in the class struggle, and the people who fought for, and, in some cases died for them, is unseemly, and irrational. More disturbing is the implicit contempt for the working class, within it. What you're really saying is; Who gives a fuck if poor kids eat? Who gives a fuck if gays can marry? Why should I give a shit if workers have health insurance? That doesn't display support for the working class, that displays indifference, or even outright hostility to the working class.

As to your claims of ineffectivesness; you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Again; what you're really saying is that the history of the Radical Left, in the West, is a history of failure. That western Radicals have achieved absolutely nothing, whatsoever, ever. That's remarkably ignorant, and obviously false to anyone who knows anything. It's so insane it's almost not worth refuting.

The problem is that you're an ultra-Leftist, plain and simple. You're not the only one. Thus; out of your misguided insistence on ideological purity, which is what you people really care about, you oppose any form of incrementalism, because from this standpoint; anything short of immediate, violent overthrow of the existing order is tantamount to ideological treason. This attitude totally disregards reality. To hear a Marxist spouting such idealistic, even fantastical rhetoric is, frankly, comical. There is no evidence that the masses are remotely close to seizing the means of production, in any kind of conceivable immediate future. I mean; trying to reason with you is pretty much a wasted exercise, anyhow, but I find it difficult you can be so blind as to not perceive that. In such instances, which is where we are, at this minute, there's no denying it, it is the task of Socialists to empower the working class, so it can hopefully, eventually perform this function. We can't have the revolution all by ourselves, only the working class can do that. If it happens; it won't be because the masses were stirred to action by your sparkling oratory, but, rather; because the material conditions will be ripe for it, because the existing institutions will be exhausted. At that point, if we ever get there; nothing will be able to stop it.

I'll end with a quote from Malatesta;

'I believe that one must take all that can be taken, whether much or little: do whatever is possible today, while always fighting to make possible what today seems impossible.

For instance, if today we cannot get rid of every kind of government, this is not a good reason for taking no interest in defending the few acquired liberties and fighting to gain more of those. If now we cannot completely abolish the capitalist system and the resulting exploitation of the workers, this is no good reason to quit fighting to obtain higher salaries and better working conditions. If we cannot abolish commerce and replace it with the direct exchange among producers, this is no good reason for not seeking the means to escape the exploitation of traders and profiteers as much as possible. If the oppressors’ power and the state of the public opinion prevent now from abolishing the prisons and providing to any defence against wrongdoers with more humane means, not for this we would lose interest in an action for abolishing death penalty, life imprisonment, close confinement and, in general, the most ferocious means of repression by which what is called social justice, but actually amounts to a barbarian revenge, is exercised. If we cannot abolish the police, not for this we would allow, without protesting and resisting, that the policemen beat the prisoners and allow themselves all sorts of excesses, overstepping the limit prescribed to them by the laws in force themselves...
I am breaking off here, as there are thousands and thousands of cases, both in individual and social life, in which, being unable to obtain ‘all’, one has to try and get as much as possible.'

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/against.html

Well to repeat what you accuse many of us here of doing...you do not understand what you're talking about. You have no radical class analysis in your bones. And I do not know how much more I need to explain this to you, you just keep writing back that I need to clarify this further and further for you, but it just breaks down to something really simple; are you engaging each topic from a socio-economic or class perspective? No, you are coming at it from it a clearly idealistic p.o.v. claiming that these rights and single issues are self evident truths and should "duh" be supported by all without this stupid need for theory. You want children fed, you want workers to have insurance, you want all this but you're willing to compromise and shake hands with anyone that promotes it on a surface level. That's liberalism, plain and simple, and you cannot escape that no matter how hard you try to make yourself seem more radical than thou.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, first nominated a Republican to be the lead speaker of one of the Marches on DC for gay rights. Many were furious because they saw it as a betrayal of the old liberaration stance the gay movement worked hard for. Why nominate a guy who stands for gay rights but is very much opposed to other rights and economic issues that will eventually hurt the gay community anyways? You cannot seperate the economic issues from the political. That will just continue the schism in this country; that we are all equal under the law but not in the economy. In the workplace we're still polarized.

Just give it the fuck up NGN. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. You wanna have it both ways and be a little rebel while remaining relevant to your friends. Just join the Daily Kos forum or Democratic Underground and get it over with already. You're not an anarchist by any measure.

#FF0000

22nd January 2013, 17:54

words

The problem is that simply electing people is the baseline least you can do and accomplishes barely anything, especially considering the democrats these days support policies that are to the right of Ronald Reagan. So while I agree that it's a good idea to fight for any gain you can, it's a waste of time to rally for the democrats if you think they're the ones that are going to be making those gains for the working class, as if they haven't made it abundantly clear that they're a party of austerity and imperialist aggression as much as the republicans are.

Every significant gain the working class has made has been the result of movements of the working class -- not by elected muppets. One can definitely be involved in actual struggles on the ground and still vote, I think -- I understand why a lot of women I know voted for the Democrats, and I don't think what they do is lessened by the fact that they did -- but trying to get people to actually support the democrats beyond casting a ballot out of anxiety pretty much makes you a shill and puts you on the wrong side of history, I think.

And no, not voting democrat doesn't make me an invisible supporter of the republicans no more than not voting republican makes me an invisible supporter of the democrats. The democrats are simply not my party. I don't believe in cuts to the last vestiges of a social safety net in the US. I don't believe in cuts to education. I don't believe in unrestricted drone warfare and intervention in Africa. Thus, the democrats are not my party.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 18:09

NGN, why can't you support these issues without being a supporter or card carrying member of the Dems? Why do you find a lot of these liberal organizations to be unbiased and legitimate.

As the economy contracts and becomes more and more liberalized, the politics of the matter reflect what's good for the people in charge of the economy, the commanding heights. Basic human rights, civil rights are cared for only in how much it relates to the market economy. Even Chomsky wrote about this. If it's good for business, if it's getting more tolerable and there is niche market that has formed as a result then the political climate is good for legislative change. It's not because these politicians profoundly or the Dems fundamentally care about gay rights.

The gains workers achieved during the early twentieth century were due to the fact that there was a revolution in Russia and strong labor movement put the fear of God into the ruling class. The political climate thus became amendable to concessions. Where is that fear now? Why should the business and political class cave into pressures at this stage? Why should they themselves enact any sort of real reform at this stage? Why fight within a system like this that systemically does not give one iota to workers struggles because they know they're in charge. Why would they give up any of their interests to worker concessions?

This is why you do not know what you're talking about, at all! You’re still working under the assumption that the political and economic are separate. That you can enact laws that will make things more people more equal under the law but refuse to acknowledge that is the antagonisms within the workplace that cause the greater inequality. There can never be real democracy without economic democracy being first fought for, and that’s why the past activism of the past all had socialism or progressive leftism as their main backdrop, whether they were the Black Panthers, Gay Liberationists, Latino rights organizations, farmers, unions and Native American rights activists.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 18:11

Well to repeat what you accuse many of us here of doing...you do not understand what you're talking about. You have no radical class analysis in your bones. And I do not know how much more I need to explain this to you, you just keep writing back that I need to clarify this further and further for you, but it just breaks down to something really simple; are you engaging each topic from a socio-economic or class perspective?

You're doing it, again, incidentally.

No, you are coming at it from it a clearly idealistic p.o.v. claiming that these rights and single issues are self evident truths

Only when it is a self-evident truth.

and should "duh" be supported by all without this stupid need for theory.

That's not what I said. I'm not abandoning theory. Only the working class can overthrow capitalism, and only when the material conditions are right. In a non-Revolutionary time period, where the conditions are not right, it is the task of the Radical Left to work as the advance guard (The word; 'vanguard' is too loaded.) for the working class, fighting to protect the working class, when necessary, and, when at all possible; advancing the interests of the working class so that they may get to the place where they can seize control of the means of production.

You want children fed, you want workers to have insurance,

If you don't care about poor children eating, or workers having decent medical care; I can't see what attracts you to Socialism.

you want all this but you're willing to compromise and shake hands with anyone that promotes it on a surface level.

I don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. I don't obstinately insist on everything I want, this exact minute, or else, thereby ensuring I get nothing I want. That's pretty much the definition of ultra-Leftism. That's why you're an ultra-Leftist. Unfortunately; it seems to be epidemic.

That's liberalism, plain and simple, and you cannot escape that no matter how hard you try to make yourself seem more radical than thou.

Not in the English language, it isn't.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, first nominated a Republican to be the lead speaker of one of the Marches on DC for gay rights. Many were furious because they saw it as a betrayal of the old liberaration stance the gay movement worked hard for. Why nominate a guy who stands for gay rights but is very much opposed to other rights and economic issues that will eventually hurt the gay community anyways?

The predations of capitalism are not exclusively visited upon homosexuals.

From that standpoint; why do anything, at all? Why support unions? We object to capitalism. Unions imply capitalism; so fuck 'em. Why should we give a shit about reproductive rights? Capitalism will exist, irrespective of the legality, or accessibility of contraception, or abortion. This is the inevitable conclusion to your line of reasoning. Paralysis. Ineffectuality. Because even the biggest step is just that; a step, which means accepting something less than perfection, which, in your mind, is ideological treason. Therefore; we should do nothing. This epidemic of ultra-Leftism which has infected the Radical Left is the precise reason why it is becoming increasing ineffective, and irrelevant, and why the gains of the past are being eroded. This regression will continue to get worse until the infection is cured. You may not be susceptible to reason, but I'm hoping that somebody is.

You cannot seperate the economic issues from the political. That will just continue the schism in this country; that we are all equal under the law but not in the economy. In the workplace we're still polarized.

Not only are they inseparable; they are the same thing. That's what I've been saying. Legalizing gay marriage empowers the working class because it removes an institutional barrier that divides the working class, and weakens the working class, just as collective bargaining strengthens union workers by allowing them some control over their productive lives, as well as a higher standard of living, which is equally empowering.

Just give it the fuck up NGN. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. You wanna have it both ways and be a little rebel while remaining relevant to your friends.

I want the Radical Left to be relevant to the working class. Right now; it isn't. We have no effect on the working class, no relationship with the working class. We, to the limited extent that we are a; 'we', are an increasingly marginal cult. We are playing Socialist Dungeons & Dragons.
Marx said the point was to change the world.

Just join the Daily Kos forum or Democratic Underground and get it over with already. You're not an anarchist by any measure.

That's completely uncalled for, and completely false. All of the aforementioned statements, in fact; the entire archived record of my posts, is completely consistent with Anarchism.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 18:19

On what fucking spectrum are all of us ultra-left? Again you have no earthly idea of what you're talking about?
Is this the same spectrum you use that has Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton on the "left"?

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 18:39

On what fucking spectrum are all of us ultra-left? Again you have no earthly idea of what you're talking about?
Is this the same spectrum you use that has Tony Blair and Hilary Clinton on the "left"?

'Ultra-leftism' is an unfortunate perversion of Socialism. Lenin wrote all about in; Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I may not agree with everything Lenin said, or even most of it, but he was correct in identifying this phenomena, which existed in his day, and seems to have infected the majority of the Radical Left, yourself included, no offense. Ultra-Leftism refers to the unfortunate tendency of some Radicals to wildly overestimate, or completely disregard the material reality of their circumstances taking a hypermilitant posture that is totally counterproductive. Ultra-lefts see every form of incrementalism as treason, so they oppose everything, and do nothing. Because of this; they also tend to view the history of Radicalism as a history of failure because, obviously, we have not achieved Socialism, therefore; every 'achievement' by earlier generations of Radicals was, in truth, not an achievement, at all, and said individuals are traitors, hypocrites, etc. Ultra-leftists are primarily concerned with appearances, over reality. They tend to obsess about things like; 'ideological purity.' You can read Lenin, if you want more insight. However; I would caution anyone to read most of Lenin's writings with a filter, lest they pick up some even worse ideas.
I've been aware of this phenomenon, for some time, I just didn't know it
had a name.

graffic

22nd January 2013, 18:39

W
Which is why I'm not telling people what they should be doing, unlike you.

Some aspects of conservative morality have a rational basis and are evolutionary.

The only reason homosexuals can be homosexuals is because of patriarchy and heterosexual relationships. The only reason they are alive is because of heterosexual sex. They don't want to take part in patriarchy, have children and be fathers. Yet the only reason they can make those choices and do those things is because other humans before them took on those responsibilities and created life in the first place. Their entire reason d etre owes itself to the thing that they reject.

(I'm just thinking out loud here because whilst progressive arguments about economics have always made sense to me over time and arguments for racial equality have passed straight through and made perfect sense, some aspects of "Gay rights" arguments and feminism have never sat well with me for some reason, even after reading and discussing it a lot. Perhaps I'm a bigot or a homophobe, but I don't think that I am. )

It is an inherently more selfish lifestyle than heterosexual relationships. That does not make it bad and in a democratic society people should be free to live whatever way they choose. However people are happier when they are less selfish and people in positions of power and dominance in society should be setting an example and not condoning it culturally by legalizing same sex marriage if they have peoples welfare at heart rather than political gesturing and point scoring.

#FF0000

22nd January 2013, 18:45

The only reason homosexuals can be homosexuals is because of patriarchy and heterosexual relationships. The only reason they are alive is because of heterosexual sex. They don't want to take part in patriarchy, have children and be fathers.

Gay dudes can certainly have kids, be dads, and be patriarchal fuckwits.

Gay people can also be women.

Yet the only reason they can make those choices and do those things is because other humans before them took on those responsibilities and created life in the first place. Their entire reason d etre owes itself to the thing that they reject.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.

graffic

22nd January 2013, 18:57

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 19:07

The problem is that simply electing people is the baseline least you can do and accomplishes barely anything,

That passes the litmus test, which is; anything, at all. Nothing is too great, or too small. Nothing. That's the only consistent approach.

Second; the difference isn't that small, in many cases. If things had gone differently this November; the Affordable healthcare would have been repealed, and that's 31 million workers without insurance. That's a big deal. This administration is likely to get one, two, maybe even three Supreme Court picks. They've got five Reactionaries up there. With six; they could overturn Roe, and then abortion would be illegal in half the country, at least. Both Governor Romney, and Paul Ryan were very explicit about that. Those aren't little things.

especially considering the democrats these days support policies that are to the right of Ronald Reagan.

...and the Republicans are even further to the Right of that, just slightly to the Left of Mussolini.

So while I agree that it's a good idea to fight for any gain you can, it's a waste of time to rally for the democrats if you think they're the ones that are going to be making those gains for the working class, as if they haven't made it abundantly clear that they're a party of austerity and imperialist aggression as much as the republicans are.

Not equally, there are differences, although they are not very large, in most cases.

That's not what I said, at all. I said that; in the absence of a viable party to their Left, you should vote Democratic, if you live in a swing state, or a contested district. Furthermore; you should do so without illusions, and without perpetuating illusions. This is not rocket science. If you're talking to workers about their interests and they conclude that they are better off voting Republican; you really suck at it. There's absolutely no reason why we should ever have to internalize or reinforce any illusions.

Every significant gain the working class has made has been the result of movements of the working class --

Yes.

not by elected muppets.

Yes.

One can definitely be involved in actual struggles on the ground and still vote, I think -- I understand why a lot of women I know voted for the Democrats, and I don't think what they do is lessened by the fact that they did -- but trying to get people to actually support the democrats beyond casting a ballot out of anxiety pretty much makes you a shill and puts you on the wrong side of history, I think.

Without getting off track; this really irks me. I spend half my time on here defending myself against accusations of supporting positions I've vehemently, repeatedly, and explicitly OPPOSED. It becomes difficult to believe that this 'misunderstanding' is not deliberate. That; or people are so ideological, or partisan that they can't allow themselves to comprehend what I actually said.

I've never asked for more than that. I would never ask for more than that. The only 'support', which really shouldn't even be called that, that I would recommend, for the Democratic, would be electoral, and totally conditional, conditional on the fact that there is no viable party to their Left. I'd love to see one, believe me. I'd vote for them, in a heartbeat.

And no, not voting democrat doesn't make me an invisible supporter of the republicans no more than not voting republican makes me an invisible supporter of the democrats.

It does if you live in a swing state, or a contested district. That's an empirical fact. Not voting, or voting for an unelectable candidate, regardless of your political orientation, only benefits the other side of the political spectrum. So; if you live in a swing state, or a contested district; you've basically been voting Republican, this whole time. I'd urge you to reconsider this.

The democrats are simply not my party. I don't believe in cuts to the last vestiges of a social safety net in the US. I don't believe in cuts to education. I don't believe in unrestricted drone warfare and intervention in Africa. Thus, the democrats are not my party.

Join the club. However; there are only two viable parties, and the other one is worse. You need to cure yourself of the misconception that taking no action absolves you of responsibility. This was one of the primary articles of faith of the Radical movements of the 60's, particularly the anti-war movement; there is no such thing as an innocent bystander, in politics. You are equally responsible for the choices you don't make. Like Howard Zinn said; 'You can't be neutral on a moving train.'

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 19:34

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd January 2013, 19:44

Some aspects of conservative morality have a rational basis and are evolutionary.

Prove it.

The only reason homosexuals can be homosexuals is because of patriarchy and heterosexual relationships. The only reason they are alive is because of heterosexual sex. They don't want to take part in patriarchy, have children and be fathers. Yet the only reason they can make those choices and do those things is because other humans before them took on those responsibilities and created life in the first place. Their entire reason d etre owes itself to the thing that they reject.

So what? We're not going to run out of human beings any time soon.

(I'm just thinking out loud here because whilst progressive arguments about economics have always made sense to me over time and arguments for racial equality have passed straight through and made perfect sense, some aspects of "Gay rights" arguments and feminism have never sat well with me for some reason, even after reading and discussing it a lot. Perhaps I'm a bigot or a homophobe, but I don't think that I am. )

I think your problem is that your premises are faulty. You seem to think that being homosexual is a "lifestyle" that one chooses. When did you choose to have heterosexual attractions?

It is an inherently more selfish lifestyle than heterosexual relationships. That does not make it bad and in a democratic society people should be free to live whatever way they choose. However people are happier when they are less selfish and people in positions of power and dominance in society should be setting an example and not condoning it culturally by legalizing same sex marriage if they have peoples welfare at heart rather than political gesturing and point scoring.

Why is it selfish to not have children? Why do you think homosexuals are incapable of having children? (hint: being homosexual is not the same thing as being infertile)

Only because other people had heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex has important symbolism because it is our whole reason d'etre. It's the whole reason I am typing this now. It should be respected more than any other sex act and held in higher regard by anyone with self respect.

What about people born because of artificial insemination, or in vitro techniques? Are they not "real people"?

And I agree that homosexuality is natural in some cases however the reason it shouldn't be encouraged culturally is that there are plenty of people who swing both ways or with homosexual tendencies who should be encouraged to opt for the traditional model which is better and more fulfilling than be pressured to be out and proud and live for themselves.

Why is this supposed "traditional model" better and more fulfilling? You still need to explain why certain people should be told what to do by you, rather than be allowed to follow their own desires.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 19:45

NGN, ultra leftism would be not supporting the Cuban Revolutions gains or the Bolivarian Revolution and it's gains....not, not supporting the Dems and their proposals for "reform".

It's not being in support of actual leftist parties going through the parliamentary system like say Salvador Allende, not being critical of Obama and the Dems.

It might be ultra leftism under your silly spectrum which includes people like Obama on the left.

And quit the name dropping, you look like such a poseur.

Do you know what examples Lenin gives in Left-wing Communism? He spends a lot of time excoriating British Socialists for not supporting the Labour party. He argued that they should form a coalition with Labour, and even campaign for them. I've never suggested anyone campaign with the Democratic party, or form a coalition with the Democratic party.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 19:48

Prove it....etc.

You're wasting you're time arguing with a crazy person. Oh, wait; so am I. My mistake. Carry on.

#FF0000

22nd January 2013, 19:49

That passes the litmus test, which is; anything, at all. Nothing is too great, or too small. Nothing. That's the only consistent approach.

No, I think voting for the democrats is too small because it, in many cases, works explicitly counter to us. Democrats will suppress us just much as a Republican will. And this isn't a thought-experiment. I've seen it. Democrats in our local Occupy stymied the group whenever they'd embarrass a democrat other than the mayor. And this happens all the time. See also: the anti-war movement.

Second; the difference isn't that small, in many cases. If things had gone differently this November; the Affordable healthcare would have been repealed, and that's 31 million workers without insurance. That's a big deal.

I know a lot of people without health insurance, and hardly a one of them is happy about Obamacare. The only good thing I can see of it is that I get to stay on my parent's healthcare until I can move out (thx mom n dad)

This administration is likely to get one, two, maybe even three Supreme Court picks. They've got five Reactionaries up there. With six; they could overturn Roe, and then abortion would be illegal in half the country, at least. Both Governor Romney, and Paul Ryan were very explicit about that. Those aren't little things.

Except this isn't even a good argument for liberals, because supreme court picks don't go down according to party lines. Supreme court picks by the most liberal presidents can become the most conservative, and vice versa. This has been the case very often, very recently.

But again, these are both moot points in my opinion, and I understand why people (women and folks without insurance in particular) would vote for a democrat -- or more specifically, against a Republican. However, this is very different than trying to goad other activists into throwing their support behind the democratic party, advocating for them and voting for them as a matter of principle. The fact is, they are not our party. The fact is they are working against us. You can point out the healthcare act, you can point out Roe V. Wade, but you can't ignore that Obama himself brought up the possibility of cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc, and that Obama is signing off on drone attacks that slaughter civilians in Pakistan, and is still behind America's participation in neo-colonialism in Africa.

So, yeah. I understand the rationale and the rationalizing, but I don't think voting democrat is effective or useful in any way. They work against us more often than they work for the working class.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 20:07

No, I think voting for the democrats is too small because it, in many cases, works explicitly counter to us. Democrats will suppress us just much as a Republican will. And this isn't a thought-experiment. I've seen it. Democrats in our local Occupy stymied the group whenever they'd embarrass a democrat other than the mayor. And this happens all the time. See also: the anti-war movement.

Nothing is too little. I don't accept the concept. Everything, always, for the working class. No exceptions. Ever.

You're going to have to qualify that, because it isn't clear to me what you are talking about.

I know a lot of people without health insurance, and hardly a one of them is happy about Obamacare. The only good thing I can see of it is that I get to stay on my parent's healthcare until I can move out (thx mom n dad)

I didn't say it would cover everybody. I said it would cover 31 million people, including you, apparently. That's something. I'd also point out that the Radical Left seems to have been under the collective opinion that all this health care business, possibly the most vital issue to the working class, was beneath their concern, and chose not to participate. In any case; if you care about workers having access t healthcare; you'd have to prefer 31 million more, to 31 million less. So; I don't see that you have a point.

Except this isn't even a good argument for liberals, because supreme court picks don't go down according to party lines. Supreme court picks by the most liberal presidents can become the most conservative, and vice versa. This has been the case very often, very recently.

Of course they do. One of the more disturbing developments in the recent mutation of our political system is the politicization of the judiciary. Sotomayer, and Kagan are hardly flaming Liberals, but they are absolutely to the Left of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. They are just to the Left of Mussolini.

But again, these are both moot points in my opinion, and I understand why people (women and folks without insurance in particular) would vote for a democrat -- or more specifically, against a Republican. However, this is very different than trying to goad other activists into throwing their support behind the democratic party, advocating for them and voting for them as a matter of principle.

I'm only talking about electoral 'support', (Which can hardly be called; 'support.') until there can be a better viable party. I also said we should not, under any circumstances, internalize, or reinforce any illusions. I was very explicit about that.

The fact is, they are not our party.

Again; no shit.

The fact is they are working against us. You can point out the healthcare act, you can point out Roe V. Wade, but you can't ignore that Obama himself brought up the possibility of cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, Social
Security, etc, and that Obama is signing off on drone attacks that slaughter civilians in Pakistan, and is still behind America's participation in neo-colonialism in Africa.

Except there is every reason to believe by every one, or most of these metrics, the Republicans are the same, if not, as is more often the case, a little worse. Occasionally; a lot worse. You don't like your choices. I hate to be the one to tell you that's how life is, much of the time.

So, yeah. I understand the rationale and the rationalizing, but I don't think voting democrat is effective or useful in any way. They work against us more often than they work for the working class.

Yes; but usually less than, or not as badly as the Republicans do. We are going to fight no matter who holds office. That being the case; every millimeter we don't have to drag them to is conserved energy.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 20:21

Do you know what examples Lenin gives in Left-wing Communism? He spends a lot of time excoriating British Socialists for not supporting the Labour party. He argued that they should form a coalition with Labour, and even campaign for them. I've never suggested anyone campaign with the Democratic party, or form a coalition with the Democratic party.

Labour back then was very social democratic in the old sense of the word. It's not the same as the establishment party that it is today even if they formed an alliance with the liberal party. I would not haved argued with Lenin on that one entirely. I mean I would have if he had said support the Liberal Party or a centre-right party against the Tories. That's the difference.

Your problem is keep thinking these liberals are part of the left. You keep thinking Obama and Co. are part of the left.

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 20:27

Labour back then was very social democratic in the old sense of the word. It's not the same as the establishment party that it is today even if they formed an alliance with the liberal party.

Still, they were by no means revolutionary, and he had no illusions about that.

I would not haved argued with Lenin on that one entirely. I mean I would have if he had said support the Liberal Party or a centre-right party against the Tories. That's the difference.

How is that fundamentally different from voting Democratic to keep Republicans out of office?

Your problem is keep thinking these liberals are part of the left. You keep thinking Obama and Co. are part of the left.

I'm not going to have this pointless argument, again.

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 20:38

Still, they were by no means revolutionary, and he had no illusions about that.

Leftists of all stripes supported the Cuban Revolution and support the Bolivarian revolution which were not entirely socialist revolutionary. They were largely social democratic. Most leftists supported Salvador Allende with the exception of the ultra-lefts, which you refer to.

The same case for supporting the Labour Party in UK elections at the time. I could understand the internal debates about this measure much more than the phony one you're conjuring about how radical it really is to vote for a non-leftist, non-worker friendly establishment party like the Democrats. I mean to even apologize for them and Obama like you do "given the realities of the situation".

We understand the realities of the situation regarding American politics, that's why we do not work within it. You're accepting of their logic which is why you think there are no alternatives except to work within it. You accept their framework, which makes you not a radical but a liberal.

How is that fundamentally different from voting Democratic to keep Republicans out of office?

Labour back then is not the same as Democrats now. Again you keep thinking the Dems are "left wing". Labour was an old school social democratic party with strong ties to the unions (and I do not mean weak token support like the Dems today). Lenin saying that workers should've supported them is not the same as voting for an anti-worker bourgoise party to keep a worse party out.

I'm not going to have this pointless argument, again.

It's not pointless. Do you consider Obama to be of the left?

NGNM85

22nd January 2013, 21:19

Leftists of all stripes supported the Cuban Revolution and support the Bolivarian revolution which were not entirely socialist revolutionary. They were largely social democratic. Most leftists supported Salvador Allende with the exception of the ultra-lefts, which you refer to.

If you're going to use the quote function; use it properly. I know you know how.

Ultra-lefts; like you.

The same case for supporting the Labour Party in UK elections at the time.

This doesn't make an sense. The only qualitative difference you're making is the fact that the Labour party, at that time, was more friendly to workers, but still not remotely revolutionary. You're just drawing the lines wherever it feels comfortable for you, again; because you are an Ultra-leftist, and you are primarily concerned with maintaining your rigid ideological purity, which, in actuality, means maintaining your street cred, because the whole point of cultivating this pristine image is so that others may see it, otherwise; there would be no point.

I could understand the internal debates about this measure much more than the phony one you're conjuring about how radical it really is to vote for a non-leftist, non-worker friendly establishment party like the Democrats.

I don't worry about being seen as being Radical, all of the time. It's kinda like the punk rock subculture. It was always the new kids obsessing over how; 'punk' they looked, who was more punk than whom. The wiser ones, who'd been there awhile, had moved past that crap. I don't obsess over my image, in this way.

The only thing that matters, the only question you should be asking is; which of the viable parties is better for the working class? Not; 'great', not even; 'good', maybe; 'fucking awful', but; better than the alternative, even by a millimeter. That should be the only question, again, given the circumstances.

I mean to even apologize for them and Obama like you do "given the realities of the situation".

I don't make any apologies for the President, or any other public official.

We understand the realities of the situation regarding American politics, that's why we do not work within it.

Clearly; you do not. Your every post screams it. You advertise your ignorance, and your Ultra-Leftism, in mile-high neon letters.

You're accepting of their logic which is why you think there are no alternatives except to work within it.

That's because it's unavoidable. That's how policy gets enacted in this country. There is no; 'outside.' Reforms, and concessions start in the streets, but they must, inevitably end in the White house, Congress, the courts, or the state legislatures. The only ones that don't are the ones that failed.

You accept their framework, which makes you not a radical but a liberal.

I don't accept that capitalism, or nation states are legitimate. They aren't. I've been unequivocal about that. However; they do exist. I simply cannot deny that empirical reality. You can, because you're an Ultra-leftist; reality is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the working class is ready, or even capable of taking control of the means of production. You're gonna do it all by yourself, if necessary. Best of luck. That a self-proclaimed Marxist can engage in such fantastical thinking is comical.

Labour back then is not the same as Democrats now. Again you keep thinking the Dems are "left wing". Labour was an old school social democratic party with strong ties to the unions (and I do not mean weak token support like the Dems today). Lenin saying that workers should've supported them is not the same as voting for an anti-worker bourgoise party to keep a worse party out.

That's what I said. The principle is exactly the same.

It's not pointless. Do you consider Obama to be of the left?

It's pointless because this has played itself out so many times, it's absurd. You have no idea what the word; 'Left' means, in this context, and you don't seem to care. I can show you graphs, I can quote encyclopedias, and dictionaries, the one thing I cannot do is make you understand something.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

22nd January 2013, 21:59

[QUOTE=NGNM85;2568053]This bifurcation between what you call; 'political struggle', and; 'economic struggle' makes no sense, whatsoever. A much more accurate, and sensible characterization would be; 'defensive' struggle, where we are responding to an assault upon the working class, and; 'offensive' struggle, where we are attempting to advance the interests of the working class, to gain new ground, by demanding reforms, and concessions to empower the working class. You'll note I've made this distinction often, and repeatedly. Several times, in fact, in the course of this very conversation.

The idea of the political and the economic struggle is a staple of Marxist theory, expanded and improved by Rosa Luxemburg quite brilliantly. She states that you need both the political and the economic struggle to intertwine in any revolutionary movement. But even if you don't subscribe to her somewhat radically left-wing understanding of class struggle, then at least as a Marxist you ought to understand that the economic struggle should lead to the political struggle. Struggling for reforms because we're not in a revolutionary period does nothing to advance political struggle. You could be spreading Socialist propaganda and ideas, fighting to defend already-gotten gains and building a mass movement towards revolution, but you want to build not even a mass movement, but merely electoral support towards a few crumbs from the table that are easily reversible. Seriously, your position holds no water in Marxist theory. It's all about the constant struggle between accumulation and legitimisation.

You still misuse the word; 'Reformism.' 'Reformism' refers to Socialists who believe that Socialism can be established nonviolently (Which Marx believed, at least, in the West.) through parliamentary means. Look it up, for fucks' sake, if you don't believe me. I've explained this to you several times. I have also been equally explicit that I do not subscribe to Reformism, and I have consistently criticized Reformism. All of these things you already know. At this point it's becoming difficult not to conclude there's some deliberate ignorance going on, here.

My experience has taught me that, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. You can say you're not a reformist all you like, but you ONLY ever talk about reforms. We are in the midst of the worst capitalist crisis since teh great depression, yet you seem hellbent on forsaking the opportunity to build a genuine working class mass movement towards revolution, for electoral support for some murdering, imperial pro-capitalist political party who would sell you and your mother down the river for a few votes!

Making healthcare and education more accessible absolutely helps the working class. Overturning institutional barriers that discriminate against homosexuals and, thus, divide the working class against itself, absolutely helps the working class. Reforming our absurd, and obscene drug laws so less workers get incarcerated absolutely helps the working class. There's no other way to see it.

What you don't seem to understand is that yes, radicals fought tooth and nail in the past for healthcare and education. But today we are not in the situation of industrial capitalism, where little children get swallowed by machines and the outrage and disgust forces the accumulators to legitimise their rule through concessions. We are in a period of vast capital accumulation and we need to fight back, not say 'hey, give me some welfare man'.

This idea about reforms, and concessions inevitably disappearing in the next election is ridiculous. Gay marriage is here to stay, in 10 states. Soon, depending on the Supreme Court, probably the whole country. The drug law reforms passed , here, in Massachusetts, and several other states, are here to stay. The Affordable Care Act, for all it's flaws, is here to stay, which means, among other things, that 31 million Americans will have health insurance, who, otherwise, would not. If you can't see that helps the working class; you should see an optometrist. Social security, and Medicare while under assault, which is something that should be opposed as millions of Americans depend on these programs, and because it's a blatant attack on the working class, aren't going anywhere fast, because the American public wouldn't tolerate it. These are all real gains that have been won, they were not presents from the master class. You can be as upset as you want about that; that's your pathology.

Drugs have nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class. LGBT rights, whilst necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat, are in no way sufficient by themselves and, you have to say, there is little threat posed to the ruling class by allowing gay marriage. Obamacare is a sham. I mean, in Britain we have people dying on trolleys and getting chemotherapy in staff rooms because our system is so crap, and you're celebrating something that is a million times worse than that?

I have no doubt that welfare gains already made should be fought for, tooth and nail. But don't try and tell me that drug reforms and Obamacare are anything other than a load of bollocks, they have NOTHING to do with the class struggle.

You're continued derision, and contempt for reforms, and concessions won in the class struggle, and the people who fought for, and, in some cases died for them, is unseemly, and irrational. More disturbing is the implicit contempt for the working class, within it. What you're really saying is; Who gives a fuck if poor kids eat? Who gives a fuck if gays can marry? Why should I give a shit if workers have health insurance? That doesn't display support for the working class, that displays indifference, or even outright hostility to the working class.

I bear no contempt for concessions won in the class struggle, historically. I have beef with people like you who present shit like legalising drugs and forcing working Americans to pay their money to insurance companies to get basic healthcare as somehow a win for the working class.

You're now starting to sound like a moralist. You don't seem to have any interesting in working class POWER. You're sounding like Bob Geldof or some similar bleeding heart liberal. How the fuck can you say I don't give a shit about peoples' basic needs? The point is that what capital gives, capital takes away and i'd rather fight for long-term revolution than establish semi-permanent soup kitchens and make it legal for poor people to spend their money on shit like crack cocaine and the sub-standard healthcare that the ruling classes buddies in the insurance industry provisde.

As to your claims of ineffectivesness; you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Again; what you're really saying is that the history of the Radical Left, in the West, is a history of failure. That western Radicals have achieved absolutely nothing, whatsoever, ever. That's remarkably ignorant, and obviously false to anyone who knows anything. It's so insane it's almost not worth refuting.

Don't really understand what you're saying here. Though yes, the left in the west have, by and large, been a failure thus far. Not all their fault, capitalism still does have some time to burn and obviously, the further you go back the more of a truism this becomes. But they've largely failed, aside from a few small wins.

The problem is that you're an ultra-Leftist, plain and simple. You're not the only one. Thus; out of your misguided insistence on ideological purity, which is what you people really care about, you oppose any form of incrementalism, because from this standpoint; anything short of immediate, violent overthrow of the existing order is tantamount to ideological treason. This attitude totally disregards reality.

See here is where I know that you've not ever read a single one of my posts, aside from the ones you CHOOSE to decipher as somehow insulting you. I've consistently argued against insurrectionary anarchism or spontaneity, but hey if you don't want to hear that then that's your problem really, I don't give a shit.

To hear a Marxist spouting such idealistic, even fantastical rhetoric is, frankly, comical. There is no evidence that the masses are remotely close to seizing the means of production, in any kind of conceivable immediate future. I mean; trying to reason with you is pretty much a wasted exercise, anyhow, but I find it difficult you can be so blind as to not perceive that. In such instances, which is where we are, at this minute, there's no denying it, it is the task of Socialists to empower the working class, so it can hopefully, eventually perform this function. We can't have the revolution all by ourselves, only the working class can do that. If it happens; it won't be because the masses were stirred to action by your sparkling oratory, but, rather; because the material conditions will be ripe for it, because the existing institutions will be exhausted. At that point, if we ever get there; nothing will be able to stop it.

And to hear a person claiming to be a Marxist (or is it anarchist? or anarcho-liberal?) being so negative about the prospects for the working class is equally sad. Nobody can predict revolution. Revolution doesn't happen overnight. Which is why *some* people give their lives to lay the foundation for a society that, one day, will be better than today's one.

But you take the easy route, vote Democrat every 4 years and be thankful for your free marijuana and spend a few dollars lining the pockets of healthcare insurance execs, in the spirit of working class wins and all that! :thumbup1:

RadioRaheem84

22nd January 2013, 22:12

Dude calls me ultra-left, left com, while I have Salvador Allende as my icon. Classic!

Tenka

23rd January 2013, 01:29

I disagree that people are happy and fulfilled without having any children. I think people are happier with children and men are happier with their own family.

The heterosexual sex act is symbolic. It's symbolic of reproduction, creation and giving life. "Love" to me, and sexual love is symbolic of "life". Love is the opposite of death.

"Homosexuality" being culturally encouraged does bring "sex" out into the open in public discourse. In mainstream heterosexual society "sex" is in the background which makes it more erotic and embracing. Declaring one to be proud of being gay or "out and proud" automatically brings "sex" to the forefront because it defines itself by being a different from the normal type of sexuality and relationship.

If you want to legalize same sex marriage and encourage the homosexual lifestyle culturally you clearly don't want the best for society. You don't understand what makes people happy and fulfilled.

Your blatant homophobia/sexism is really tiring.
And this is still bothering me:

Some LGBT people do adopt but it's not the same. They are not productive. And hardly any heterosexual couples "don't want children". A lot of couples who don't have children don't have them because of contraception problems or other problems. A much smaller number choose not to have any and yes, they are pretty selfish and I would go out on a limb and speculate that most of them probably would be happier if they had a child or two and perhaps even regret not having children.

Men are happier with their own family. Presumably you're aware of this so I have no idea why you bothered posting a reply.

Leaving aside the rest of the post for now.... Heterosexual couples who do not want children are more common than you think. And what, pray tell, are "contraception problems"?
Well? What do you mean by "contraception problems"? Problematic condoms and females on the pill?

Lenina Rosenweg

23rd January 2013, 01:58

NGNM85,

I haven't read the entire thread but in clarification I could bring up a few points...

A.) One can look at politics as a system of reformism, politics as the "art of the possible". Voting for Obama "without illusions" as the only choice available is a prime example. Change is incremental but it does occur. One must be realistic, work within the system for what is feasible, etc.

Another way of approaching politics is as a revolutionary. This is challenging the basic foundation of the system.This would entail the building of institutions not beholden to capital and ultimately the creation of a socialist society.

These two approaches are not mutually exclusive although the revolutionary approach should be paramount. Any concessions granted by the ruling class in reaction to struggle from below can be withdrawn when no longer convenient.Also liberal reforms quickly come up against sharp limits.Obama's Inauguration speech referenced struggles of the past relating to modern day identity politics-Seneca Falls, Stonewall, etc I'm not denying the importance of these but Obama omitted any class struggle aspect. The IWW, the Haymarket Martyrs, the Homestead Steel strike, Paterson silk strike, etc were not mentioned.Identity politics is easy for the ruling class.

As The Boss mentioned, Rosa Luxemburg wrote an interesting essay on this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

B.) Basic to a revolutionary anti-capitalist approach is the creation of class consciousness-the knowledge on the part of the working class that they are a "class of itself" and have fundamentally opposing interests to that of the owners of capital. The working class and the bourgeois have opposing irreconcilable interests.

C.) Obama was/is moderately better than Romney. That is the interests of working people would have been hurt more by Romney than by Obama. But....

Supporting Obama in anyway would be counter-revolutionary, that is it would serve to throw back class consciousness.

D.) As far as saying "there is no alternative", I disagree. My organisation mentioned what could have happened if the Occupy movement had run even 200 candidates. This could have had a major effect in altering the political dynamics of the US.

People who are more involved than I am say that 2014 is certain to see the beginning of an embryonic US Labor Party. There is a huge gaping hole opening up to the left of the Dems and this is bound to widen.Support for the Dems in anyway, no matter how "strategic" will push back class consciousness and retard the process of liberation.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 02:27

Too long to make it a sig, but better words have never been written. :thumbup1:

And could you elaborate on the part about Occupy candidates, plz? That part amazed me.

Lenina Rosenweg

23rd January 2013, 02:57

Thanks.

Imagine 200 Occupy candidates running for Congress this year – independent of the Democrats and Republicans.
Imagine if these candidates were not careerist politicians, but activists and ordinary people, running as accountable representatives of a real, fighting movement of the 99%.
Imagine homeowners who are facing foreclosure running against local sheriffs, and pledging to stop all evictions.
Imagine teachers fighting union-busting; debt-ridden students fighting for free education; low-wage workers fighting for a living wage; and environmentalists fighting big oil.
Imagine them all running with tens of thousands of Occupy activists backing them up: going door-to-door, rallying, protesting, and using these candidates to build the power of our grassroots mass movement.
Last year, the Occupy Wall Street movement showed that when the 99% speaks up, the seething anger of millions can transform into social power and change the whole political landscape.
But, this year, the 1% is making a comeback, using their domination of electoral politics. Had hundreds of independent working class candidates run, it would have been a different story.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1921

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 03:03

Imagine! That is something I would support. Apparently, NGN would continue his train of logic that this would not be a viable alternative and that the best course would be to work with what we have because to support an Occupy Candidate is akin to voting for a Republican. :rolleyes:

BIXX

23rd January 2013, 03:20

Obama doesn't support QUEER rights, he CLAIMS to support GAY rights.
I mean, I'm all for gay rights, but he doesn't support trans rights, so he's still a douche (in my opinion) when it comes to queer rights.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 04:13

NGNM85,

I haven't read the entire thread..

That's your choice. However; it usually is a good idea to at least skim a thread to stay current, if you're going to be participating. You can also feel free to PM me, at any time, should you so wish.

but in clarification I could bring up a few points...

A.) One can look at politics as a system of reformism,

Again; 'Reformism' refers to a branch of Socialism which believes in establishing Socialism via parliamentary means, which, incidentally, I do not subscribe to.

...politics as the "art of the possible". Voting for Obama "without illusions" as the only choice available is a prime example. Change is incremental but it does occur. One must be realistic, work within the system for what is feasible, etc.

Well, it doesn't really make sense to try to do the impossible, yes? I mean; that's why it's; 'impossible.'

Another way of approaching politics is as a revolutionary.

Technically speaking; even Reformists are revolutionaries, because they believe in fundamentally transforming society by abolishing capitalism, and the state, they just believe, rather naively, I think, that this can be done through parliamentary means.

In any case; I am a revolutionary, although I really dislike describing myself, as such, and, again; I am not a Reformist.

This is challenging the basic foundation of the system.This would entail the building of institutions not beholden to capital and ultimately the creation of a socialist society.

If you're talking about building co-ops, and stuff like that, which is what it sounds like; that's great, I mean; 'Anarchy in Action.' Fabulous,. However; I don't ever think it's going to present any kind of threat to capitalism, I think the effect of these experiments on the wider class war is negligible. I think legalizing gay marriage would do more to empower the working class than a thousand co-ops.

These two approaches are not mutually exclusive although the revolutionary approach should be paramount. Any concessions granted by the ruling class in reaction to
struggle from below can be withdrawn when no longer convenient.

That's simply not true. Jim crow is gone for good. The 19th amendment is here to stay. Etc., etc. Social security, and Medicare are under a sustained attack, as they have been from the very beginning, but the reason they're taking the slow approach is the public won't tolerate it. These programs, which sustain the lives of millions of the working class, are way too popular. So; it depends. If you're willing to defend on them, those concessions can be preserved, even expanded. The thing is; the modern Radical Left hasn't been defending the progress of earlier generations, so we've actually lost ground. For example; it's actually harder to get an abortion, today, than it was 10 years ago. We're going backwards, and it's long past time to turn this ship around.

Also liberal reforms quickly come up against sharp limits.Obama's Inauguration speech referenced struggles of the past relating to modern day identity politics-Seneca Falls, Stonewall, etc I'm not denying the importance of these but Obama omitted any class struggle aspect. The IWW, the Haymarket Martyrs, the Homestead Steel strike, Paterson silk strike, etc were not mentioned.Identity politics is easy for the ruling class.

As The Boss mentioned, Rosa Luxemburg wrote an interesting essay on this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

I've read it.

B.) Basic to a revolutionary anti-capitalist approach is the creation of class consciousness-the knowledge on the part of the working class that they are a "class of itself" and have
fundamentally opposing interests to that of the owners of capital. The working class and the bourgeois have opposing irreconcilable interests.

That's actually something of an oversimplification. Marx was nuanced enough to understand that while the interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are generally opposed, for the most part, they aren't actually always opposed, but that's besides the point.

However; you're absolutely correct in that one of the essential preconditions in order to overthrow capitalism is for the working class, or a large majority, thereof, to achieve class consciousness. That's without question. What I would argue is that these smaller skirmishes in the class war offer vital opportunities to break down the artificial barriers that divide the working class, such as the institutional barriers that prevent gay men,
and women from exercising their basic human rights, or the inaccessibility of contraception, or abortion. These things disempower the working class, and divide it. Second; the act of participating in these struggles for 'modest increments of dignity' offer possibilities for building solidarity, and raising consciousness, among workers. Those are two points that I would make. There's also the simple moral argument that gays should be able to get married, etc., because to deny them that is not only unjust, it's cruel. That's a totally sufficient argument, by itself.

C.) Obama was/is moderately better than Romney. That is the interests of working people would have been hurt more by Romney than by Obama. But....

Yes. That's the point. Don't lose it. This is the only thing that matters. That should be the litmus test.

Supporting Obama in anyway would be counter-revolutionary, that is it would serve to throw back class consciousness.

Again; I'm just talking about voting, I'm not talking about campaigning for anybody. We should absolutely be working to dispel people's illusions. The two are not contradictory. I've had a number of experiences talking with my co-workers. Most are pretty a-political. Most of them only have a high school diploma, or a GED. I just break it down in simplest terms. I don't tell them that the President is their savior, quite the contrary, but I compare his record, and his platform, with his opponents', and say; 'This is how this might affect you...' It's really not that difficult. So; you don't have to reinforce any illusions.

Second; you're treading down a very treacherous path. First of all; anything, at all, that empowers the working class is a step in the right direction. Always. Support for the working class should be total, and completely unconditional.

D.) As far as saying "there is no alternative", I disagree. My organisation mentioned what could have happened if the Occupy movement had run even 200 candidates. This could have had a major effect in altering the political dynamics of the US.

I've heard chatter about something like this. Candidates for what? School board? Neighborhood watch? Forget the presidency, and probably the House, and the Senate, too. That leaves the state legislatures. Even there; the odds are not good. Presuming that's what you're aiming at; you'd be extremely lucky to get five people actually elected. That's assuming you can find someone who's qualified, etc. Look at the Green Party. They are a much more experienced operation. They are probably much less radical, and more electable than what you are suggesting. On their website it says they have 133 candidates holding office. What offices? School board. Neighborhood council. Shit like that. As I've said; they are much more experienced. The problem is our electoral system is fucked. In the wake of Citizens, it's virtually impossible for anyone who isn't already in the system to get elected to any position of power. That's why I've said, many times, that campaign finance reform is the most important domestic issue facing the American Radicals, today.

People who are more involved than I am say that 2014 is certain to see the beginning of an embryonic US Labor Party. There is a huge gaping hole opening up to the left of the Dems and this is bound to widen.Support for the Dems in anyway, no matter how "strategic" will push back class consciousness and retard the process of liberation.[/

I really don't want to rain on your parade. Your naiveté is charming. However; this is just completely unrealistic. Moreover; in the astronomically unlikely event such a miraculous thing were to occur, it would most likely be counterproductive. It would be 2000, all over again. Don't get me wrong; I'd like nothing better, but this simply isn't going to happen.

Jason

23rd January 2013, 04:45

Same sex marriage explicitly condones non-reproductive sex and encourages culturally a selfish lifestyle that should be discouraged culturally for reasons of happiness ad fulfillment and desiring the best in society.

So does "straight" pornography and host of other things. Why single gays out? I'm not criticizing porn or gays, but just pointing out the weak argument.

#FF0000

23rd January 2013, 05:05

Only because other people had heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex has important symbolism because it is our whole reason d'etre. It's the whole reason I am typing this now. It should be respected more than any other sex act and held in higher regard by anyone with self respect.

No, I disagree because don't accept that one sex act is inherently superior to any other.

And I agree that homosexuality is natural in some cases however the reason it shouldn't be encouraged culturally is that there are plenty of people who swing both ways or with homosexual tendencies who should be encouraged to opt for the traditional model which is better and more fulfilling than be pressured to be out and proud and live for themselves.

There is nothing selfish about being gay. Nor is there anything healthy or fulfilling about one denying who one is. What you want to see is a culture where people are shamed into denying themselves, and those who do not and who are open and honest about their sexuality are made pariah. That is, you would see a society in which one is considered lesser to another. There is nothing healthy or fulfilling about this, and we know where it leads -- to violence committed against homosexuals by bigots, and violence committed against homosexuals by themselves who would subject themselves to abuse under the guise of "cure" and "treatment".

You seem to have a very romantic, idealized image of the working class, where everyone is happily ignorant, white, christian, and male with a wife at home who cooks and cleans and kids who keep quiet, while all the nonbelievers and homosexuals and feminists are all wealthy socialites, or something. And as a blue collar worker, it bugs the shit out of me whenever you go on to paint this picture, because your idea of what the working class looks like is nothing like what it actually is on the ground. I've worked with women. I've worked with gay people. I've worked with people of all colors and genders and identities and shapes and sizes, and it bothers me a great deal when you try and tell me their struggles aren't "working class" struggles, that they're selfish for wanted to be treated the same as I am.

But hey, that's cool and you can have your own dumb opinions but stop trying to dress up your bigotry in progressive language. It doesn't fool anyone.

Jason

23rd January 2013, 05:09

You seem to have a very romantic, idealized image of the working class, where everyone is happily ignorant, white, christian, and male with a wife at home who cooks and cleans and kids who keep quiet, while all the nonbelievers and homosexuals and feminists are all wealthy socialites, or something.

I'm from a small town, and it's shocking to see how many of these "country tough guys" are really gay. :D All you have to do is browse internet dating site profiiles. Wow. No wonder there was so much homophobia growing up. Everybody is gay!

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 06:29

OMG, NGN you are beyond words. How it took several posts for you to be restricted still boggles my mind!

If you're talking about building co-ops, and stuff like that, which is what it sounds like; that's great, I mean; 'Anarchy in Action.' Fabulous,. However; I don't ever think it's going to present any kind of threat to capitalism, I think the effect of these experiments on the wider class war is negligible. I think legalizing gay marriage would do more to empower the working class than a thousand co-ops.

So workers finding out about democracy in the workplace on nation wide scale will not empower the working class as much as legalizing gay marriage (which is still good)? Especially if it was a concerted effort to sway public opinion toward an alternative?

Do you not get that there is a fundamental antagonism that shapes the capitalist state? That there is democracy in all aspects except the workplace? It is at this starting point where we see the fundamental problem. Not at the quest for "self evident" inalienable rights.

That's actually something of an oversimplification. Marx was nuanced enough to understand that while the interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are generally opposed, for the most part, they aren't actually always opposed, but that's besides the point.

Come again?

I really don't want to rain on your parade. Your naiveté is charming. However; this is just completely unrealistic. Moreover; in the astronomically unlikely event such a miraculous thing were to occur, it would most likely be counterproductive. It would be 2000, all over again. Don't get me wrong; I'd like nothing better, but this simply isn't going to happen.

Well WTF! So even in the event that a radical movement actually formed and had some momentum and challenged the two party system in any way, you would still vote Democrat because you believe it's "counterproductive"????!

You're no fucking radical. If you still believe you are, you're a ranting nutjob and do a big disservice to anarchists everywhere. I couldn't even see Chomsky making such a remark!

I mean my god the absolute Olympic somersaults you do to prove your god awful 'more radical than thou' ideology is not only laughable but infuriating because you keep calling yourself a person of the left.

How is it that you literally take the side of every bourgoise rag out there? Cite them like they're so fucking legit? How is that you sit there and tell us that even if by some miracle a radical movement gained nationwide momentum they would be counterproductive to worker interests because it could potentially sabotage a Democratic Party victory? How is it that you think workplace democracy co-ops being introduced on a nation wide scale to a new audience would be less empowering than a single issue campaign?

What is your opinion of the Bolivarian Revolution?

This whole debate with you has gone beyond the point of pure bananas man. You're bonkers to the tenth degree. I mean to literally sit there and brazenly post about shit you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about and claim it's all in the name of being a leftist anarchist is probably the most insane thing anyone has ever posted on this board. Most people in OI do not go this deep into denial and I would laugh if it wasn't so fucking sad, bro.

Get a clue, you ain't no anarchist. Join the Daily Kos, subscribe to the Nation Mag (which isn't bad btw), and attend Jon Stewart's next Rally to Restore Sanity.

Ostrinski

23rd January 2013, 07:53

So; you're suggesting Radicals should vote Republican. That's.......interesting. However; I don't find it very persuasive.Spoken like a true liberal. You are pedaling that very same bullshit we always here from Democrat voters every four years, that very manipulative guilt trip supposing that an abstention or a vote for a third party is a de facto vote for the party that they're trying to beat i.e. the Republican Party. I'm sure the same thing is said by Republicans to Libertarians.

In fact, I know it is because I have seen it in real life at school. So I have a hard time making the distinction between you and the scumbags who chastise Libertarian Gary Johnson voters for destroying America by not voting for Romney in terms of the shallow rhetorical methods you're employing.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 08:19

OMG, NGN you are beyond words. How it took several posts for you to be restricted still boggles my mind!

I think a lot of things boggle your mind, like; how to properly use the quote function.

So workers finding out about democracy in the workplace on nation wide scale will not empower the working class as much as legalizing gay marriage (which is still good)?
Especially if it was a concerted effort to sway public opinion toward an alternative?

Socialism will not be built through isolated enclaves within the capitalist state. These experiments, while laudable, have no real revolutionary
potential. Just as Socialism cannot be built in one country, it cannot be built inside a bubble within the capitalist state. Gay marriage is much more
effective because it has a net positive affect on millions of gay Americans, obviously, by according them equal rights as human beings which they should be entitled to, but more to the point; it breaks down the institutional barrier that separates gay, and straight workers, leaving the working class more unified, and therefore; stronger.

Who's going to supply the startup capital for this national network of co-ops?

Do you not get that there is a fundamental antagonism that shapes the capitalist state? That there is democracy in all aspects except the workplace? It is at this starting point where we see the fundamental problem. Not at the quest for "self evident" inalienable rights.

I never said gay rights replaced class struggle, I said gay rights was one of many components of class struggle.

Come again?

Well; first of all, it's sort of obvious. The bourgeoisie are homo sapiens, therefore, at the very least, they must share some interests with the working class. What I was referring to was Marx's writings on the British Factory Acts. Marx noted that while the Factory Acts benefitted the working class by shortening the work day, reducing the physical discomfort they experienced, and providing a political victory for the working class, it also benefitted the bourgeoisie by stabilizing the British economy, and promoting economic growth. This is a very short summary, but that's the gist.

Well WTF! So even in the event that a radical movement actually formed and had some momentum and challenged the two party system in any way, you would still vote Democrat because you believe it's "counterproductive"????!

That's not what I said. I was saying that an unelectable party, which was what this proposed entity would be, entering the Presidential race, would most likely be counterproductive, if not totally ineffectual. Again; even when the Socialist movement was at it's height, compared to which, it is but a pale shadow, today, Eugene Debs maxed out at 6% of the vote. Considering he was running from prison; that's impressive. However that's miles away from being a viable contender. Nader didn't even crack 3%. There is no logical reason to believe that a Radical third party emerging, today, would clean up, in an election. There's simply no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary; all available evidence demonstrates such an initiative would fail. If it had a chance of success; I'd support it. I said as much. However; I wouldn't count on it.

You're no fucking radical. If you still believe you are, you're a ranting nutjob and do a big disservice to anarchists everywhere. I couldn't even see Chomsky making such a remark!

I didn't say what you say I said, so I don't need to defend it.

How is it that you literally take the side of every bourgoise rag out there? Cite them like they're so fucking legit?

I invite you to confirm those statistics, you'll see they are genuine. There is one exception, I was slightly off on the healthcare figures. The number of Americans who will receive health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act is 31 million, not 35, or 36 million, I think I said. I was wrong, and I apologize, but; in my defense, I was pretty close.

How is that you sit there and tell us that even if by some miracle a radical movement gained nationwide momentum they would be counterproductive to worker interests because it could potentially sabotage a Democratic Party victory?

That's not what I said. I said Radical third party candidate would lose, badly, because there's no reason to think otherwise, and that that would be counterproductive because it would split the vote, and ensure Republican victory, just like it did in 2000. There were other factors, of course, but Nader's campaign was significant. It cost Vice President Gore the state of New Hampshire, and, quite possibly, the election.

How is it that you think workplace democracy co-ops being introduced on a nation wide scale to a new audience would be less empowering than a single issue campaign?

There's no startup capital for the kind of initiative you're proposing, which would cost millions, if not billions. Not to mention there's no organization anywhere trying to do this, it's just something that got invented five seconds ago. Also, again; Socialism will not come about by building isolated communes within the capitalist state.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is real, not made up, actually achievable, and would have a guaranteed positive result.

What is your opinion of the Bolivarian Revolution?

That isn't relevant to this conversation. I don't want to derail the thread any more than necessary.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 08:32

Spoken like a true liberal.

There's nothing; 'liberal' about it. In fact, this assertion is totally value-free.

You are pedaling that very same bullshit we always here from Democrat voters every four years, that very manipulative guilt trip supposing that an abstention or a vote for a third party is a de facto vote for the party that they're trying to beat i.e. the Republican Party. I'm sure the same thing is said by Republicans to Libertarians.

In fact, I know it is because I have seen it in real life at school. So I have a hard time making the distinction between you and the scumbags who chastise Libertarian Gary Johnson voters for destroying America by not voting for Romney in terms of the shallow rhetorical methods you're employing.

It's not rhetoric, it's an empirical fact. Votes for an unelectable candidate only serve to split the vote on that side of the political spectrum, which only benefits their mutual opponents. So, for example; a vote for 'Libertarian' Gary Johnson has no effect, whatsoever, on President Barack Obama's chances of victory. It does reduce Governor Romney's chance of victory, by splitting the Right-wing vote. So; those people are correct in their assessment, even if they happen to be Reactionaries. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

DancingEmma

23rd January 2013, 08:39

Crux

23rd January 2013, 09:23

That's not what I said. I was saying that an unelectable party, which was what this proposed entity would be, entering the Presidential race, would most likely be counterproductive, if not totally ineffectual. Again; even when the Socialist movement was at it's height, compared to which, it is but a pale shadow, today, Eugene Debs maxed out at 6% of the vote. Considering he was running from prison; that's impressive. However that's miles away from being a viable contender. Nader didn't even crack 3%. There is no logical reason to believe that a Radical third party emerging, today, would clean up, in an election. There's simply no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary; all available evidence demonstrates such an initiative would fail. If it had a chance of success; I'd support it. I said as much. However; I wouldn't count on it.

That's not what I said. I said Radical third party candidate would lose, badly, because there's no reason to think otherwise, and that that would be counterproductive because it would split the vote, and ensure Republican victory, just like it did in 2000. There were other factors, of course, but Nader's campaign was significant. It cost Vice President Gore the state of New Hampshire, and, quite possibly, the election.
Tell me how your complete internalization of Democratic Party logic not putting you in opposition to "not voting for the Democrats", every time.
Not only that, but you do it under the illusion of being "more revolutionary than Marx". I guess you've never read what he had to say about the U.S.
So tell, if not in English,in which language would you prefer to be called a liberal?

#FF0000

23rd January 2013, 11:02

Regardless, given the multiple environmental crises we are facing, procreation is hardly a social good at this point in history. This is especially true in high consumption post-industrial countries, where we urgently need to have fewer people than we currently do. Heterosexual people are more likely than homosexual people to be socially and environmentally irresponsible by excessively procreating. This is hardly something I hold in high regard. An increase in people not procreating--whether this means being celibate, making use of birth control/abortion, or engaging in homosexual rather than heterosexual sex--is actually evolutionarily adaptive at this point in time. So heterosexuals are not particularly helping the survival of the human species currently; they are more likely to be hindering it, in fact.

Eh, I don't really buy into this for a few reason. First, because populations are starting to taper off anyway (especially in Europe). Second, because I don't think the problem is consumption of resources, necessarily, but over-production and inefficient use of resources by certain industries. The natural gas industry in my home state poisoning water and taking it permanently out of the water cycle, for example.

DancingEmma

23rd January 2013, 11:31

Eh, I don't really buy into this for a few reason. First, because populations are starting to taper off anyway (especially in Europe). Second, because I don't think the problem is consumption of resources, necessarily, but over-production and inefficient use of resources by certain industries. The natural gas industry in my home state poisoning water and taking it permanently out of the water cycle, for example.

Well, I was partially being facetious. I support things like birth control and queer sexuality because I support personal freedom, not because they are good for the environment or the future of society. I do think that post-industrial nations need to dramatically reduce either their populations or their consumption of resources very soon, however, or we will be facing a massive involuntary die-off of humans in the future. You're right that a lot of the problem has to do with over-production and inefficiencies in certain sectors.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd January 2013, 12:13

[QUOTE=NGNM85;2568424]

Who's going to supply the startup capital for this national network of co-ops?

Obviously, if we're talking about workplace democracy, then 'capital' doesn't really come into it as workers backed by capital inevitably become capitalists.

Well; first of all, it's sort of obvious. The bourgeoisie are homo sapiens, therefore, at the very least, they must share some interests with the working class. What I was referring to was Marx's writings on the British Factory Acts. Marx noted that while the Factory Acts benefitted the working class by shortening the work day, reducing the physical discomfort they experienced, and providing a political victory for the working class, it also benefitted the bourgeoisie by stabilizing the British economy, and promoting economic growth. This is a very short summary, but that's the gist.

I'm not sure you really understand what you're talking about here. The factory acts came to pass in the middle of the 19th century. They were followed by a long period of steady decline in the British economy. They did NOTHING to help the bourgeoisie, who moved their capital abroad.

Seriously, you seem to be talking about stuff you know nothing about, in the hope that others who haven't studied the period in detail (like I have) will swallow your bullshit.

That's not what I said. I was saying that an unelectable party, which was what this proposed entity would be, entering the Presidential race, would most likely be counterproductive, if not totally ineffectual. Again; even when the Socialist movement was at it's height, compared to which, it is but a pale shadow, today, Eugene Debs maxed out at 6% of the vote. Considering he was running from prison; that's impressive. However that's miles away from being a viable contender. Nader didn't even crack 3%. There is no logical reason to believe that a Radical third party emerging, today, would clean up, in an election. There's simply no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary; all available evidence demonstrates such an initiative would fail. If it had a chance of success; I'd support it. I said as much. However; I wouldn't count on it.

Surely a working person should consider the party of the Dixiecrats, the Clintons, Barack Obama; the party of rampant capitalism, imperialism, war and patriotism an unelectable party??

I invite you to confirm those statistics, you'll see they are genuine. There is one exception, I was slightly off on the healthcare figures. The number of Americans who will receive health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act is 31 million, not 35, or 36 million, I think I said. I was wrong, and I apologize, but; in my defense, I was pretty close.

Is it not more correct to say that they won't just receive this healthcare insurance, but will be forced to pay for it. Am I right?

graffic

23rd January 2013, 12:52

Actually, this is not true anymore. It's possible for children to be born without heterosexual sex through such techniques as in vitro fertilization. Also, some trans women could impregnate cis women through homosexual sex, and cis men could impregnate some trans men through homosexual sex as well.

Regardless, given the multiple environmental crises we are facing, procreation is hardly a social good at this point in history. This is especially true in high consumption post-industrial countries, where we urgently need to have fewer people than we currently do. Heterosexual people are more likely than homosexual people to be socially and environmentally irresponsible by excessively procreating. This is hardly something I hold in high regard. An increase in people not procreating--whether this means being celibate, making use of birth control/abortion, or engaging in homosexual rather than heterosexual sex--is actually evolutionarily adaptive at this point in time. So heterosexuals are not particularly helping the survival of the human species currently; they are more likely to be hindering it, in fact.

Right, so instead of it being a problem with capitalist growth, technology and over-production you think people should stop having children or become homosexual. The world can feed itself five times over.

soso17

23rd January 2013, 13:08

Right, so instead of it being a problem with capitalist growth, technology and over-production you think people should stop having children or become homosexual. The world can feed itself five times over.

One cannot "become" homosexual. That's just ridiculous.

Your obsession with homosexuality is getting a little excessive, dude. Gay people don't talk about gay sex as much as you do.

Maybe you should call the pope instead of posting on this board. I think you and he share many opinions.

graffic

23rd January 2013, 13:09

No, I disagree because don't accept that one sex act is inherently superior to any other.

I respect the heterosexual sex act more because it's the reason I'm here.

There is nothing selfish about being gay. Nor is there anything healthy or fulfilling about one denying who one is. What you want to see is a culture where people are shamed into denying themselves, and those who do not and who are open and honest about their sexuality are made pariah. That is, you would see a society in which one is considered lesser to another. There is nothing healthy or fulfilling about this, and we know where it leads -- to violence committed against homosexuals by bigots, and violence committed against homosexuals by themselves who would subject themselves to abuse under the guise of "cure" and "treatment".

You seem to have a very romantic, idealized image of the working class, where everyone is happily ignorant, white, christian, and male with a wife at home who cooks and cleans and kids who keep quiet, while all the nonbelievers and homosexuals and feminists are all wealthy socialites, or something. And as a blue collar worker, it bugs the shit out of me whenever you go on to paint this picture, because your idea of what the working class looks like is nothing like what it actually is on the ground. I've worked with women. I've worked with gay people. I've worked with people of all colors and genders and identities and shapes and sizes, and it bothers me a great deal when you try and tell me their struggles aren't "working class" struggles, that they're selfish for wanted to be treated the same as I am.

But hey, that's cool and you can have your own dumb opinions but stop trying to dress up your bigotry in progressive language. It doesn't fool anyone.

I didn't say anything of the sort, there is nothing selfish about being gay if you don't choose to be gay. However condoning it as a lifestyle is wrong because it is a more selfish existence.

The majority of low paid manual labour in this country is carried out by heterosexual men. If you emphasise feminism and gay rights over class, which is what bourgeoise liberals do, you lose the interest of the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics.

Men are still expected to be the first ones to go to war to defend the country. Men are still the ones expected to put their necks on the line first in situations of danger. If it wasn't for patriarchy and men, homosexuals wouldn't even exist because the only reason they can choose to sleep with men is that their father took on the responsibility to have a family and bring them into this world. The only reason women can be accepted into the bourgeoise is because the majority of labour and the lions share of work in this country is carried out by men.

To a lot of working class men bourgeoise liberal feminists and homosexuals seem to be simultaneously taking the piss and having it both ways.

DancingEmma

23rd January 2013, 13:15

graffic

23rd January 2013, 13:48

One cannot "become" homosexual. That's just ridiculous.

Actually it's probably obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of life experience that you can "turn" someone gay. Plenty of people turn gay for different reasons. As a social experiment you could take the most straight hetero dude and force him to watch gay pornography and drink alcohol. Over time he will turn gay. It's a thing that some homosexuals desire to do and something homosexuals in the gay scene brag about "breaking" guys in etc.

soso17

23rd January 2013, 13:53

If you emphasise feminism and gay rights over class, which is what bourgeoise liberals do, you lose the interest of the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics.

Any revolution with bigots as the vanguard can only lead to fascism.

DancingEmma

23rd January 2013, 14:16

Actually it's probably obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of life experience that you can "turn" someone gay. Plenty of people turn gay for different reasons. As a social experiment you could take the most straight hetero dude and force him to watch gay pornography and drink alcohol. Over time he will turn gay. It's a thing that some homosexuals desire to do and something homosexuals in the gay scene brag about "breaking" guys in etc.

Hmmm. Well, uh, I definitely agree that this is, uh, something that you just now said, and it's possible, um, you may even believe it. Yep, it's certainly completely valid to say that the above passage is something you typed.

DancingEmma

23rd January 2013, 14:21

Anyway, on a more serious note, shouldn't graffic be banned? I thought posting homophobic content was against Revleft's rules.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2013, 14:21

I respect the heterosexual sex act more because it's the reason I'm here.

That's quite a frankly a fucking daft reason for respecting a sex act. If your parents had done the exact same act, only using contraception, then you wouldn't be here. If a different sperm had made it to the egg, then we would be talking to someone different (depending on how much genetics influences personality). Rape can be (and often is) a heterosexual act, do you respect that?

I didn't say anything of the sort, there is nothing selfish about being gay if you don't choose to be gay. However condoning it as a lifestyle is wrong because it is a more selfish existence.

How the fuck is being gay "a lifestyle"?

The majority of low paid manual labour in this country is carried out by heterosexual men. If you emphasise feminism and gay rights over class, which is what bourgeoise liberals do, you lose the interest of the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics.

Some working class people are racist. Does that mean we should pander to popular racist prejudice? Because pandering to prejudice is what you are advocating here. Being a homophobic bigot is not an intractable part of working class identity.

Men are still expected to be the first ones to go to war to defend the country. Men are still the ones expected to put their necks on the line first in situations of danger.

So what's your point?

If it wasn't for patriarchy and men, homosexuals wouldn't even exist because the only reason they can choose to sleep with men is that their father took on the responsibility to have a family and bring them into this world.

For the last frigging time, people don't choose their sexuality.

The only reason women can be accepted into the bourgeoise is because the majority of labour and the lions share of work in this country is carried out by men.

You've been told that this isn't the case at least once before. Why are you still repeating this canard?

To a lot of working class men bourgeoise liberal feminists and homosexuals seem to be simultaneously taking the piss and having it both ways.

"A lot of working class men" = "me".

Actually it's probably obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of life experience that you can "turn" someone gay. Plenty of people turn gay for different reasons. As a social experiment you could take the most straight hetero dude and force him to watch gay pornography and drink alcohol. Over time he will turn gay. It's a thing that some homosexuals desire to do and something homosexuals in the gay scene brag about "breaking" guys in etc.

Porn is a fantasy you bigoted imbecile. It's not a perfect reflection of real life.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 16:48

Socialism will not be built through isolated enclaves within the capitalist state. These experiments, while laudable, have no real revolutionary
potential. Just as Socialism cannot be built in one country, it cannot be built inside a bubble within the capitalist state. Gay marriage is much more
effective because it has a net positive affect on millions of gay Americans, obviously, by according them equal rights as human beings which they should be entitled to, but more to the point; it breaks down the institutional barrier that separates gay, and straight workers, leaving the working class more unified, and therefore; stronger.

Who's going to supply the startup capital for this national network of co-ops?

I never said gay rights replaced class struggle, I said gay rights was one of many components of class struggle.

Well; first of all, it's sort of obvious. The bourgeoisie are homo sapiens, therefore, at the very least, they must share some interests with the working class. What I was referring to was Marx's writings on the British Factory Acts. Marx noted that while the Factory Acts benefitted the working class by shortening the work day, reducing the physical discomfort they experienced, and providing a political victory for the working class, it also benefitted the bourgeoisie by stabilizing the British economy, and promoting economic growth. This is a very short summary, but that's the gist.

That's not what I said. I was saying that an unelectable party, which was what this proposed entity would be, entering the Presidential race, would most likely be counterproductive, if not totally ineffectual. Again; even when the Socialist movement was at it's height, compared to which, it is but a pale shadow, today, Eugene Debs maxed out at 6% of the vote. Considering he was running from prison; that's impressive. However that's miles away from being a viable contender. Nader didn't even crack 3%. There is no logical reason to believe that a Radical third party emerging, today, would clean up, in an election. There's simply no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary; all available evidence demonstrates such an initiative would fail. If it had a chance of success; I'd support it. I said as much. However; I wouldn't count on it.

I didn't say what you say I said, so I don't need to defend it.

I invite you to confirm those statistics, you'll see they are genuine. There is one exception, I was slightly off on the healthcare figures. The number of Americans who will receive health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act is 31 million, not 35, or 36 million, I think I said. I was wrong, and I apologize, but; in my defense, I was pretty close.

That's not what I said. I said Radical third party candidate would lose, badly, because there's no reason to think otherwise, and that that would be counterproductive because it would split the vote, and ensure Republican victory, just like it did in 2000. There were other factors, of course, but Nader's campaign was significant. It cost Vice President Gore the state of New Hampshire, and, quite possibly, the election.

There's no startup capital for the kind of initiative you're proposing, which would cost millions, if not billions. Not to mention there's no organization anywhere trying to do this, it's just something that got invented five seconds ago. Also, again; Socialism will not come about by building isolated communes within the capitalist state.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is real, not made up, actually achievable, and would have a guaranteed positive result.

That isn't relevant to this conversation. I don't want to derail the thread any more than necessary.

A.) Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean it can never happen. Salvador Allende was the first Marxist ever to be elected President in Chile, a country with a long history of bourgeoise democratic rule and a very westernized country. In Bolivia, where the elites had an even much more stronger hold, an indigenous peasent movement gained control of the government. Chavez in Venezuela radicalized the lower strata and empowered them to even take their country back from a coup. So even when elections didn't work in Venezuela in 2002, the workers made sure the man they elected stayed President.

If it can happen in these nations where the control of the ruling class was and to a large extent still is much stronger that in the US, than why can it not happen here?

B.) Why are you saying there is no organization out there? Did you ever hear of the takeovers of abandoned factories movement in Argentina? Workers captured hundreds of rusting factories from the owners who abandoned them and got them running to profitablity again. When the State came to reclaim the property for the owners, a lot of them lost. Imagine something like that happening in the US? Have you even heard of this movement? I am sure you're at least liberal enough to have watched Naomi Klein's The Take. To have US American workers realize that a parasitic owner is not needed for a factory to run would dispell one of the biggest myths in America. An alternative like that would do more for the working class than some idealistic dream you have about a single issue campaign. Mind you a campaign that's already mired in a split. Not that I would ever personally be against gay marriage but that I do not think it would have the fundamental impact to improve worker solidarity like you do, especially when the movement at the forefront has amputated the older liberationist aspect and taken on a new assimilationist one that will do nothing to tackle the deeper problems facing the gay community as well. I do not even know how, in that shallow brazenly ignorant mind of yours do you think that something like that would empower workers more than a full blown workers movement to take over factories or start co-ops. And I never meant just start an organic food co-op but I meant a nationwide campaign to start co-ops or take over abandoned factories and promote an alternative. In Venezuela, workers petition the government for their factory to be turned co-op and they petition the government for start up money to buy it from the owner. There is a whole department in that country dedicated to aiding that process.

So I tell you what makes Venezuelans so much more special than Americans? What excuse do you have to tell me and my comrades in here about how unrealistic this would be in the USA?

Gay marriage will have a positive result for gay rights and progress. I agree. But building it up to the extent that you do is just laughable, utterly laughable. In the Castro, there are gay businessmen that join the local councils and cut funding away from homeless LGBT youth to keep their neighborhoods from being dens of mischief in their eyes. There are divisions between those gays that want full acceptence into the mainstream and negate the past counter culture movement. They want the new family unit to be represenative of the gay movement along with the niche market of successful upper class LGBT, so there is a class division and new establishment that has been built because the original social and economic justice component that began the movement for gay liberation has been amputated in favor of pure assimilation.

So far on this site, you have cited The Economist, The Brookings Institute, Freedom House, liberal bloggers, etc. We cite sources from leftist publications and you flip a wig. We tell you that the economy overrides any political or civil rights issue in the eyes of the ruling class, you say that Dems are better than Repubs by a margin and that margin is the best we can hope for. I cite alternatives happening all over the world and real victories by the left, and you say that is all impossible here. I ask why, you say that because it's never happened before in the US and the conditions in this country. I say, well the conditions were worse in Venezuela, Argentina, and Bolivia, and I just wonder what you will say next....

You are a fraud.

graffic

23rd January 2013, 17:05

How the fuck is being gay "a lifestyle"?

Go to different bars, double salary etc etc.

Some working class people are racist. Does that mean we should pander to popular racist prejudice? Because pandering to prejudice is what you are advocating here. Being a homophobic bigot is not an intractable part of working class identity.

No but you appear to deny social conservatism among working class people.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2013, 17:15

Go to different bars, double salary etc etc.

The reason gay bars exist in the first place is because of homophobic attitudes that can make "straight" bars a dangerous place for those who are openly homosexual.

Double salary? What on Earth are you drivelling about?

No but you appear to deny social conservatism among working class people.

No, I deny that it's a necessary part of being working class, whereas you seem to think that working class homophobia is something to be embraced.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 17:15

Argentine debtors are now subject to employee take-over under the nation’s recently amended bankruptcy code, signed into law by the nation’s President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Argentine Bankruptcy Law 24,522 as amended by Law No. 26,684,1 (http://basis-points.com/2011/08/creditors-beware-in-argentine-bankruptcies-employees-now-call-the-shots/#1_) allows employees of a bankrupt company who have established a union or cooperative to (i) suspend the enforcement of claims that are filed by creditors for up to 2 years and (ii) ask the judge to appoint the cooperative as the successor to the debtor’s management. Germany and France may have relatively pro-labor bankruptcy codes but, ¡ay caramba!, Argentina’s modified code borders on the revolutionary.

http://basis-points.com/2011/08/creditors-beware-in-argentine-bankruptcies-employees-now-call-the-shots/

NGN, learn to think outside the box.

graffic

23rd January 2013, 17:21

The reason gay bars exist in the first place is because of homophobic attitudes that can make "straight" bars a dangerous place for those who are openly homosexual.

Double salary? What on Earth are you drivelling about?

No, a lot of people go to certain bars to "pull" etc. Obviously if a gay person goes to a straight bar and makes an advance on a straight person it's not going to go down well. The same problem would occur at a gay bar. In fact, I know someone who was kicked out of a gay bar for kissing his girlfriend.

Male homosexuals have a double salary and are often richer than working class men with families because they can both work and they don't have kids. There isn't the same advantage for lesbians because there is still gender in-equality in the work place.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 17:21

Obviously, if we're talking about workplace democracy, then 'capital' doesn't really come into it as workers backed by capital inevitably become capitalists.

This is not rocket science, dude. In order to create a national network of co-ops requires building new properties, or taking over old ones. That costs money. Lots of it. Look; this whole thing is ridiculous. There's no reason we should even be talking about it, certainly not in this thread.

I'm not sure you really understand what you're talking about here. The factory acts came to pass in the middle of the 19th century. They were followed by a long period of steady decline in the British economy. They did NOTHING to help the bourgeoisie, who moved their capital abroad.

Seriously, you seem to be talking about stuff you know nothing about, in the hope that others who haven't studied the period in detail (like I have) will swallow your bullshit.

Marx disagrees.

'Needless to say, once the capitalists had come to appreciate the economic and political advantages of the regulated, sustainable exploitation of the working class (rather than wantonly destroying the health and vigour of workers and courting social revolt), they hastened to claim this ‘enlightened’ new approach as a piece of longstanding bourgeois wisdom. Marx notes that the “wonderful development from 1853 to 1860” of the “great branches of industry which form the most characteristic creation of the modern mode of production … hand-in-hand with the physical and moral regeneration of the factory workers, struck the most purblind. The masters from whom the legal limitation and regulation had been wrung step by step after a civil war of half a century, themselves referred ostentatiously to the contrast with the branches of exploitation still ‘free’. The Pharisees of ‘Political Economy’ now proclaimed the discernment of the necessity of a legally fixed working-day as a characteristic new discovery of their ‘science’.”

Summing up, Marx remarked that “after the factory magnates had resigned themselves and become reconciled to the inevitable, the power of resistance of capital gradually weakened, whilst at the same time the power of attack of the working-class grew”.

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?art=258&secName=proletarian&subName=display

Surely a working person should consider the party of the Dixiecrats,

No offense; you don't know crap about American politics. The overwhelming majority of Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, for example, switched parties after the passage of the '64 Civil Rights Act, which came about, incidentally, because the Civil Rights movement put targeted pressure on Northern Democrats, and split the party. That's when the Democrats lost the South. After that; the Nixon campaign adopted the; 'Southern Strategy' of appealing to Southern racists, which has continued, in some form or another, until this past election in 2012. One of the significant developments in the 2012 election was it shows, I think, that the demographics of the country have changed to the point where you can no longer win the presidency purely on the backs of old, white reactionaries. That's fairly promising.

the Clintons, Barack Obama; the party of rampant capitalism, imperialism, war and patriotism an unelectable party??

We have two parties of war, imperialism, capitalism, etc.; the bad one, and the worse one.

When I say; 'electable' I mean; capable of mustering sufficient votes to win an election. (Hence; 'electable.') There are only two electable parties in the United States, today. I wish it were different; but that's the reality. I'd like to try and change that, but that means real campaign finance reform.

Is it not more correct to say that they won't just receive this healthcare insurance, but will be forced to pay for it. Am I right?

That depends on their individual economic situation. Some benefits, like the free preventative care, (colonoscopies, mammograms), and contraception will be free for everybody, well, the free contraception is just for women, but, y'know. Like I said; if they have to pay, and how much depends. For example, people between making the official poverty rate, and up to four times that amount, (Which is a couple million workers.) will receive subsidies so that the cost of their coverage will be maintained at somewhere between 3%, and 4% of their income. It all depends. Look, again; I'm not saying this is fantastic, it absolutely isn't, but compared to how fucking bad it was, over here, it's a big improvement.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd January 2013, 17:31

Fuck it, you're actually just trolling now I swear.

The only thing you seem to share with the left is this annoying ability to quote Marx entirely out of context.

Marx can say what he likes about the 1850s, but 10 years later people were decrying the decline of the British economy, something borne out as historical fact. For all Marx's talk of the decline of the power of resistence of capital, this in no way bore fruit in terms of working class power, and in no way improved the economy at the macro level.

I mean look, this is just fact. Even those who defend the performance of the British economy in the late 19th century/early 20th do so on the grounds that it was inevitable it was going to get caught up by others, i.e. that it was poor only in relative terms, not in absolute terms.

Presumably though, someone like you would view the co-opting of the Labour Party by the Liberals (and eventually, both the Liberals and Conservatives with Ramsay MacDonald) as something positive. :rolleyes:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2013, 17:37

No, a lot of people go to certain bars to "pull" etc. Obviously if a gay person goes to a straight bar and makes an advance on a straight person it's not going to go down well.

If the person being approached is a violently homophobic macho idiot, then yes. Civilised people on the other hand will simply make it clear verbally and through body language that they are not interested.

The same problem would occur at a gay bar. In fact, I know someone who was kicked out of a gay bar for kissing his girlfriend.

Being asked to leave a bar is not comparable to being subject to a homophobic assault and you are a pathetic piece of shit for trying.

Male homosexuals have a double salary and are often richer than working class men with families because they can both work and they don't have kids. There isn't the same advantage for lesbians because there is still gender in-equality in the work place.

First of all, most homosexuals are working class because most people are working class. That a lack of familial commitments means they have more disposable income does not in fact "double their salary", especially when you consider that not all gay people have a long-term partner who is in work.

Secondly, that still doesn't make homosexuality a lifestyle choice - choosing to be childless is a lifestyle choice, but one that is available to anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 17:37

Tell me how your complete internalization of Democratic Party logic not putting you in opposition to "not voting for the Democrats", every time.

It's not; 'Democratic party logic.' It's just logic. For instance; I gave the example of Gary Johnson, the 'Libertarian' candidate. His candidacy only hurt Governor Romney. It didn't do anything to affect the President's chances of victory. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum it is, or even what country we're talking about. Votes for unelectable parties only aid their opponents. All those people who voted for Johnson, essentially, voted for the President, they just don't realize it.

Not only that, but you do it under the illusion of being "more revolutionary than Marx". I guess you've never read what he had to say about the U.S.

I don't know what specifically you're referring to. I was referring to the La Liberte speech, where Marx said;

'You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

That was the later Marx, in 1872, the one whose words we're supposed to follow as gospel. So, he's quite explicit that he was very certain that the working class could seize power, in the United States, the United Kingdom, etc. (From what I can gather about his criteria, I would say that, today, this would include virtually all of Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc.) without recourse to violence. I'm much less optimistic. I think it's a very likely possibility that a revolution in the United States, for example, would involve violence. I'm not ambivalent about that, I just don't think it's avoidable.

So tell, if not in English,in which language would you prefer to be called a liberal?

This only tells me that you don't understand what I'm saying, or you don't know what this word means.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 17:41

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd January 2013, 17:46

NGM, you wrote:

it also benefitted the bourgeoisie by stabilizing the British economy, and promoting economic growth. This is a very short summary, but that's the gist.

The British economy was neither stable nor was actual output anywhere near approaching potential output.

Furthermore, to put at the door of economic growth, the Factory Acts, and not the greatest industrialisation seen up to that point, points to a very crass misinterpretation of British economic history. Just sayin'.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 18:00

The idea of the political and the economic struggle is a staple of Marxist theory, expanded and improved by Rosa Luxemburg quite brilliantly.
That's subjective.

She states that you need both the political and the economic struggle to intertwine in any revolutionary movement. But even if you don't subscribe to her somewhat radically left-wing understanding of class struggle,
I object to the terminology. It's misleading, at best.

...then at least as a Marxist
I'm not a Marxist. I'm an Anarchist. However; there is a good deal of overlap.

you ought to understand that the economic struggle should lead to the political struggle. Struggling for reforms because we're not in a revolutionary period does nothing to advance political struggle. You could be spreading Socialist propaganda and ideas, fighting to defend already-gotten gains and building a mass movement towards revolution, but you want to build not even a mass movement, but merely electoral support towards a few crumbs from the table that are easily reversible. Seriously, your position holds no water in Marxist theory. It's all about the constant struggle between accumulation and legitimisation.

I'm skeptical about your credentials in terms of Marxist theory (Not that I am any kind of expert, quite the contrary.) but I am absolutely positive you don't understand what I've been saying. First of all; I'm going to dispense with your terminology, immediately, because I dislike it. The distinction I'm going to make, in terms of class struggle, will be between 'defensive' class struggle, consisting of repelling an assault by the bourgeoisie, or doing damage control, and; 'offensive' activity; where we break new ground, where we capture new territory. First; we must constantly guard what we have already achieved, not in the least because any gains lost will have to be recaptured. However; the primary goal should be to go on the offensive, to empower the working class beyond where it already is.

My experience has taught me that, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. You can say you're not a reformist all you like, but you ONLY ever talk about reforms.
That isn't what; 'Reformism' means. I have said this a thousand times, I can't use smaller words; Reformism means believing that Socialism can be achieved exclusively, or, at least, primarily through parliamentary means. Not only do I not say that; I've been very critical of this idea, which, I think, is incredibly naïve, at best. That does not mean, however, that fighting for reforms, and concessions through the parliamentary system, is not vital to the emancipation of the working class. Let's use a baking analogy; just because you cannot make brownies in a mixing bowl, does not mean mixing bowls are irrelevant to the production of brownies, they are integral.

We are in the midst of the worst capitalist crisis since teh great depression, yet you seem hellbent on forsaking the opportunity to build a genuine working class mass movement towards revolution, for electoral support for some murdering, imperial pro-capitalist political party who would sell you and your mother down the river for a few votes!
This is ridiculous. Even in the pit of the economic crisis, the absolute low point, we were nowhere close to a revolution. You can't have a revolution without the working class. This is why I call you an Ultra-Leftist; because you stake out a hyperRadical, uber-militant position with no regard for the facts-on-the-ground. You're ready to have a revolution, all by yourself. You don't seem to have any appreciation of the fact that the working class is not where you are.

What you don't seem to understand is that yes, radicals fought tooth and nail in the past for healthcare and education. But today we are not in the situation of industrial capitalism, where little children get swallowed by machines and the outrage and disgust forces the accumulators to legitimise their rule through concessions.
They need to grant concessions when they are forced to grant concessions. (You're also grossly oversimplifying the mechanics of class rule.) Social security, and Medicare, for example. It's lasted so long, and continues, because the public won't tolerate it. They'd have riots. We can use that pressure to extract more reforms, and more concessions.

We are in a period of vast capital accumulation and we need to fight back, not say 'hey, give me some welfare man'.
Demanding reforms, and extracting concessions is fighting for the working class. You're theoretical credentials are suspect, but, more importantly; do you know any working class people? My co-workers couldn't give a fuck less about overthrowing capitalism. They want affordable healthcare. They want to feed their kids. They want wages they can live on. If you can't speak to that, and I'm not talking about some theoretical post-revolutionary utopia, I'm talking today; they aren't going to listen to a fucking word you have to say. To be honest; they shouldn't. Welfare mothers aren't suffering from a lack of rhetoric.

Drugs have nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class.
That's complete horseshit. You're talking out of your ass. The United States has only about 5% of the world's population, but nearly 25% of it's prisoners. We incarcerate more people than China. (Although, on the plus side; we don't execute them nearly as often.) We have the highest incarceration rate on earth. Roughly 50% of inmates in state prisoners were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Roughly 90% of inmates in Federal prison are convicted for nonviolent offenses. Can you guess what most of these overwhelmingly working class, predominantly black, and Latino convicts were convicted for?
Drugs.
That is class warfare. That is the definition of class warfare. The workers cannot be empowered, if they are in jail.

LGBT rights, whilst necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat, are in no way sufficient by themselves and, you have to say, there is little threat posed to the ruling class by allowing gay marriage.
Nobody said it was; 'sufficient.' Do you want gays, and lesbians to have the same legal rights as everyone else? Ok. Then, we're agreed.
It doesn't threaten the ruling class in any kind of immediate sense, no. However it erases an institutional barrier that divides gay, and straight workers, which is absolutely empowering, not just for gay Americans, but the working class, as a whole. It also happens to be the fucking right thing to do, incidentally.

Obamacare is a sham. I mean, in Britain we have people dying on trolleys and getting chemotherapy in staff rooms because our system is so crap, and you're celebrating something that is a million times worse than that?
I'm not celebrating anything. I would prefer single-payer healthcare. It also bears mentioning, again, that the American Radicals didn't conclude that this was worth fighting for, but the past is the past. It's totally flawed. There's plenty to criticize, and I've criticized it myself. However; this doesn't change the fact that the working class are significantly better off with it, than they were before. First; there's the 31 million Americans who will have health insurance, who otherwise would not. (That's; 31,000, 000, 000.) On top of that it ends yearly care limits, and lifetime care limits. It prohibited what's called; 'rescission'; the denial of coverage, or the cancellation of coverage based on; 'preexisting conditions.' It also provides for free preventative care, like colonoscopies, and mammograms. It also includes free contraceptives for women. Again; I'm not saying that the healthcare system in the US isn't a grotesque travesty, but you need to realize how bad it is over here. To lose all of that would be a devastating blow to the American working class. That means it's something we have to protect, until we can replace it with something better. As I've said; there are proposals. Some people in Vermont are looking into setting up a real, universal healthcare system. I haven't studied it; but it's certainly worth looking into. That would be enormously empowering to the working class.

I bear no contempt for concessions won in the class struggle, historically.
Could've fooled me.

You don't seem to have any interesting in working class POWER.
Of course I do. That's why I'm saying; let's get out there, and actually empower the working class.

You're sounding like Bob Geldof or some similar bleeding heart liberal. How the fuck can you say I don't give a shit about peoples' basic needs?
Because you mercilessly attack anyone who even suggests that we actually try to meet some of those needs. Because you can so easily, and casually dismiss programs which millions of workers depend on for their very survival. Because you're commitment to the working class seems to only extend as far as you perceive an immediate political return on it. This contemptuous attitude evidences a lack of concern.

The point is that what capital gives, capital takes away and i'd rather fight for long-term revolution than establish semi-permanent soup kitchens and make it legal for poor people to spend their money on shit like crack cocaine and the sub-standard healthcare that the ruling classes buddies in the insurance industry provisde.
Do you seriously believe the workers will be spurred to revolution by your sparkling oratory? And you're saying I have a weak grasp of theory? That's preposterous. Again; this seriously makes me question whether you actually know any working class people. They are not buying what you are selling. The fact is; no matter how much you think it's beneath you to engage in these things; it's simply a logistical necessity. The working class can't pull together until the institutional barriers that divide them are removed. That means gay rights. That means ensuring women have access to abortion, and contraceptives. Etc. It's also necessary to empower, and raise the consciousness of the working class, so they can perform their proscribed function. It's necessary, because they won't listen to a goddamn word you have to say, otherwise. Finally; it's necessary because the idea of revolution will only gain mass acceptance when the existing institutions are exhausted, and not a microsecond sooner. Condolences.

I'd also watch your tone. The mothers who will feed their kids because of those programs take them very seriously. They will not appreciate your attitude.

Don't really understand what you're saying here. Though yes, the left in the west have, by and large, been a failure thus far. Not all their fault, capitalism still does have some time to burn and obviously, the further you go back the more of a truism this becomes. But they've largely failed, aside from a few small wins.
Again, because Ultra-lefts, like yourself, scorn all forms of incrementalism as ideological treason, (Which is why you accomplish nothing.) and we haven't overthrown the government yet, the proud, rich history of the Radical Left, thus far, can only be a history of failure, and all earlier generations of Radicals can only be seen as traitors, and hypocrites. Thus; the Left is without a history. It's kind of like immaculate conception, in a way. As you people continually erase the history of Socialism, in the West, it remains forever new, forever innocent. There's a good deal of idealism, and romanticism in this, which, as I've said, is kinda funny coming from Marxists.

See here is where I know that you've not ever read a single one of my posts, aside from the ones you CHOOSE to decipher as somehow insulting you. I've consistently argued against insurrectionary anarchism or spontaneity, but hey if you don't want to hear that then that's your problem really, I don't give a shit.
I actually thanked some of your posts in the gun control threads. Unfortunately; your rationality appears to be intermittent. This is fair enough. I was basically referring to people like you as a mass, rather than you, as a specific individual. This is fair, enough, though. If it makes you feel any better; I apologize for that.

And to hear a person claiming to be a Marxist (or is it anarchist? or anarcho-liberal?)
You know I'm an Anarchist, and an entirely consistent one at that. Check the canon.
One cannot be, simultaneously, an Anarchist, and a Liberal. these terms are mutually exclusive.

being so negative about the prospects for the working class is equally sad. Nobody can predict revolution. Revolution doesn't happen overnight.
Cut the crap. If you actually think that we are on the cusp of revolution; you're even more deluded than I think you are.

Which is why *some* people give their lives to lay the foundation for a society that, one day, will be better than today's one.
Unfortunately; you've written basically all of them off as traitors, and sellouts.

But you take the easy route, vote Democrat every 4 years and be thankful for your free marijuana and spend a few dollars lining the pockets of healthcare insurance execs, in the spirit of working class wins and all that! :thumbup1:
Cannabis isn't free; I will have to pay a copay.

Spurious bullshit like this is beneath a response, but don't kid yourself; you are taking the easy road. All you have to do is spout rhetoric in the absurd belief that you're brilliant oratory will inspire the masses to revolt. (Yet, you have the audacity to lecture me about Marxist theory!) That's very easy. The hard thing is to come up with strategies to actually improve the material conditions of workers, and to do all the tedious, workmanlike activities, and labor that requires. That would be the hard road. Too hard for many; I think.

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 18:02

NGM, you wrote:

The British economy was neither stable nor was actual output anywhere near approaching potential output.

Furthermore, to put at the door of economic growth, the Factory Acts, and not the greatest industrialisation seen up to that point, points to a very crass misinterpretation of British economic history. Just sayin'.

I'm just regurgitating what the German guy said. If you don't like it; take it up with him.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 18:10

Also Marx was merely pointing out that the bourgoise coming to some sort of fake epiphany of a sustainable exploitation for workers merely benefited the working class but it by no means negates the fundamental antagonism that exists within the contradictions of capitalism. I think you're confusing or intentionally quoting him out of context. That's like saying that under a slave economy, if the plantation owners somehow came to some sort of collective clarity that if they treat their slaves a little better than there would be less runaways, revolts and more docile slaves, so this benefit to them is somehow translated into a benefit for the slaves. But the fundamental antagonism still exists. It takes the owning/ruling class to come to that conclusion and execute that agenda, meaning the working/slave class remains at the helm and control of former. It doesn't say anything to the notion that worker and capitalist are not always at odds.

And you talk about over simplification! My God you just completely quoted Marx out of context.

'You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means'

Again out of context. I do not think Marx meant by endorsing a liberal establishment party and accepting the dominant framework of the typical establishment lines like you do. I think he meant more along the lines of what's happening in Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile in '70. These things have their problems but the original democratic socialist alternative is more grounded in the logic that radical change can happen by using the existing means but coming from outside the exisiting instution, i.e. something not from the mainstream coming in to dominate it. So all those third party unelectable riff raffs that get Republicans elected, that's what Marx meant.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 18:18

NGNM85

23rd January 2013, 18:31

NGNM85, you would be a "reformist" in the socialist sense, a social democrat, a democratic socialist if you actually believed in a working class alternative party that wanted entry into mainstream politics and challenged the bourgoise status quo, but you don't, you keep thinking that by simply only going through the existing structures that you're actually fulfilling your radical duty.

That's false. That's liberalism, pure and simple.

I would be a Reformist if I believed Socialism could be achieved by parliamentary means. I don't. I think it's terribly naïve, at best.

There simply aren't any viable Radical parties, today. Furthermore; there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the public would support a new Radical party any more than they support the existing Radical parties. (SPUSA, etc.) You can't ignore the facts on the ground. Reality is not multiple choice. This being the situation; the only option is to work through the viable parties, or viable party, until the situation changes. I wish it was different, believe me; I do.

My duty, as a Socialist, is to always, consistently, unquestioningly, and unconditionally support the working class. That's it.

Again I ask you, what is your opinion of the Bolivarian Revolution? What is your opinion of Salvador Allende's movement in 70s Chile? Speak up. I'd like to know.

That's off topic.

RadioRaheem84

23rd January 2013, 18:46

NGN it's not off topic. It's very much on point.

A.) It's what the democratic socialist/social democrat movement of winning though the existing channels means. Not some BS theory of yours that to be radical is to go liberal and vote for the viable exisiting parties.

B.) These movements came out (with the exception of Chile) in third world nations where the conditions were worse than what we have. You keep saying that the existing conditions in our country will not let a vialble alternative happen, that the facts and reality on the ground negate the wishes of a third party. But what evidence do you have against the movements that sprung up in nations where the conditions were worse? Where bourgoise control is much more gripped.

The co-op movement in Argentina following a critical economic depression? I mean what makes us do different? Explain.

Explain how it's off topic?

Crux

23rd January 2013, 19:21

It's not; 'Democratic party logic.' It's just logic. For instance; I gave the example of Gary Johnson, the 'Libertarian' candidate. His candidacy only hurt Governor Romney. It didn't do anything to affect the President's chances of victory. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum it is, or even what country we're talking about. Votes for unelectable parties only aid their opponents. All those people who voted for Johnson, essentially, voted for the President, they just don't realize it.
So what you're saying is it was wrong for, say, Eugene Debs to run for president? Nice. You really don't understand elections do you? Here's a piece by Hal Draper that shows why your "logic" about a lesser evil is fundamentally wrong: "Who's going to be the lesser evil in 1968?" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1967/01/lesser.htm)
I hope you'll excuse that it's a marxist text.

Tenka

23rd January 2013, 19:24

First an aside: Graffic seems to be avoiding addressing an issue I brought up earlier, but I guess it doesn't matter; that he's a sexist prick is obvious enough.

First of all, most homosexuals are working class because most people are working class. That a lack of familial commitments means they have more disposable income does not in fact "double their salary", especially when you consider that not all gay people have a long-term partner who is in work.

Poor, working class homosexuals are more likely to stay in the closet, too, than more affluent ones (or so I heard). And does he forget about social security for children? There are certain breadcrumbs of the state that only families with dependent children have access to.

graffic

23rd January 2013, 20:01

soso17

23rd January 2013, 20:20

Something that might interest everyone:

I've heard the kind of reasoning that Graffic uses before…

By self-hating gay people.

Chew on that.

PigmerikanMao

23rd January 2013, 20:39

No, a lot of people go to certain bars to "pull" etc. Obviously if a gay person goes to a straight bar and makes an advance on a straight person it's not going to go down well.

Exactly- homophobia and fear of reprisal. The fact that an advance as you say "won't go down well" isn't because of a forward advance made by a person- this is common in every bar. It is because if a gay man advances towards a straight man, its not enough to politely refuse or defer advances, you have to beat the shit out of him outside. People date and flirt at bars, its a huge reason they exist aside from simply drinking alcohol in a social setting. When it becomes dangerous for a gay person to do this at a "regular" bar, its because of the threat of violence as opposed to "No thanks, I don't swing that way."

The same problem would occur at a gay bar. In fact, I know someone who was kicked out of a gay bar for kissing his girlfriend.

I know a friend of a friend who's cousin's brother happened into a situation like that too, but it's fairly uncommon and unless you have a source for something like this (news article maybe?), I'm going to go ahead and continue being skeptical. I've never seen this happen at a gay bar, because the broad majority of gay's I've come to know are more accepting of different sexual orientations than the general public- who would've thought, given their experiences and whatnot.

Male homosexuals have a double salary and are often richer than working class men with families because they can both work and they don't have kids. There isn't the same advantage for lesbians because there is still gender in-equality in the work place.

Seems like you're working with outdated data. There were a number of studies done in the 70's and 80's regarding this issue, but most open homosexuals polled at the time were only out because they had the economic means and credentials (college) to be self sustaining and independent. If a gay man may lose his job or home for being openly homosexual, he is less open to come out and be asked about his income by some Lavender Mafia magazine or sociology grad student. Most contemporary data surrounding the LGBT community has shown a huge disparity between straight people and LGBT workers now that society has become more open and more people have come out.

So you have no self-respect or appreciation for the fact that you are alive. You have no respect for life itself. Do you not consider life superior to death?

How the hell does this have to do with the debate? Are you really pushing the argument that because someone is gay, or has a different orientation different than the one that is traditional or socially acceptable, they have less respect for life?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2013, 20:54

#FF0000: No sex act is inherently superior to another.

So you have no self-respect or appreciation for the fact that you are alive. You have no respect for life itself. Do you not consider life superior to death?

Not considering any sex act inherently superior to any other is not the same thing as lacking self-respect or an appreciation for life, because for the vast majority of people there is more to life and living than a particular sex act.

graffic

24th January 2013, 13:11

Exactly- homophobia and fear of reprisal. The fact that an advance as you say "won't go down well" isn't because of a forward advance made by a person- this is common in every bar. It is because if a gay man advances towards a straight man, its not enough to politely refuse or defer advances, you have to beat the shit out of him outside. People date and flirt at bars, its a huge reason they exist aside from simply drinking alcohol in a social setting. When it becomes dangerous for a gay person to do this at a "regular" bar, its because of the threat of violence as opposed to "No thanks, I don't swing that way."

Or it's just easier, rather than wondering around drunk pondering if one is straight or gay or whatever. Gay bars don't just exist solely because of homophobia, there are practical reasons.

How the hell does this have to do with the debate? Are you really pushing the argument that because someone is gay, or has a different orientation different than the one that is traditional or socially acceptable, they have less respect for life?

No I'm saying that the heterosexual sex act is the foundation of our species and our survival relies on it. Giving life is an inherently more selfless act than having sex just for personal pleasure. Homosexuality is a specific relationship where sex can only be for pleasure. The heterosexual relationship has the capacity to give life, and the heterosexual sex act is superior to all others because instant gratification is not productive or creative and has more in common with death than with life. Life is superior to death. We all have the capacity to give life and giving life is more erotic and embracing than just sex for pleasure. People are happier and more fulfilled when they have children. And people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies should be culturally swung to have their own family and to keep having children, the more the merrier.

The government shouldn't be legalizing same sex marriage. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. More important should be the revisions of law to ensure that any committed partnership can be properly recognised and allow gay couples to adopt children.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

24th January 2013, 13:22

Or it's just easier, rather than wondering around drunk pondering if one is straight or gay or whatever. Gay bars don't just exist solely because of homophobia, there are practical reasons.

No I'm saying that the heterosexual sex act is the foundation of our species and our survival relies on it. Giving life is an inherently more selfless act than having sex just for personal pleasure. Homosexuality is a specific relationship where sex can only be for pleasure. The heterosexual relationship has the capacity to give life, and the heterosexual sex act is superior to all others because we all have the capacity to give life and giving life is more erotic and embracing than just sex for pleasure. People are happier and more fulfilled when they have children. And people who swing both ways or have homosexual tendencies should be culturally encouraged to have their own family and to keep having children, the more the merrier.

The government shouldn't be legalizing same sex marriage. It confuses equal treatment and equal rights with a corruption of language. More important should be the revisions of law to ensure that any committed partnership can be properly recognised and allow gay couples to adopt children.

..wow, you're still going with this..
So me having two kids was a selfless act for the betterment of man kind, but if either of my children turn out to be gay then they are going to be committing selfish acts for their own pleasure, which is bad?
(starts humming 'Every Sperm Is Sacred')
'Superior act' of giving life? Are you high? Go on, you can tell us, we won't judge and then we move this shit to Chit Chat.

Sasha

24th January 2013, 14:13

and thats quite enough of the raging homophobia, graffic banned, and may i ask the rest of the users in this thread why no one reported this but instead this could go on for 7 bloody pages? if graffic said this about interracial marriage would anyone engaged him in "debate" as well?

l'EnfermÃ©

24th January 2013, 14:50

I thought his homophobia/sexism is why he was restricted in the first place. It didn't actually get worse in this thread, back when I was restricted myself and followed this forum a lot graffic used to be even worse.

Sasha

24th January 2013, 15:15

The only sexism that doesn't get you banned is anti-choice sexism, hompobia and general sexisn, if more than casual predjuidiced joke or slur (which would get you infracted is always ground for a ban.

soso17

24th January 2013, 16:36

I reported him several days ago. Did you not receive it?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

NGNM85

24th January 2013, 17:24

His ideas were demented, but it's unfortunate he had to be Banned. In the end, it makes little difference; it's not like we're running low on unhinged people spouting crazy rhetoric.

thethinveil

4th February 2013, 22:03

Obama did not support same sex marriage but "evolved" on the issue until opinion polls showed the majority of Americans support it and even then his support was very tepid.

He has writing dating back to the early nineties saying he supports gay marriage. He "changed" his position for the 2008 election if I recall correctly. Then "changed" back when he had a public that was more willing.

thethinveil

4th February 2013, 22:18

That's not what I said. I was saying that an unelectable party, which was what this proposed entity would be, entering the Presidential race, would most likely be counterproductive, if not totally ineffectual. Again; even when the Socialist movement was at it's height, compared to which, it is but a pale shadow, today, Eugene Debs maxed out at 6% of the vote. Considering he was running from prison; that's impressive. However that's miles away from being a viable contender. Nader didn't even crack 3%. There is no logical reason to believe that a Radical third party emerging, today, would clean up, in an election. There's simply no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary; all available evidence demonstrates such an initiative would fail. If it had a chance of success; I'd support it. I said as much. However; I wouldn't count on it.

How about situations where a radical movement is possibly co-opted by the existing hegemonic institutions? Like AdBusters' fear that occupy would be used by the Democratic Party - and it did, leading to the video of Romney talking about the percent of people using government services without contributing.

So what about in situations, where you have a group that forms its own political party to pre-empt co-option and create more divisions.

NGNM85

5th February 2013, 03:09

How about situations where a radical movement is possibly co-opted by the existing hegemonic institutions? Like AdBusters' fear that occupy would be used by the Democratic Party - and it did, leading to the video of Romney talking about the percent of people using government services without contributing.

If you're going to quote somebody; please attribute the quote.

Occupy wasn't a Radical movement.

So what about in situations, where you have a group that forms its own political party to pre-empt co-option and create more divisions.

I'm not totally sure I follow you. My whole point was that Third parties; Radical, or otherwise; aren't a viable option. There is no reason to believe a new party would have any greater chance of success than the existing Third parties, because the present political reality does not allow for the possibility of success. Therefore; the only choice is to put pressure on the existing political parties.

Lenina Rosenweg

5th February 2013, 03:43

If you're going to quote somebody; please attribute the quote.

Occupy wasn't a Radical movement.

I'm not totally sure I follow you. My whole point was that Third parties; Radical, or otherwise; aren't a viable option. There is no reason to believe a new party would have any greater chance of success than the existing Third parties, because the present political reality does not allow for the possibility of success. Therefore; the only choice is to put pressure on the existing political parties. Yeah put pressure on a political organisation which is just about wholly owned by Goldman-Sachs and other faces of finance capital.

A basic axiom of both Marxism and anarchism is independent working class politics. The class must not subordinate itself to any bourgoise party.
Do you not understand, there is a gapingly wide hole opening to the left of the Democrats and if the US left does not work to fill this it will be a lost opportunity of world historic proportions.

Where has "working with the Democrats" ever gotten anybody? The are the "graveyard of social movements".Al Gore's solution for global warming, "write your congressman".

My organisation, Socialist Alternative ran an openly revolutionary socialist candidate, Kshama Sawant against the liberal Frank Chopp in Washington State and got 29% of the vote. We recommend that socialists and non-capitalists run as many independent candidates as possible and work to build a working class movement.

NGNM85

5th February 2013, 04:47

Yeah put pressure on a political organisation which is just about wholly owned by Goldman-Sachs and other faces of finance capital.

Actually; the financial sector overwhelmingly favored Governor Romney. However; the Democratic party is, absolutely, a; 'bourgeois party', as is the Republican party. After Citizens United, it's gotten even worse, and it's going to keep getting worse, until something changes.

A basic axiom of both Marxism and anarchism is independent working class politics.

I reserve judgment, as I'm not entirely sure what you mean by; 'independent working class politics.'

The class must not subordinate itself to any bourgoise party.

Of course not. I never suggested otherwise.

Do you not understand, there is a gapingly wide hole opening to the left of the Democrats and if the US left does not work to fill this it will be a lost opportunity of world historic proportions.

Presently; Third parties are not viable. They are not viable because, as I've explained, the structure of our electoral system prohibits it. There is no way for them to get elected. Radical parties ran this past November; they got annihilated, they got a paltry handful of votes. It's just not possible. I think that's something we should fight to change. However; until that happens, Third parties are a lost cause.

If you want to talk about lost opportunities; Occupy was a lost opportunity. The health care debacle was a lost opportunity.

Where has "working with the Democrats" ever gotten anybody?

See;
Executive Order 8802,
Executive Order 9981,
1964 Civil Rights Act,
Great Society,
Etc.

Also; to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we hop in bed, and snuggle together. I think any interaction with the ruling parties should pretty much be limited to ten minutes inside a ballot box, then we go back to criticizing them, and pressuring them. At least; for the time being.

The are the "graveyard of social movements".Al Gore's solution for global warming, "write your congressman".

Think about what you're saying. You're saying, or, at least, implying, that the more brutal wing of capital, the Right wing of capital; is preferable, because they tend to be more brutal towards the working class, creating a more potent wellspring of popular discontent to draw from. By that logic; we should be opposing civil rights, crushing unions, pushing deregulation, etc., etc. That reduces the question of tactics to;
'How much should we torture the working class?' That's not a question any Radical should ever be asking.

My organisation, Socialist Alternative ran an openly revolutionary socialist candidate, Kshama Sawant against the liberal Frank Chopp in Washington State and got 29% of the vote. We recommend that socialists and non-capitalists run as many independent candidates as possible and work to build a working class movement.

The system is stacked against Third party candidates. Look at the House of Representatives; 435 seats, and zero independents. Look at the Senate; only two independents, out of a hundred seats, Sen. Bernie Sanders, from Vermont, and Sen. Angus King, from Maine, mostly because those are wacky states. The odds are a little better in the state legislatures, and city governments, but not much.

We're not going to build a working class movement by preaching to people, and asking them to please vote for the Socialist party, or whatever. Beyond the fact that, in most cases, such enterprises are doomed to failure, from the outset, but they can actually backfire; which was the case in 2000.

#FF0000

5th February 2013, 11:53

See;
Executive Order 8802,
Executive Order 9981,
1964 Civil Rights Act,
Great Society,
Etc.

Also; to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we hop in bed, and snuggle together. I think any interaction with the ruling parties should pretty much be limited to ten minutes inside a ballot box, then we go back to criticizing them, and pressuring them. At least; for the time being.

These were not won by "working with the democrats". They were won by large and militant working class movements.

RadioRaheem84

5th February 2013, 18:12

Think about what you're saying. You're saying, or, at least, implying, that the more brutal wing of capital, the Right wing of capital; is preferable, because they tend to be more brutal towards the working class, creating a more potent wellspring of popular discontent to draw from. By that logic; we should be opposing civil rights, crushing unions, pushing deregulation, etc., etc. That reduces the question of tactics to;
'How much should we torture the working class?' That's not a question any Radical should ever be asking.

Are you this daft, NGN? That's not what we are saying at all. You're the one implying that because you believe that voting third or independent is a vote for the right wing. Lord, you are well traversed in liberal talking points.

And you never answered me about The Bolivarian Revolution or the one in Chile '70.

You just said that it was off topic when it wasn't. Those nations have/had even worse conditions than we do with the mechanics of politics excluding working class movements far worse than we do. In Argentina, a large co-op movement exploded on the scene and has changed laws there pertaining to occupied factories.

That's just what a social democratic/democratic socialist or co-op movement can do in these nations.

So answer up and quit avoiding the question.

They are not viable because, as I've explained, the structure of our electoral system prohibits it.

Why don't you ever find the system at fault instead of the leftists you chide for not compromising and accepting the very system that excludes them?

If anything you side with liberal rags, studies and opinion pieces far more than anything a leftist, socialist or marxist puts out. You keep thinking they're being objective and rarely if ever question them but you are the first to jump in and question the objectivity of a left winger. Why? If anything we make no bones about being anti-establishment and anti-status quo. You're little liberal humantarianism is about as shoddy as Christoper Hitchens and the whole Euston Manifesto is about liberal war humanitarianism.

I mean I just take you as another brazen token liberal who is annoyed with Marxists and leftists for being so vulgarly anti-establishment. As if we're being utterly immature and "punk" by being so anti-status quo or rejecting compromise. You literally accept the entire framework of the liberal mindset and see it as self evident truth. You lack a class analysis, which is a basic prerequisite for being a radical, and on top of that you spout rights jargon like a naive idealist. You keep coming back in here and saying that we're the loony ones for not seeing how fundamental and important that these single issue rights are and playing the card of not caring for working people when we don't support a watered down compromised reform.

How would you have spun NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulation of the banking system, don't ask, don't tell, or any other Clinton policy in the left's favor?

How many crisis were there under Clinton that further eroded the financial system? Long Term Capital Management, Dot. Com, Tequila Crisis in which we bailed out Mexican banks, etc.

It's all the same stuff between Dems and Repubs and you keep harping on these marginal differences being the main catalyst for workers to beat the status quo? You keep acting like a saint that you think these marginal differences are what keeps the working class fed, housed and alive?

Yet, you reject any working class alternative an not viable because they espouse too many radical and unrealistic alternatives that the system would not allow? And you call yourself a fucking radical?

Seriously, what is the difference between you and someone from Daily Kos, TYT and Democratic Underground? What is the fucking difference? That in your backwards warped mind you think that you're being a consistent anarchist? :laugh:

NGNM85

5th February 2013, 18:13

These were not won by "working with the democrats". They were won by large and militant working class movements.

Actually; it was both of them. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact; the only way to get politicians to do things is to put pressure on them.

RadioRaheem84

5th February 2013, 18:30

Actually; it was both of them. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact; the only way to get politicians to do things is to put pressure on them.

Why fight all our lives to put pressure on politicians we know don't give two shits about us when we could form our own parties?

On top of that fight even harder to keep the watered down compromises we gained from being destroyed?

Your answer is that third parties are not a viable alternative? I ask why.

You say it's because the system prohibits it. I tell you that that is whole reason why we go an independent route.

So why do you insist on fighting to gain inclusion into a system you know systemically and systematically prohibits us?

No gain that we seek will ever be fully implemented. While we did receive gains in the past it was due to hardcore labor militancy. A section of the public that has largely been beaten back and now we're reduced to defending those gains from being "reformed" or rescinded, or reduced to having a choice between right wing disaster or heavily watered down compromises. That is what the system gets you!

What part of this are you utterly failing to comprehend? The gains we received in the early half of the last century was due to the historical development of the working class and the fact that there were successful revolts happening all over the world.

After the 90s, the onslaught of neo-liberalism around the world and the right wing movement here at home have made sure that the debate sticks between the center-right and the extreme right with the left fully being amputated. And I am do not think a bunch of skittish moderate liberals on MSNBC or TYT are going to change that.

Why cannot the US actually fight and have a Labor Party? If one came around and was actually approaching to be a viable contender in the US, would you vote for it?

RadioRaheem84

5th February 2013, 18:34

These were not won by "working with the democrats". They were won by large and militant working class movements.

Exactly. Has the mofo ever heard of COINTELPRO? It's only after the government cannot control these forces that they decide to compromise with the hopes that we will compromise too, mostly destabilizing any real radical alternative for a short term gain.

NGNM85

5th February 2013, 19:45

Are you this daft, NGN? That's not what we are saying at all. You're the one implying that because you believe that voting third or independent is a vote for the right wing. Lord, you are well traversed in liberal talking points.

If you're going to quote somebody; attribute the quote. I know you know how to do this.

I see no evidence that Lenina Rosenweg has appointed you as her personal representative.

There are only two possible interpretations, in English, of the aforementioned quote; that the Democratic party is, in her estimation; 'the graveyard of social movements' because most of the American Left votes Democratic, as opposed to voting for some more Left-wing third party, such as; the Green Party, SPUSA, Socialist Alternative, etc., etc., or; she means that as the less brutal wing of capital, are preferable, because their more cruel, and brutal policies provide an easier environment to politically capitalize upon. In conjunction with other statements; I assumed it was the latter. That might be true, incidentally, However, as I said; no Radical should ever take this position. We should never be betting against the working class. If, in fact, I was mistaken, and she meant the former; that's simply naïve. The reason why third parties always lose isn't simply that everyone knows third parties always lose, so they don't vote that way. (However; this is a problem, and, this is why I am an advocate of single-transferrable voting, or; 'STV.') It's also the massive disparity in resources. It's the media blackout. The electoral system is rigged against third parties. There's also the inconvenient truth that this happens to be a very partisan country, and, while independent voters make up a large chunk of the electorate, survey, after survey shows that most independents are secret partisans.

In either case; this is fundamentally distinct from my empirical observation that votes for non-viable parties only tend to benefit the opposite end of the spectrum. Incidentally; as I've said, perhaps you missed it, this is not exclusive. Gary Johnson, and the so-called; 'Libertarian party', primarily hurt Gov. Romney, in this past election, although; not very much, just as Nader primarily hurt Vice President Gore's chances of becoming President. (In fact; it was probably a decisive factor.)

Why don't you ever find the system at fault instead of the leftists you chide for not compromising and accepting the very system that excludes them?

Acknowledging reality is not a compromise. I'm not saying I like the way things are; I absolutely don't. However; reality is not multiple choice. I don't get to live in the world that I wish I lived in, I have to live in this one. I find it very difficult to be patient with people who are unwilling, or unable to do the same.

If anything you side with liberal rags, studies and opinion pieces far more than anything a leftist, socialist or marxist puts out.

If you're going to exclude every piece of information that hasn't been ideologically vetted; you're committing yourself to not understanding things. The rational approach is to read everything with a filter, including Radical publications.

You keep thinking they're being objective and rarely if ever question them but you are the first to jump in and question the objectivity of a left winger. Why? If anything we make no bones about being anti-establishment and anti-status quo.

See above.

You don't need to concede the legitimacy of the establishment to interact with it; you only need to acknowledge it exists.

You're little liberal humantarianism is about as shoddy as Christoper Hitchens and the whole Euston Manifesto is about liberal war humanitarianism.

Philosophically; I'm an entirely consistent Anarchist, which the record will confirm.

I mean I just take you as another brazen token liberal who is annoyed with Marxists and leftists for being so vulgarly anti-establishment. As if we're being utterly immature and "punk" by being so anti-status quo or rejecting compromise.

You don't understand many of the terms you are using.

To people like yourself; everything, short of immediate, total annihilation of the status quo, is hopelessly compromised. Never mind the material reality. Never mind that the working class isn't anywhere close to seizing the means of production, nor is it likely to be anytime soon. You're not interested in such trivialities. That's why I called you an Ultra-leftist; because people like you take a hyperRadical posture that has no relationship to the political, and economic reality.

You literally accept the entire framework of the liberal mindset and see it as self evident truth. You lack a class analysis, which is a basic prerequisite for being a radical, and on top of that you spout rights jargon like a naive idealist.

I'm very clearly employing class analysis, and I always have. Although; you are correct in asserting that it is this that separates Radicals from non-Radicals.

You've got it backasswards. I'm being the hard-headed pragmatist, here. You, and the other Ultra-lefts, are playing the part of the wild-eyed dreamers. The material reality of the situation is the revolution is, presently, impossible in the United States. The working class, who, according to doctrine, (I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, incidentally.) are the only ones who can carry out the revolution; are nowhere near revolting. Even during the pit of the recent economic crisis; we were miles away from that. Revolution will only be possible when the working class is sufficiently empowered, and united, has achieved a certain level of class consciousness, and has exhausted the existing institutions, in the pursuit of it's interests, as a class. Then; revolution will be inevitable. That's not where we are, today. That's the place we have to get to. To do that; we need to empower the working class, and break down the barriers that divide the working class. That is the task at hand. Presently; American Radicals are doing an abysmal job of that. That's unfortunate, especially for the working class.

You keep coming back in here and saying that we're the loony ones for not seeing how fundamental and important that these single issue rights are...

Reproductive rights, gay marriage, mandatory minimums for drug offenses, so-called; 'Right-to-Work' laws, etc.; these are all individual battlefields in the class war. Therefore; as the self-appointed defenders of the working class, we have an interest in these fights. These are our fights.

...and playing the card of not caring for working people when we don't support a watered down compromised reform.

You, and other like you, don't accept anything; that's the problem. People like you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the present over some ideal of perfection. Reality never lives up to this fantasy, therefore; you oppose everything, or nearly everything, as hopelessly compromised. That's Ultra-leftism, and more importantly; it's totally counterproductive.

How would you have spun NAFTA, welfare reform, deregulation of the banking system, don't ask, don't tell, or any other Clinton policy in the left's favor?

How many crisis were there under Clinton that further eroded the financial system? Long Term Capital Management, Dot. Com, Tequila Crisis in which we bailed out Mexican banks, etc.

I didn't say the Democratic party was fantastic, it absolutely isn't, I said their policies are better than the Republican's. That's sufficient.

It's all the same stuff between Dems and Repubs and you keep harping on these marginal differences being the main catalyst for workers to beat the status quo? You keep acting like a saint that you think these marginal differences are what keeps the working class fed, housed and alive?

On the state level, or the national level; small differences aren't so small. Take the Affordable Care Act; it's totally flawed. Plenty to criticize. However, as a result; 31 million Americans will have some health coverage, who, otherwise, probably wouldn't. That's not including the other benefits like free contraceptives for women, or getting rid of rescission, etc. That's a substantial benefit to the working class. If you
support the working class; you want to protect that, at least; until you can come up with something better.

Yet, you reject any working class alternative an not viable because they espouse too many radical and unrealistic alternatives that the system would not allow? And you call yourself a fucking radical?

There's no rational reason to expect the political system to be able to achieve things that it is incapable of doing. We can't vote out capitalism.
That isn't possible. Similarly; Third parties, even more experienced, and more accessible parties, like the Green party, don't have a chance in hell, because, as I've explained; the system is rigged against Third parties.
It makes no sense to waste time, and energy trying to do things that any rational, intelligent person knows we cannot do. It makes even less sense to dedicate ourselves to these doomed pursuits, or to do nothing, at all, while the class war rages around us. The primary commitment of any Socialist worthy of the name, is the total, unequivocal commitment to the
defense of the working class.

Seriously, what is the difference between you and someone from Daily Kos, TYT and Democratic Underground? What is the fucking difference? That in your backwards warped mind you think that you're being a consistent anarchist? :laugh:

The difference is that I'm a Socialist, and they are Liberals. Liberals, and moderate Right-wingers, all believe that what we need to do is fix the nation-state, that we need to fix capitalism. A Socialist understands that the overwhelming majority of our social ills are the inevitable result of the fundamentally corrupt, and flawed nature of those institutions. That these institutions cannot be saved, or redeemed; they must be dismantled, and replaced. That's the definition of; 'Radical.'

Also; I don't need to distinguish myself, in everything that I do, because I'm not primarily worried about my image. If nothing else; I've proven I absolutely do not give a shit about trivialities like that. Nobody should. We should be focused on empowering, and defending the working class.

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the canon, (I'd be happy to make some recommendations.) and then read the archives, if you wish. This will confirm what I've said.

RadioRaheem84

5th February 2013, 20:44

Acknowledging reality is not a compromise.

There is a difference between acknowledging it and giving in to it's framework. You're literally citing the liberal version of TINA (there is no alternative). Have you ever heard of the concept of 'social reality'?

If you're going to exclude every piece of information that hasn't been ideologically vetted; you're committing yourself to not understanding things. The rational approach is to read everything with a filter, including Radical publications.

I tend to use discernment when reading liberal rags or conservative ones or mainstream ones that claim objectivity. If we didn't do that on the left, we wouldn't be so radically split.

You don't understand many of the terms you are using.

To people like yourself; everything, short of immediate, total annihilation of the status quo, is hopelessly compromised. Never mind the material reality. Never mind that the working class isn't anywhere close to seizing the means of production, nor is it likely to be anytime soon. You're not interested in such trivialities. That's why I called you an Ultra-leftist; because people like you take a hyperRadical posture that has no relationship to the political, and economic reality.

You like to tell us that we do not understand the terms we use but then you go right ahead defining terms, especially leftist ones, totally out of context or blatantly misusing them.

Do you not see who I have as my avatar? It's bloody Salvador Allende. I post Monthly Review articles all the time and I consider myself a member of the MR School which is hardly an "ultra left" organization and are always accused of being Keynesian and Democratic Socialists, i.e. not radical enough.

The point I am always trying to make is that you can go through the parliamentary system as had been done in Chile '70 and Venezuela to enact some 'radical' reforms. Much better than say waiting around and fighting for compromised solutions with an establishment party.

Now again, you keep skirting the issue on purpose I assume. What are the conditions in this country that make is damn impossible for a viable working party when it's happened in other liberal democracies like Venezuela and Chile, nations deemed to have had far worse conditions regarding system exclusivity?

Why would an occupied factories movement in this nation not be something worth supporting if it did start?

WHY DO YOU KEEP AVOIDING THIS TOPIC?

I didn't say the Democratic party was fantastic, it absolutely isn't, I said their policies are better than the Republican's. That's sufficient.

Not it's not. The Democratic Party is moving more toward the right and there is nothing that you or a cadre of people "pressuring" them is going to change that. It's single issue fluff that just doesn't touch on the root cause that's shifting the party right ward each election cycle.

You, and other like you, don't accept anything; that's the problem. People like you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the present over some ideal of perfection. Reality never lives up to this fantasy, therefore; you oppose everything, or nearly everything, as hopelessly compromised. That's Ultra-leftism, and more importantly; it's totally counterproductive.

What an idiot! You're defining reality based on their framework. You see this as self evident and chide each of us in here for being dopes on not seeing this and thinking that even working outside the system is "Utopian"? How are you in the slightest bit a radical if you cannot even fathom working outside the system to enact real social and economic change? That's the whole point of being a radical!

You do not understand what you're saying. You do not understand your own positions. And you do not understand what it means to be a radical or a socialist for that matter. You sir are clearly bonkers.

There's no rational reason to expect the political system to be able to achieve things that it is incapable of doing. We can't vote out capitalism.

So then why do you want to work within a system that you know cannot change from within?

I mean basically what you're doing is throwing away even any attempts at a viable alternative to just protect what we have because you believe that any real viable alternative is utopian and would be counterproductive to ousting capitalism? I mean explain your deluded logic here.......

A.) Do not engage in alternative struggle like third parties because it will undermine the establishment party you like vs the one you don't like

B.) Forming a viable alternative is utopian and counterproductive to ousting capitalism because it will give the party you do not like a chance to win and take away our gains.

C.) Our best chance is to pressure the establishment party you like to enact watered down reforms and protect the little gains of the past we have left, so that we can be stay healthy enough to one day oust capitalism?

But when will we be ready for real social and economic change? When will people have to stop supporting the establishment party and actually change the system?

You talk all this about being a socialist and a radical and whatnot but if we're so busy pushing away viable alternative to the power structure and defending an establishment party, when will we have time to actually do anything....you know radical?

Unless of course you're not suggesting that empowering and defending the working class is defending the Democratic Party from the Republicans?

Also again, I ask for the tenth fucking time; If a viable alternative party or organization reared it's head and actually became a real contender, would you consider them hopeless agitators that will give the right wing a complete victory or would you support them?

My belief is that you will not, not only that but that the scenario I painted is impossible under these conditions. But I tell you that it's happened in other nations where the conditions were worse. Why can it not happen here? And I am not talking about a bullshit Green Party, but a real deal Labor Party.

RadioRaheem84

5th February 2013, 21:00

You've got it backasswards. I'm being the hard-headed pragmatist, here. You, and the other Ultra-lefts, are playing the part of the wild-eyed dreamers. The material reality of the situation is the revolution is, presently, impossible in the United States. The working class, who, according to doctrine, (I happen to agree, wholeheartedly, incidentally.) are the only ones who can carry out the revolution; are nowhere near revolting. Even during the pit of the recent economic crisis; we were miles away from that. Revolution will only be possible when the working class is sufficiently empowered, and united, has achieved a certain level of class consciousness, and has exhausted the existing institutions, in the pursuit of it's interests, as a class. Then; revolution will be inevitable. That's not where we are, today. That's the place we have to get to. To do that; we need to empower the working class, and break down the barriers that divide the working class. That is the task at hand. Presently; American Radicals are doing an abysmal job of that. That's unfortunate, especially for the working class.

Funny how your terminology has changed over time. First it was fighting the ills of "corporate communism", chiding Marx, and chiding us for not seeing religion other than in class terms. Now all of a sudden you're deeply devoted to a class analysis? Gimme a break. You're incorporating more jargon into your bananas idea that we're empowering the working class by voting Democrat. :rolleyes:

Look NGN, at some level I can see where you're coming from but what conditions have to be met in order for the working class to be empowered, and class conscious ready to achieve revolution? What are you basing this on? That there weren't mass revolts in the streets after the pit of the crisis?

There was no crisis needed in Venezuela to necessarily spur any radical social movement. Same in Nepal or what's happening in India.

The existing institutions have prove time and time again that they are not aligned with the working class in this country even at the margins. Even in county's like Poland or Chile, measures pass all the time that give some "empowerment" to the people in terms of health care rights, education or even work. These little compromises happen all the time but it doesn't mean that there is somehow going to be a level of empowerment as a whole later on in the future to oust the system there. The only thing that brings that about is the people and a movement outside of the system that empowers them, and it doesn't need a crisis, a time, or a certain fixed period where all the conditions are ripe.

NGNM85

6th February 2013, 04:21

Why fight all our lives to put pressure on politicians we know don't give two shits about us when we could form our own parties?

We can form as many parties as we like. However; typically, the purpose of building a party is to elect candidates to office, which is predicated on the idea that said candidates have some chance of actually winning. As I've repeatedly explained; the political system is rigged against third parties. Before a third party could win any kind of chance of winning seats in Congress, we would need to remove the structural barriers, most crucially; campaign finance. There's also things like transfer voting, etc., etc. Those sorts of things would open the door. Then;the task is to convince workers that they should vote for it.

On top of that fight even harder to keep the watered down compromises we gained from being destroyed?

That's the way it works. That's why they call it; 'class warfare', not; 'class pillow fight.'

Your answer is that third parties are not a viable alternative? I ask why.

Again; because the cost of running political campaigns is astronomical, and climbing fast. Second; the two ruling parties have an enormous, complex national infrastructure, teams of seasoned political operators, etc., etc. Third; there are all sorts of institutional barriers, third parties are generally excluded from debates, etc. Fourth; the American electorate is extremely partisan. Finally; because most of the American public knows that Third parties are lost cause, and they don't like wasting their vote.

You say it's because the system prohibits it. I tell you that that is whole reason why we go an independent route.

Any campaign pretty much has to end the same way; with one candidate getting more votes than the other candidates. There's simply no way, at present, for a third party to get those kinds of votes. Maybe in the city governments, or some of the state legislatures, but that's about it. Frankly; I'm not even very optimistic about that.

So why do you insist on fighting to gain inclusion into a system you know systemically and systematically prohibits us?

If we could gain entry, we'd no longer be excluded. Also; because, until the masses start revolting, which isn't likely in any immediate future, that's all that we can do. That, and to put targeted pressure on the ruling parties. I mean; there's also local stuff, community organizing, etc. However; that tends to have a very minimal sphere of impact. If we're going to make substantial change, we need to be acting at the state, or national level. That's how you make the biggest difference.

No gain that we seek will ever be fully implemented.

Maybe, but at some point we have to be able to deliver something.

While we did receive gains in the past it was due to hardcore labor militancy. A section of the public that
has largely been beaten back and now we're reduced to defending those gains from being "reformed" or rescinded, or reduced to having a choice between right wing disaster or heavily watered down compromises. That is what the system gets you!

That's not the case. For one thing; the majority American working class never acquired a sufficient degree of class consciousness.

What part of this are you utterly failing to comprehend? The gains we received in the early half of the last century was due to the historical development of the working class and the fact that there were successful revolts happening all
over the world.

That was part of it, it was also a substantial movement, right here, in the United States. Coming down to earth, for a minute; there's plenty of things we could do to empower the working class today, that would have a real impact on worker's lives.

Why cannot the US actually fight and have a Labor Party?

For the reasons I've already mentioned. We already have Radical parties. There's SPUSA, Socialist Alternative, etc., etc. They virtually never win anything, for the reasons I've already explained. There's absolutely no logical reason to suspect a new Radical party would have any greater degree of success.

If one came around and was actually approaching to be a viable contender in the US, would you vote for it?

There's a world of difference between; 'approaching viability', and;
'viability.' That would depend entirely on the circumstances. For example; what office is being sought, is this a candidate for the Senate, for the House, the Presidency, school board? What state am I in? I live in Massachusetts, which is a true blue state. If I lived in Tennessee; I'd vote differently, because it has a different political environment. There are other relevant questions, like; what does the polling data suggest? Usually, you can get a pretty clear indication of how things are playing out. Finally; who's running? There's a certain amount of diversity among the ruling parties, although; much less so on the Republican side. All of these factors need to be taken into account. The yardstick should be universal,but the results should vary, substantially, from place, to place, from time to time. I have voted for third parties before; the Socialist candidates, and the Green party candidates, but those were essentially protest votes, those candidates didn't have a prayer. This November, I didn't bother voting for any of the presidential candidates, I just voted in the races where my vote could have actually mattered.

RadioRaheem84

6th February 2013, 04:39

That's the way it works. That's why they call it; 'class warfare', not; 'class pillow fight.'

You're limiting class struggle/warfare to the ballot box?

In all of your responses you seem to really accept the framework of current status quo. And I mean really accept it because you're literally shutting out all alternatives to it and are screaming at us for not seeing this at the utter reality of things. And I wasn't just talking about third parties but movements. Mass movements of the stripe that brought about change in the early half of the last century.

You've accepted the social reality framework that the Dems and liberal often repeat to shut out radical voices. You accept it as self evident and belittle others in here for not seeing it as though it's this undeniable fact. Well we're contesting that and all you can do is be as brazenly snide as a TV pundit or politco blogger (which I can tell you so desperately want to emulate) about it, insisting that it's like we're going against evolution or climate change.

And again, you keep ignoring the question I laid out before. I don't know why you are intentionally doing this?

In other nations the two party system has been broken, even when conditions were far worse for any third party or movement to gain popular support.

How do you explain that it can work there but not here? How do you explain that there can be a recovered factories movement in Argentina that has severely impacted private property rights? So much that it's frightened foreign investors.

I do not get why you keep ignoring this issue?

NGNM85

6th February 2013, 05:01

Jesus. I'll give you one thing; you're fucking lightning quick with your responses. At least try to hold off until I catch up? I promise; you'll have plenty of opportunities to expound on my numerous alleged personal failings, and accuse me of things.

NGNM85

6th February 2013, 07:14

There is a difference between acknowledging it and giving in to it's framework. You're literally citing the liberal version of TINA (there is no alternative).

There's nothing fundamentally; 'liberal' about it. Nor will I be cowed by the invocation of an emotionally potent phrase. (Or, in this case; an emotionally potent acronym.) Sometimes there aren't any alternatives. Life can be unfair like that.

Have you ever heard of the concept of 'social reality'?

Vaguely. I know it's connected to the idea, of; 'the big lie', which is developed by Herman, and Chomsky's; Manufacturing Consent.
What it sounds like you're suggesting is that we could convince enough people that a Radical third party would be viable, and that they should support it, and then it would become so. That's true. However; we'd actually have to be able to provide some sort of evidence that supports this contention. Also; we have to be politically active on behalf of the working class, before that's even possible. Workers aren't interested in Marxist boilerplate; they want affordable healthcare. They want to be able to feed their kids. They want to be able to give their kids a decent education. We need to be speaking to those needs, and not in a theoretical sense, not in some far off future, but right now. If American Radicals really were the advance guard of the working class, as they claim to be; the workers would be coming to us.

I tend to use discernment when reading liberal rags or conservative ones or mainstream ones that claim objectivity. If we didn't do that on the left, we wouldn't be so radically split.

You have to read everything with a filter, even Radical publications.

You like to tell us that we do not
understand the terms we use but then you go right ahead defining terms, especially leftist ones, totally out of context or blatantly misusing them.

That's incorrect. Every definition I use, I can point to, usually in an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. There's a lot of flagrant abuse of language that goes on, here. I usually choose my words very deliberately. Again; you don't have to take my word for that. You can look it up. Oftentimes; I even supply links to dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

Do you not see who I have as my avatar? It's bloody Salvador Allende. I post Monthly Review articles
all the time and I consider myself a member of the MR School which is hardly an "ultra left" organization and are always accused of being Keynesian and Democratic Socialists, i.e. not radical enough.

I can see the avatar; yes.

Ultra-leftism can express itself to varying degrees. There are some who demonstrate a more mild version of this affliction; others appear to be terminal. In fairness; (unfortunately) this appears to be epidemic, among American Radicals.

The point I am always trying to make is that you can go through the parliamentary system as had been done in
Chile '70 and Venezuela to enact some 'radical' reforms.

That's a great idea. However; you have to get elected, first.

Much better than say waiting around and fighting for compromised solutions with an establishment party.

Again; that assumes a Radical party can win. If that was the case; I'd be all for it. Unfortunately; it isn't.

Now again, you keep skirting the issue on purpose I assume. What are the conditions in this country that make is
damn impossible for a viable working party when it's happened in other liberal democracies like Venezuela and Chile, nations deemed to have had far worse conditions regarding system exclusivity?

See above.

More represive states tend to be less stable, because the crude repression fosters resentment. These are also poorer countries. Lack of access to basic necessities, like clean water can be a powerful motivator. Also; people learn to distrust state propaganda if it is too crude. The Western governments have the most sophisticated propaganda systems, because they have to. The United States has the most sophisticated propaganda system in the world.

Why would an occupied factories movement in this nation not be something worth supporting if it did start?

I didn't say it wouldn't be. However; property rights are practically sacred in the United States. You'd have to build new enterprises, or; you'd have to buy them from the owners, (Both of which are prohibitively expensive.) who probably have other plans. Otherwise; the police are going to come in, and drag everybody out. Then; it's all over.

Not it's not. The Democratic Party is moving more toward the right and thereis nothing that you or a cadre of people "pressuring" them is going to change that. It's single issue fluff that just doesn't touch on the root cause that's shifting the party right ward each election cycle.

There's only so much that I, as an individual, can do. The Radical left, however, could exert some pressure, if it was so inclined, even more so if it could build coalitions with other groups. Then; we'd be much more imposing. There are a lot of reasons for the rightward shift of American politics. In part, the Democratic party is catching up to the Republicans, who've gone completely insane. After Dukakis was defeated, there was a lof of soul searching in the Democratic party and the conclusion reached by much of the party leadership was that they had to move to the Right.This is where President Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership Council (Which Jesse Jackson nicknamed; 'Democrats for the Leisure Class.') came in, they were firm believers that the Leftward shift that had been a response to the pressure from the Leftist movements of the 60's, in which Radicals played no small part, had to be reversed. They had to move to the Right. So; they did. President Obama isn't a member of the DLC, but he's of that ilk. Always has been. Take the race between Ned Lamont, and Joe Lieberman; the President went to support Liberman. So; that's part of it, as well.

Gay marriage is not; 'fluff', for gay Americans. Drug law reform is not; 'fluff' to the workers who are incarcerated, many of them for simple possession. These sorts of things would make a real difference in workers lives.

You're defining reality based on their framework.

No; I'm recognizing reality for what it is. If a couple million Americans actually decided to support a Radical party; that would change things. For me, alone, to reject the reality of the situation is simply delusional.

You see this as self evident and chide each of us in here for being dopes on not seeing this and thinking that even working outside the system is "Utopian"? How are you in the slightest bit a radical if you cannot even fathom working outside the system to enact real social and economic change? That's the whole point of being a radical!

The whole point of being a Radical is the emancipation of humankind, which is the emancipation of the working class. That means fighting for the working class. There's not a whole lot of that going on, right now. Again; change starts in the streets, but until the minute the masses are ready to overthrow the whole mess, which is worlds away from where we are now, those battles, if they are successful, must, inevitably end in the halls of government, because, as long as the state exists, that's where the laws get made.

So then why do you want to work within a system that you know cannot change from within?

You can create smaller changes. On the state level, the national level, those changes have big impacts. Just because you can't overthrow capitalism through the parliamentary system, doesn't mean participating in the parliamentary system is not integral to overthrowing capitalism. I hate to speak in metaphors; but it's like saying mixing bowls are irrelevent to making brownies, because you can't bake brownies in a mixing bowl. Similarly; it's equally vital to use the levers of power to empower the working class, and fight for the interests of the working class.

I mean basically what you're doing is throwing away even any attempts at a viable alternative to
just protect what we have because you believe that any real viable alternative is utopian and would be counterproductive to ousting capitalism? I mean explain your deluded logic here.......

It's not a belief; it's the truth. How do you explain the fact that the existing Radical parties are failing so badly? They don't lose by big margins, they lose by enormous margins. The SPUSA is a real Radical party, Socialist Alternative is a real Radical party, and they are failing, miserably.

A.) Do not engage in alternative struggle like third parties because it will undermine the establishment party you like vs the one you don't like

There are lots of other forms of struggle. You can hold sit-ins. You can put together demonstrations. You can create petitions. You can put together ballot initiatives. You can form a union. You can go on strike, etc., etc.

I don't like either of the ruling parties. However; any rational person would prefer the bad party, to the worse party. If voting for an unelectable party tips the election so that the Republicans win; we might as well just vote Republican.

B.) Forming a viable alternative is utopian and counterproductive to ousting capitalism because it will give the party you do not like a chance to win and take away our gains.

If that's the case, as it was in 2000, then; yes. Nader helped give us President Bush. If that is; 'success', what does; 'failure' look like?

Also; it all depends on the circumstances of the particular election.

C.) Our best chance is to pressure the establishment party you like to enact watered down reforms and protect the little gains of the past we have left, so that we can be stay healthy enough to one day oust capitalism?

The political activity could be roughly devided into two extremely broad categories; defensive, and offensive. Defensive activity would be fighting Right-to-Work laws, which are a fucking naked attack on unions. Same goes for overturning all these fucked up laws Republicans passed, in the state legislatures, to undermine Roe v. Wade. Anbother example would be trying to protect Medicare, and Social security. Those are all defensive actions, in that they are responding to an assault by the master class. The other half is offensive, where new ground is broken. Gay marriage would be one example. Drug law reform would be another. What they are trying to do in Vermont, building a real universal healthcare system, that could be fucking fantastic. Overturning Citizens United, and building some kind of publicly-financed campaign system; all of those would be offensive, that would represent new territory seized for the working class, it would mean empowering the working class. Obviously; the idea is to primarily be on the offensive. However; that depends on holding tight to what has already been claimed.

But when will we be ready for real social and economic change?

What does; 'real change' mean? Does it mean; fundamental change, as in overturning capitalism? That's down the road, that's big picture. However; the smaller changes we can make now can have a very real affect on workers' lives. That matters.

When will people have to stop
supporting the establishment party and actually change the system?

I'm assuming that by; 'change the system', you really mean; 'overthrow the system.' There are a couple prerequisites. First; we must understand that this task can only be performed by the working class, itself, and only in a genuine, free, and democratic way. In order for that to happen; the working class needs to be sufficiently empowered, and united, they have to have achieved the required degree of class consciousness, and they have to be puruing their interests, as a class. If all of that happens, when they do that; they will inevitably crash against the fundamental limitations of the ruling institutions. At that point; revolution will be inevitable.
There will be no option except to demolish these institutions, namely; the nation state, and capitalism. In broad strokes; that's how it's got to happen. That's the only way it can happen.

You talk all this about being a socialist and a radical and whatnot but if we're so busy pushing away viable alternative to the power structure and defending an establishment party, when will we have time to actually do anything....you know radical?

What I've been trying to tell you is that there are no viable alternatives to reject. We also don't have to defend either of the ruling parties. We
should regularly, and publicly criticize the Democratic party. We just need to be smart about how we express ourselves. I talked to several of my co-workers before the election. They are blue-collar, like me, but many of them are poorly educated, most only have a high school diploma, some don't even have that. I never told any of them the Democratic party was on their side. Quite the contrary. I told them both parties represent big business, but there are some differences, and then I gave a very simple explanation of what some of those differences were, and how it might affect them, or people they might know. Basically; if workers walk away from you thinking they should vote Republican; public speaking isn't your forte.

What does it mean to be Radical? Being Radical means totally, unequivocally supporting the working class, above all else.
So; pursuant to that, you support gay rights. Liberals, as it happens, also support gay rights. Thhat doesn't mean that fighting for gay rights isn't absolutely, positively 100% Radical, just that it isn't exclusive to Radicals. We shouldn't expect to distinguish ourselves in every thing that we do. We don't brush our teeth much differently from anyone else. We don't sleep differently from anyone else. Etc., etc. We shouldn't be worried about that. We should only be concerned with what needs to be done. What it is that we can do, at that moment, to empower the working class. Building a working class movement involves a lot of boring, or laborious, or tedious workmanlike activity. It's slow going. It often seems fruitless, and there will be many setbacks. That is the way of things. You just keep going. Like the old Chinese proverb; 'the longest journey starts with a single step.'

Unless of course you're not suggesting that empowering and defending the working class is defending the
Democratic Party from the Republicans?

Like I said; there's no reason we should ever have cause to apologize for either of the ruling parties, or perpetuate any illusions.

Also again, I ask for the tenth fucking time; If a viable alternative party or organization reared it's head
and actually became a real contender, would you consider them hopeless agitators that will give the right wing a complete victory or would you support them?

If it was really viable; it wouldn't be handing a victory to the Right. In that case; yes, absolutely, with all my heart.

My belief is that you will not, not only that but that the scenario I painted is impossible under these conditions.

That's what I've been trying to tell you. It can't be done, right now.

But I tell you that it's happened in other nations where the conditions were worse. Why can it not happen here? And I am not talking about a bullshit Green Party, but a real deal Labor Party.

Because the circumstances are not right. Therefore; we have to wait for circumstances to change, or change the circumstances, ourselves.
It takes time, but it can be done. It's better than doing nothing.