Who is the real political enemy? - Conservitives or Liberals

[RedCeltic]

Many people seem to think that the real enemy that the far left should be fighting in the political arena are conservatives. I beg to differ, I think that the more dangerous of the political species is the liberal. Liberals are that diabolical political species that will tell the worker that they support their right to organize, and will be fighting on their side when in office, but will be quick to ignore that when it's not in the best interests of the cooperations.

I've had enough of these lying sacks of crud liberals. There is a conservative talk show host that frequently says that "Liberalism is a failed ideology." That is probably the wisest thing the man says on his show, and one of the only things I tend to agree with.

Why is it a failed ideology? Because working within the system as they have been doing and trying to candor to the rich while pretending to push a progressive agenda has only made them more and more like the consevitives.

To the point that a Democrat in the US will think that Joseph Lieberman is a "Progressive" replacement for George W. Bush, rather than seeing him for what he truly is... the Jewish/Democratic clone of a Christian/Republican!

Yet in election 2004, people will still think that voting for a Democrat will somehow be better than voting for a Republican.. and there will be less war.. haha.. regardless of the fact that there has been more war during Democratic presidentcies than Republican ones.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What people fail to recogise RC is that liberals may be "a bit" more open minded but they are still capitalists They want to see capitalism fall about as much as Tina wants see Ike. Their aims and goals are the same as conservative republicans, they simply mask it better. I agree they are even worse at times as they use leftist ideals to advance capitalism. They throw in a few leftist reforms to to get votes. Throw a democrat and a republican in a lift together and add a black man. Both of them will check to see if their wallets are still there when the exit the lift.

This may sicken some of you but it fits the bill. Both parties are piles of shite. The one without the peanuts in it may sting less but it still is a pile of shite

Capitalists in any form are our common enemy period. As you can see from this photo, looks can be deceiving. Don't be fooled.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/pic58.jpg



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:46 am on July 5, 2003)

[革命者]

Conservatism is our greatest enemy.

But we should attack the Liberals and Libertarians.

[mentalbunny]

I disagree, capitalism in all its forms is probably our greatest enemy, or the propganda of the capitalists, which is basically advertising! That is what distracts the workers form their position in the world and thier oppression, through advertising, the media, etc, they induce the workers to become focused on the "benefits" of capitalism, it's that which we have to fight.

[革命者]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 1:49 pm on July 7, 2003
I disagree, capitalism in all its forms is probably our greatest enemy, or the propganda of the capitalists, which is basically advertising! That is what distracts the workers form their position in the world and thier oppression, through advertising, the media, etc, they induce the workers to become focused on the "benefits" of capitalism, it's that which we have to fight.true, but we should fight our battles in the political arena, if we want political change. Thereby, changing government, gives us the oppertunity to change the corporate machine. By DE-branding and ANTI-monopoly policies.And to avoid monopolies we should flatten the corporate HIarchy. And for debranding we need a cultural change, by stimulating the non-profit forms of expression, like, but not limited to public TV, and stricter policies on commercial advertisement.

[革命者]

The political landscape evolves, imo, as such, if not effectively stopped by revolution:
Liberalism leads to Libertarianism
Libertarianism leads soon to Conservatism
Conservatism leads to (military or corporate) monopolies/imperialism
Inperialism(the above) leads to Fascism.

Fascism leads to dictatorships
Fascism bankrupts the country.
A dictatorship ends with Chaos.


To stop this we need a dialectical unity, where democracy and socialism are mixed by strong leadership, trusted and relait(sp?) upon-- a neccesity for a socialist state.

[Sandanista]

the ruling class are the only enemy

[Umoja]

Liberals are people who jumped in the middle of the road to Communism and built a village on the side of that road. Far from result of the Communism.

[Kez]

As Sandista has sed, the only enemy is the ruling class and its tools.

Scotty, ur posts are confusing! lol
i dont get if ur approach is one of reformism or that of revolutionary!
Your evolutionary process is describedd in detail by Lenin in the book "Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism".
Also, i agree with the idea of planning, not of control but of planning, there is no need for strong leadership if there is true deomcracy..

[革命者]

Also, i agree with the idea of planning, not of control but of planning, there is no need for strong leadership if there is true deomcracy..a system can be called truely communist if democracy can survive without control-- there i agree.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course that liberals do not even slightly represent the interests of the working class, but the point is that conservatives are worse. Far worse!

At least liberals aren't racist homophobic pieces of shit like the conservatives.

There is no use denying the fact that both liberals and conservatives are much more powerful than us right now. We communists have to understand that politics is not an all-or-nothing game. Our mission is to help the working class in whatever way we can. As long as a revolution is not possible, we should at least support the lesser evil against the greater one! We should support the liberals in their fight against the conservatives.

[Sensitive]

The ruling class and its fascist defenders are our enemies.

[Umoja]

I gotta disagree with putting a uniform blanket over all of the "enemies of the people". As the Dead Prez song goes "Know your enemy, know yourself, that's the politic".

[truthaddict11]

i dont believe in petty titles such as "liberal" or "conservative" our enemy is the capitalist/ruling class and we should never consider capitalist "liberals" comrades not matter how much they shine themselves up. We should aim to overthrow capitalism not "conservatism" or "liberalism".

[Eastside Revolt]

I feel the conservatives are the biggest enemy because they have the power.

Whereas I feel true liberals are bound to wake-up some day, the scary thing is that in Canada we have these so-called liberals which are more like closet-conservatives, and closet-fascists.

[Umoja]

You can't succesfully beat an two armies, by considering them one army. And you can't overthrow two parties, if you consider them one.

[truthaddict11]

we arent fighting two armies Umoja we are fighting the upper/capitalist class they are on both the left and the right.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Truth addict I don't seem them as on the left, even traditional "left such as labour are new right.

I think that the weaker party should be the one voted for. I would say liberals are less authoritarian, therefore that is what is important. Fuck the ecconomics at first, that is so set in a rich country like America that it will not be as easily changed by vote. The freedoms given to people can be though. Remain free and it will be easier to overthrow.

[truthaddict11]

we shouldnt settle for the "lesser evil" fuck both sides i really dont care which side pretends to be your friend the bottom line is they are still the upper class. Revolution should not be a left right battle but the bottom versus the top. That should be our main priority to overthrow the ruling class.

[Just Joe]

The argument that Liberals are worse than Conservatives is naive at best, utterly stupid at worst. Sorry RC, no offence meant.

Conservatives would gladly remove any state interference with the economy if they could. They would gladly discriminate against homosexuals and ethnic minorities. They would gladly take womens rights back to the 1930's. The only thing that STOPS them doing this is a Liberal opposition.

I take the point that in the end, economically there is only a tiny difference if any at all between Conservative and Liberal but thats the world we live in. Politicians chase votes and power, not ideals. Even 'left wing' politicians tone down there views so they can get into power and they tone down there legislation when in office so they can get it passed. Thats the nature of a two party system like there is in most western countries.

[革命者]

Thats the nature of a two party system like there is in most western countries.Don't you just mean the US and the UK??

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that terms like "liberal" or "conservative", "right" or "left", etc. are fundamentally misleading when applied to modern capitalist political parties.

In the 19th century and perhaps even well into the 20th century, political ideas actually had a real meaning to the capitalist class...there really were such entities as the "progressive bourgeoisie" and the "reactionary bourgeoisie".

Since the end of World War II (at the latest), I don't think that has been the case. Bourgeois political ideas, such as liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, etc., have been replaced by what Guy Debord and the Situationists called a "spectacle"--an extravagant display of lights and sounds and smoke and mirrors, without any substance at all except the preservation of capitalist power.

Any capitalist politician may take any position on anything...and no one is surprised except the terminally naive. Yesterday's "liberal" is today's "anti-welfare, more prisons" semi-fascist. Yesterday's "conservative" is today's outspoken opponent of American "criminal folly in Iraq". It's all for show since everyone knows it doesn't really mean anything.

The basic political consensus of the capitalist class has been in place for some time: yield as little as possible to the working class and that only under extreme pressure; otherwise, reduce the class to near absolute misery and utter demoralization.

Bourgeois electoral politics is a distraction from the class struggle. A thousand people in the streets is worth far more than a thousand "votes" on any issue at any time.

This does not mean that there are not still differences among capitalists (over how the plunder is to be shared, if nothing else). But the struggles over these matters take place far above the public eye. C-Span (or whatever it's called) does not have a camera and a microphone at meetings of the Federal Reserve System...much less in the plush men's room where one rich turd speaks quietly to another and an "arrangement" is agreed upon.

What we have now (regardless of what we "used" to have) is the "appearance" of democracy...all real decisions are made elsewhere.

Campaigning and voting in modern capitalist elections is precisely as meaningful as campaigning and voting in a "Student Council" election in high school: utterly futile and useless.

I know that won't stop some folks from doing it anyway...but at least I tried to warn them.

:cool:

[Umoja]

Okay. Redstar, you've sold me to that point. 1000 points.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

i dont think one should be labeled "the real enemy" because then the other one would be slightly more ignored, in my opinion they are both equaly harmfull to our cause and we shouldnt try to pinpoint ONE IDEALOGY to be enemies with. all capitalists in general are the enemy along with (in anarchists opinon) the authoritarians and the liberals and the democrats, republicans etc... basically, the whole world is out to get us anarchists and/or communists etc... the far left is basically hated by everyone except the far left and there are many people in the far left who hate others in different ideologies in the far left. so basically, anything outside the far left, is the enemy.

[RedComrade]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:28 am on July 5, 2003


Many people seem to think that the real enemy that the far left should be fighting in the political arena are conservatives. I beg to differ, I think that the more dangerous of the political species is the liberal. Liberals are that diabolical political species that will tell the worker that they support their right to organize, and will be fighting on their side when in office, but will be quick to ignore that when it's not in the best interests of the cooperations.

I've had enough of these lying sacks of crud liberals. There is a conservative talk show host that frequently says that "Liberalism is a failed ideology." That is probably the wisest thing the man says on his show, and one of the only things I tend to agree with.

Why is it a failed ideology? Because working within the system as they have been doing and trying to candor to the rich while pretending to push a progressive agenda has only made them more and more like the consevitives.

To the point that a Democrat in the US will think that Joseph Lieberman is a "Progressive" replacement for George W. Bush, rather than seeing him for what he truly is... the Jewish/Democratic clone of a Christian/Republican!

Yet in election 2004, people will still think that voting for a Democrat will somehow be better than voting for a Republican.. and there will be less war.. haha.. regardless of the fact that there has been more war during Democratic presidentcies than Republican ones.


The last time people employed this stategy of going after liberals before the right we got Adolph Hitler and the 3rd Reich. I think Ill stay with Howard Dean before I run around campaigning for people who get 2,000 votes.

[redstar2000]

The last time people employed this stategy of going after liberals before the right we got Adolph Hitler and the 3rd Reich.

A popular misconception and one widely-circulated by bourgeois historians...perhaps for less than "scholarly" reasons.

The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) campaigned virgorously against the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in the Reichstag elections of 1932 and in the November elections actually outpolled the SPD, becoming the largest working class party in the German parliament.

Something else was happening on the other side of the politicial spectrum; the old conservative and centerist parties were melting away into the Nazi party. Only the Catholic Center Party, based mainly in Bavaria and fundamentally conservative despite its moderate image, managed to "hold its own" against the drawing power of Hitler.

Bourgeois critics of the KPD suggest that "if only" the KPD and the SPD had formed some kind of "alliance" against the Nazis, things would have turned out "differently".

Utter nonsense, of course. The majority of the German parliament was reactionary. The only reason it took until January 1933 to bring Hitler to power was the necessity of working out various "arrangements" so that all the ruling class scum were promised their share of the spoils. Empty promises, it turned out, as the Nazis grabbed everything.

The KPD opposition to the Nazis in 1932 was actually far more intransigent than the SPD...which was, in many ways, a demoralized party. Their faith in the "reasonableness" of the ruling class and the "rule of law" was shattered by events in 1930-32. The KPD, on the other hand, fought the Nazi stormtroopers in the streets of Berlin and other cities right up until the end. Their slogan was "Smash the Nazi Wherever You Find Him".

If any criticism of the KPD could be made from the left, it's that the KPD should have been even more radical in its opposition to the Nazis. The KPD leadership admitted, after the Nazis came to power, that they had been held back by too great a concern for bourgeois "legality"--some suggested that the leadership was also worried about being driven underground and losing some of the accumulated "goodies" that they had acquired during the 1920s.

Thus, what really happened. The use of the bourgeois version of events has a purpose, of course: to frighten the working class in general and the organized left in particular into supporting the class enemy.

It is a pathetic argument, especially since if the ruling class wishes to impose an overt fascist despotism, they will simply do so, no matter what the election totals are.

We should attack the ruling class on real issues in the workplace and the streets...and ignore their smoke and mirrors. We might still succumb to fascist repression (history offers few guarantees)...but at least we'll go down in struggle against the real enemy.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:08 am on July 10, 2003)

[革命者]

In the 19th century and perhaps even well into the 20th century, political ideas actually had a real meaning to the capitalist class...there really were such entities as the "progressive bourgeoisie" and the "reactionary bourgeoisie".

Since the end of World War II (at the latest), I don't think that has been the case. Bourgeois political ideas, such as liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, etc., have been replaced by what Guy Debord and the Situationists called a "spectacle"--an extravagant display of lights and sounds and smoke and mirrors, without any substance at all except the preservation of capitalist power."There is no spoon"?!

What your talking about is science fiction, not marxism!

These words have a purpose other than to "blind us from the truth"....

(Edited by Scotty at 11:16 am on July 10, 2003)

[Sabocat]

Quote: from RedComrade on 1:18 am on July 10, 2003

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:28 am on July 5, 2003


Many people seem to think that the real enemy that the far left should be fighting in the political arena are conservatives. I beg to differ, I think that the more dangerous of the political species is the liberal. Liberals are that diabolical political species that will tell the worker that they support their right to organize, and will be fighting on their side when in office, but will be quick to ignore that when it's not in the best interests of the cooperations.

I've had enough of these lying sacks of crud liberals. There is a conservative talk show host that frequently says that "Liberalism is a failed ideology." That is probably the wisest thing the man says on his show, and one of the only things I tend to agree with.

Why is it a failed ideology? Because working within the system as they have been doing and trying to candor to the rich while pretending to push a progressive agenda has only made them more and more like the consevitives.

To the point that a Democrat in the US will think that Joseph Lieberman is a "Progressive" replacement for George W. Bush, rather than seeing him for what he truly is... the Jewish/Democratic clone of a Christian/Republican!

Yet in election 2004, people will still think that voting for a Democrat will somehow be better than voting for a Republican.. and there will be less war.. haha.. regardless of the fact that there has been more war during Democratic presidentcies than Republican ones.


The last time people employed this stategy of going after liberals before the right we got Adolph Hitler and the 3rd Reich. I think Ill stay with Howard Dean before I run around campaigning for people who get 2,000 votes.



Dean represents the same old, same old. This is a guy that wants increased budget spending for the military. I wonder why? A quick check on which military contractor lobbyist is handing out checks and to whom is probably a good place to start.

He'll drop into line like any other republican. I'd vote for Bush to really fuck things up first, making it easier to get real change before I'd vote for a republican in democrat clothing like Dean.