Ron Paul, how is he popular?

[bootleg42]

Now before you all read, I do NOT support Paul or any capitalist. I hate them all and wish them all the worst possible. :hammer:

Now about this new Ron Paul popularity, this guy is a nutjob. He acts as if the U.S. constitution is god itself without even realizing that the U.S. consitiustion was written by racist, sexist, Bourgeoisie slave owning men. This is a guy that basically wants to bring back old school capitalism that would make millions within the country suffer more (especially here in the inner city where I live).

But I was thinking.........and again it's just a thought..........we could use him......

I mean FIRST he does not want to "police the world". This allows potential socialist movements to occur in third world countries. Just off the top of my head.....Colombia with the FARC (think what you may of them, just understand the big picture). Ask yourself why they haven't the FARC been able to finish off the semi-fascist Uribe government??? Well that's because the famous school of the americas is not far away and there are U.S. bases all around latin america and any advancement by ANY communist guerillas in the area would would be put down right away.

BUT with this threat gone, any movement within latin america has a possibility to advance forward without the worry that the U.S. is going to take them out.

Also this puts an end to the Iraq war. Also this gets U.S. troops out of the phillipines, maybe advancing communist guerillas there (if they were strong to begin with, I don't get alot of news about them).

SECOND, his nutty free market strategy and his wanting to get rid of federal programs will quickly radicalize the workers of places like the inner cities and even in rural areas. Then people can see the capitalism is and always was the root to all their problems.

THIRD, his stance towards undocumented workers will also radicalize my fellow latinos here in the U.S. I mean we know there were socialists forces behind the may day protests of 2006 (which I was a part of). But now we can see the latino population (excluding Miami for obvious reasons) to look for radical solutions and well they'll raise up too.

With the end of wars by the U.S. and the radicalizing of workers in the U.S.........things can progress as they should. I think having this man in Washington can create the atmosphere many of us have been waiting for to occur in the U.S.

Again, I'm not a capitalist but I am just thinking strategy. I know the blow would be big to workers of the U.S. but it would be big enough to trigger a QUICK response which could lead to some sort of revolution or the birth of big movements.

Of course if I'm wrong, please someone correct me. Opinions please.

ALSO, can someone explain how such a guy is popular???

[which doctor]

I'm really not sure that he's that popular, it's just that his posse is full of internet geeks who are very vocal on the internet.

[dez]

libertarians haven't got a substantial opposition toward fascist policies.

My guess is that he wouldn't promote contra activity, but he would look the other way regarding it.

[spartan]

as a libertarian he would not get in the way of the US military crushing any opposition whether they be various anti US or leftist movements around the world or this ron paul fellow himself because it is the "US militarys "individual right" to do this" he would probably say.

[Wanted Man]

I'd forget about that idea, bootleg. He's never going to be president. Also, you will never create a revolutionary situation by "using" reactionaries to make matters worse for the workers, for two reasons:
Just standing behind individual bourgeois politicians (especially ones that don't stand a chance) will not make the communist movement any stronger.
The "tactic" of communists supporting reactionary measures to "make the people more rebellious" is so monumentally dumb and discredited, that it does not even deserve serious consideration. At best, the proletariat will ignore the revolutionary leftist organizations doing this, and carry out the revolution outside of it. At worst, this ridiculous "tactic" leads to the crushing of the workers' movement as a whole.

[Tatarin]

Ron Paul doesn't serve capitalist interests. Firstly, he doesn't seem to understand that the US needs imperialism to sustain itself. Why would the capitalists let go of billions upon billions of dollars to fit into Ron's idealistic view of the world?

Besides, even if he became the president, what would he do if all corporate interests pressured him to meddle with other countries? Would he arrest them? Expose capitalism to what it really is?

Second, he is most likely a racist, he seems to think that most crime comes from immigration and non-whites, and not that they are the most oppressed (thus leading to crime as a way to sustain their lives).

Thirdly, he is a fierce anti-communist and extreme-right fundamentalist, which doesn't serve our comrades in the US.

[Demogorgon]

He is more an internet phenomenon than anything else. But I would lik to make a few points about him in case anyone has the wrong idea

Like all Libertarians, he is in reality a crypto-fascist, Libertarianism was just fascisms way of re-establishing itself after it got hammered in the forties

To emphasise this, he is a member of the extreme right John Birch society

But in reality it doesn;t matter. Even if he were to be elected (which he won't) he would never be able to get anything through congress. Not only would he smash workers rights, he would grossly mismanage things for the bourgoisie and the bourgoisie don't like mismanagement when it comes to their money.

He is indicative of a problem in America though, where people treat the constitution as if it were sacred, rather than a reactionary document from another age.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 08, 2007 05:39 pm
I'd forget about that idea, bootleg. He's never going to be president. Also, you will never create a revolutionary situation by "using" reactionaries to make matters worse for the workers, for two reasons: Just standing behind individual bourgeois politicians (especially ones that don't stand a chance) will not make the communist movement any stronger.
The "tactic" of communists supporting reactionary measures to "make the people more rebellious" is so monumentally dumb and discredited, that it does not even deserve serious consideration. At best, the proletariat will ignore the revolutionary leftist organizations doing this, and carry out the revolution outside of it. At worst, this ridiculous "tactic" leads to the crushing of the workers' movement as a whole.

Well said. In fact, I would remind all comrades that the "tactic" of communists refusing to fight reactionary politicians in order to "make the people more rebellious" played a role in helping Hitler rise to power.

As for Ron Paul, the fact that he has a decent foreign policy (which he would never be allowed to implement, by the way) does not change the fact that his domestic policies are extremely reactionary and his laissez-faire capitalism would cause the most misery and suffering for American workers since the Great Depression.

Besides, his support among Republicans hovers between 1% and 3%. He will never, ever be nominated, let alone become President.

[Red October]

Ron Paul's supposed popularity is mainly due to a lot of young people who generate a lot of hype for him on the internet, but among actual voters, he has very little support. He's like the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party, and he doesn't have any chance of winning.

[RedKnight]

At least he is a whole lot better than the quasi-fascist Tom Tancredo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo). I mean can you think of anyone in the Republican party that wouldn't be half bad? Just as long as Ron Paul doesn't interfer in the fiscal budgets and spending of the state governments, I feel that his administration would be tolerable. If you are a libertarian socialist, you will want to support de-centralization and grassroots democracy anyway.

[Comrade Rage]

Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and even if he did, he wouldn't be able to get anything done.

To echo on something Tatarin said, I think he IS a racist, with anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic beliefs. To clarify, I am not confusing his opposition to Israel with actual anti-Semitism.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 08, 2007 05:34 pm
Well said. In fact, I would remind all comrades that the "tactic" of communists refusing to fight reactionary politicians in order to "make the people more rebellious" played a role in helping Hitler rise to power.


Thanks guys for the comments. This was the best post and even though I don't believe Paul would be the next Hitler, I understand what such tactics can bring about.

It was just a thought. I'm not saying we should have supported him, just maybe hope he'd win and then we'd just take care of the rest but after reading these responses, I see it's a bad idea. Thanks.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by bootleg42+September 08, 2007 06:48 pm--> (bootleg42 @ September 08, 2007 06:48 pm)
Edric [email protected] 08, 2007 05:34 pm
Well said. In fact, I would remind all comrades that the "tactic" of communists refusing to fight reactionary politicians in order to "make the people more rebellious" played a role in helping Hitler rise to power.


Thanks guys for the comments. This was the best post and even though I don't believe Paul would be the next Hitler, I understand what such tactics can bring about.

It was just a thought. I'm not saying we should have supported him, just maybe hope he'd win and then we'd just take care of the rest but after reading these responses, I see it's a bad idea. Thanks. [/b]
So do you think that we should all just follow the Communist Party U.S.A.'s tactic of voting for the Democratic candidate? I think that a better question is why should we put our trust in bourgeois politicians, and or governments in the first place? The best that we could ever hope to gain from them is bourgeois socialism. We should instead primarily work outside of the system for social change.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by RedKnight+September 08, 2007 07:00 pm--> (RedKnight @ September 08, 2007 07:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:48 pm

Edric [email protected] 08, 2007 05:34 pm
Well said. In fact, I would remind all comrades that the "tactic" of communists refusing to fight reactionary politicians in order to "make the people more rebellious" played a role in helping Hitler rise to power.


Thanks guys for the comments. This was the best post and even though I don't believe Paul would be the next Hitler, I understand what such tactics can bring about.

It was just a thought. I'm not saying we should have supported him, just maybe hope he'd win and then we'd just take care of the rest but after reading these responses, I see it's a bad idea. Thanks.
So do you think that we should all just follow the Communist Party U.S.A.'s tactic of voting for the Democratic candidate? I think that a better question is why should we put our trust in bourgeois politicians, and or governments in the first place? The best that we could ever hope to gain from them is bourgeois socialism. We should instead primarily work outside of the system for social change. [/b]
He's not a democrat. He's a republican. I just taught that since his ideas are so radical to free market thinking that it would finally create the situation that would have radicalized the workers to want to revolt or that socialist movements would begin to grow again BUT I saw how that was a BAD idea. I DON'T SUPPORT THE IDEA NOW.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:41 pm
At least he is a whole lot better than the quasi-fascist Tom Tancredo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo). I mean can you think of anyone in the Republican party that wouldn't be half bad? Just as long as Ron Paul doesn't interfer in the fiscal budgets and spending of the state governments, I feel that his administration would be tolerable. If you are a libertarian socialist, you will want to support de-centralization and grassroots democracy anyway.
Tancredo certainly is a son of a *****. One of the many colourful torture enthusiasts in the GOP. But in reality, his ideas are already being put into practise anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

And no, decentralization and grassroots democracy are pretty empty phrases when economic exploitation remains (or gets worse, which is what will happen if the disastrous libertarian ideas are ever put into practise). And you're still thinking in terms of individual bourgeois presidents. For WHO would his administration be "tolerable"? Certainly not for the worker who will see whackjob libertarianism unleashed, losing his pension, his right to unionize, his minimum wage, etc., because that's all evil statist big government stuff according to libertarians.

The fact of the matter is that no form of class rule is "tolerable", especially not the libertarian variation. Maybe a bourgeois "libertarian socialist" who has no connection with the working class will find it "tolerable", but this kind of crap is disastrous for people who already deal with economic exploitation.

(by the way, libertarians abhor the idea of "democracy". They tend to see themselves as "constitutionalists" rather than democrats)

[Mkultra]

hes popular because hes the ONLY republican in the debates who actually saying anything of any worth

[Eleftherios]

U.S. consitiustion was written by racist, sexist, Bourgeoisie slave owning men

I don't think you're being fair to the Founding Fathers of the United States.


ALSO, can someone explain how such a guy is popular???

Popular among whom?

He is popular among the libertarians because he is a free-market nutjob like them.

He is popular among the Constitutionalists because he upholds the Constituion much better than someone like Bush or Guliani.

He is popular among the racists because of his hard stance towards illegal immigration. Just go to *************** if you do not believe me.

And he might be popular among other Americans because he holds positions that are considered liberal, such as his stance toward drugs, privacy, capital punishment, torture, foreign intervention, etc.


hes popular because hes the ONLY republican in the debates who actually saying anything of any worth

You're probably right.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:49 pm

U.S. consitiustion was written by racist, sexist, Bourgeoisie slave owning men

I don't think you're being fair to the Founding Fathers of the United States.


You're right...............they're assholes too, fuck em.

You can't deny they were what I said they were in my quote. I know they fought off a monarchy (which is progressive in comparison to a monarchy) but still, I don't like them for the TRUE reasons I gave in my quote.

[Eleftherios]

I am not denying what you said in your quote. But you also have to understand (if your a historical materialist) that back then the bourgeois were a progressive force, and for reasons more important than their stance on the monarchy.

[bootleg42]

I know they were and I stated that in my responce above your last post:


I know they fought off a monarchy (which is progressive in comparison to a monarchy) but still, I don't like them for the TRUE reasons I gave in my quote.

Still I don't like them even though I acknowledge that they were the progressive force at the time against the monarchy of Great Britain.

It still does not justify their owning (and raping, we know this to be true) of slaves, and such racism. Thomas Jefferson opposed the revolution in Haiti.

But I understand they were progressive compared to the monarchy. I stated that.

[Eleftherios]

I see...well that's your opinion then. I sort of misunderstood that post.

[RHIZOMES]

The thing is, since he's a rabid constitutionalist, he would favour decentralization. If he favours decentralization, that means the States themselves will still carry out welfare etc. So that whole "Pissing off the workers" thing wouldn't really work.

And neither would his foreign policy. The corporations would not let him.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Like it has been stated above, Ron Paul isn't really popular. Fringe racist and conspiracy theorist groups like him because they read something into Ron Paul's positions and think "he's really one of us."

As a Libertarian he'll still favour imperialism, but just a different strategy. It could be argued that the Iraq War damaged the imperialist project in how it turned out that Iraq didn't become the stable client state the US wanted.

Ron Paul is a racist, corporatist, bourgeois capitalist who thinks restricting the money supply to the gold standard will bring about an Ayn Rand utopia.

[dannthraxxx]

Internet Demi Lord. He's still republican and still conservative and he's still a "presidential candidate."

[Guerrilla22]

For someone reason buzz about candidates always seems to circulate on the internet. Some guy shows up with a slightly different agenda from the rest and people get all worked up over him.

[Faux Real]

He's a piece of ®Libertarian trash, I'd probably get deported under his presidency... well, maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all. Still, his policies are moronic and there's no way private interests would actually support him. Nothing fundamental would change besides foreign policy.

He appeals to middle aged fat white guys ranting on the internet, pissed off about illegal immigrants and their low-wage jobs. Oh, they also wank off to the constitution.

That constitution really needs a revamp. Overrated piece of trash that isn't valid when the plutocracy deems necessary.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:35 pm
Ron Paul doesn't serve capitalist interests. Firstly, he doesn't seem to understand that the US needs imperialism to sustain itself. Why would the capitalists let go of billions upon billions of dollars to fit into Ron's idealistic view of the world?

Besides, even if he became the president, what would he do if all corporate interests pressured him to meddle with other countries? Would he arrest them? Expose capitalism to what it really is?

Second, he is most likely a racist, he seems to think that most crime comes from immigration and non-whites, and not that they are the most oppressed (thus leading to crime as a way to sustain their lives).

Thirdly, he is a fierce anti-communist and extreme-right fundamentalist, which doesn't serve our comrades in the US.
Well put. While he does clearly have nutty right-wing beliefs, he still isn't an "establishment" rightist and the corporations are afraid of him because they'll lose they're corporate welfare (amounting to trillions of dollars every 10 years or so - if you think capitalism isn't government protected, you're wrong) and the "big boys" will probably lose power. However, new monopolies will likely form that will perhaps be less progressive than the ones we saw now. Think of the Gilded Age period in America.

And yes, he's a fundamentalist, which the OP forgot to mention, and has said that there is no "violation between church and state. He's also said that blacks are "fleet footed," as anybody who's been "robbed by a black knows" and that black males mature faster than whites and a bunch of other kooky shit.

Paul's supporters spam youtube and everywhere else, and, while they are probably a minority, they should be rebuffed.

[Edgar]

Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:15 am
As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
They're mostly racist (they don't like "colored people") from what I'm told at least (they're paleoconservatives).

BUT FOR A FACT I know that they're hardcore patriots so that'll be hard to break. They're also convinced that communism is a conspiracy to bring about the "new world order".

Also they jerk off to the constitution like there is no tomorrow so you'll have to break that.

Really hard. I know they all HATE taxes so trying to get them to our side would be alot harder than you think but try and good luck and lets TRY. BUT KNOW THEM FIRST.

[thescarface1989]

Democrat Version of Ron Paul

Mike Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Mike_Gravel

[Sky]

Bourgeoisie slave owning men.
Bourgeoisie and slave ownership are irreconcilable. A slave owner can't be bourgeois.

[Random Precision]

I think the amount of support he has among young voters speaks of a growing dissatisfaction with the capitalist bipartisan consensus. The energy right now is being misdirected, but a well-organized socialist alternative, if we had one, would be able to exploit it. :(

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:25 pm

Bourgeoisie slave owning men.
Bourgeoisie and slave ownership are irreconcilable. A slave owner can't be bourgeois.
Please explain.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by FoB+October 23, 2007 11:07 pm--> (FoB @ October 23, 2007 11:07 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:25 pm

Bourgeoisie slave owning men.
Bourgeoisie and slave ownership are irreconcilable. A slave owner can't be bourgeois.
Please explain. [/b]
Slaves cannot buy products. Capitalism is based in selling products in the market to the greater possible number of people, so in the end it needs workers to buy their own stuff.

A slaverist society cannot be capitalist, and a capitalist society needs to get rid of slavery as soon as possible.

Evidently, the bourgeois, who need to prove us that capitalism is eternal, will pretend that ancient Athens was capitalist. But this is simply false.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by FoB+October 23, 2007 11:07 pm--> (FoB @ October 23, 2007 11:07 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:25 pm

Bourgeoisie slave owning men.
Bourgeoisie and slave ownership are irreconcilable. A slave owner can't be bourgeois.
Please explain. [/b]
The idea that American foreign policy under Ron Paul *would* actually change and that corporations *would* actually lose corporate welfare is where people are going wrong here. The American brougeoisie will always in a capitalist state have the government it needs. Ron Paul has two options - 1.)do what they need hum to do (ie pursue imperialist foreign policy and back it up by force when necessary, i.e. right now in the Middle East) or 2.)Never be President. Even if by some miracle this marginal figure did become President, he'd literally not have the structural support to implement his policies. So he could either walk away (and have the capitalist media blame himf or wrecking the country) or keep his job and security and do what his backers needed. Actually there is a third option - try to lead a revolution against the bourgeoisie - which shows how impossible libertarianism is.

In reality though there is no way in hell he'll come close to the White House, and in fact he just serves as a pressure valve to keep libertarian nutjobs working within the system.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 23, 2007 11:03 pm
I think the amount of support he has among young voters speaks of a growing dissatisfaction with the capitalist bipartisan consensus. The energy right now is being misdirected, but a well-organized socialist alternative, if we had one, would be able to exploit it. :(
Actually the people supporting him are the ones who are sick of "state capitalism". Every time I talk to them, they say that the U.S. is not capitalist enough and that Hilary Clinton and even George Bush (yes.........get ready to laugh) have socialist tendencies. These people want freer markets and stuff. These are the middle class white suburbians who complain so much of the governments of the past so only a free market freak like Paul could please them. They would hate us and our leftist alternatives.

[synthesis]

I see no reason why strengthening capitalist institutions would improve our chances of dismantling them.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by bootleg42+October 24, 2007 01:06 am--> (bootleg42 @ October 24, 2007 01:06 am)
Hope Lies in the [email protected] 23, 2007 11:03 pm
I think the amount of support he has among young voters speaks of a growing dissatisfaction with the capitalist bipartisan consensus. The energy right now is being misdirected, but a well-organized socialist alternative, if we had one, would be able to exploit it. :(
Actually the people supporting him are the ones who are sick of "state capitalism". Every time I talk to them, they say that the U.S. is not capitalist enough and that Hilary Clinton and even George Bush (yes.........get ready to laugh) have socialist tendencies. These people want freer markets and stuff. These are the middle class white suburbians who complain so much of the governments of the past so only a free market freak like Paul could please them. They would hate us and our leftist alternatives. [/b]
These libertarian crackpots have no clue what they are talking about. When they say "socialism," it is just a political swearword. Their policies would never be implemented, for the bourgeoisie are not stupid enough to to something that would greatly sharpen the class struggle by destroying the living standards of the workers. Such an all out assault on living standards for the working class would have a disastrous effect for the bourgeoisie. There is a reason why they are carefully trying to bust unions one by one instead of doing an all out assault right now in the US.

Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon. He has very little support in the real world. No one supports this ultra-right wing hack.

[Luís Henrique]

I would suppose that the American bourgeoisie has different fractions and sectors, and that the policies of each of them are different. What people have been saying is that Paul's ideas don't match the interests of the American ruling class, and as such he can be pidgeonholed as a "freak" - ie, a petty-bourgeois politician.

There are two difficulties with such analysis. First, I am not sure that Paul is that much cut out from the American bourgeoisie. After all, he manages to get elected to House in a "winner takes all" electoral system. It seems clear to me that a sector of the American bourgeoisie tends strongly towards isolationism; Bush's work of art was to convince them (with the help of events out of his control) that a brutal imperialist intervention abroad wasn't incompatible with such isolationism. Five years later, facts have shown that Bush's policies are in fact incompatible with isolationism. So I wouldn't doubt that a lot of bourgeois money and efforts are going to move towards a candidate with more credible isolationist credentials.

Second, people seem to be overestimating the degree of control the bourgeoisie exerts over its political representatives. Stating that Paul would never be able to implement his policies because they are not in the interest of the American bourgeoisie is false; just consider Bush's policies. It is clear by now that Bush's policies do not fulfill the expectations of any considerable sector of the bourgeoisie. To the isolationists, he is squandering American money abroad; to the "imperialists" he is focusing in the wrong place of the world, becoming entangled in the insoluble enigmas of Iraqi internal politics, while Latin America goes alienated with increased speed and depth. Yet Bush isn't being forced to resign or to change his policies; the State apparatus is strong enough to allow him to squander his remains of popularity to the end without institutional disasters.

So I would say that more knowledge and better class analysis would be necessary to correctly assess Paul's campaign. I would like to see how much money he's been able to collect, especially in comparison with the other Republican candidates; and also, it would be necessary to understand to which extent the GOP leadership believes it is possible to make a significant run this time; if they deem victory impossible, it is more likely that they would risk running an "inviable" candidate, thus preserving their big dogs for a next occasion (remember McGovern's candidacy in 1972).

Luís Henrique

[AAFCE]

Hes popular amond White Nationalists, thats for sure..

There was even an article in the paper saying that Ron Paul ads were on Stormfront.

[ellipsis]

i like him cause he's pro-gun and pro-legalization (legalisation for those in the UK) but then again i never vote republican, and rarely vote democrat so i tend to not pay too much attention to silly things like primaries which dont even count in the state im registered in

[Comrade Nadezhda]

just another bunch of bourgeois bullshit-- and ultimately everything in regards to the political system is owned and controlled by the bourgeois ruling class-- just as the industry and modes of production-- voting is too. if voting made any possible impact it wouldn't be legal, I think that is clear.

[Zurdito]

Second, people seem to be overestimating the degree of control the bourgeoisie exerts over its political representatives. Stating that Paul would never be able to implement his policies because they are not in the interest of the American bourgeoisie is false; just consider Bush's policies. It is clear by now that Bush's policies do not fulfill the expectations of any considerable sector of the bourgeoisie. To the isolationists, he is squandering American money abroad; to the "imperialists" he is focusing in the wrong place of the world,

snip

This I don't understand. One thing is to say that sections of the US bourgeoisie may not have understood the need for war on Iraq right now to shore up their economic prospects (or even that a small minority could profiteer from "betting against" the US), but I don't think any reasonably educated member of that class would underestimate the importance of the Middle East as a whole. Is any significant section of the US bourgeoisie not aware of the damage that would be done to them if OPEC countries switched their trading to Euros? Do they really not see the threat from states like China to their ability to have cheap access to the regions resources, or the increasing tensions with the EU and Russia over this? I think it's hard to believe that they'd see the Middle East as anything other than the most important part of their empire. Of course individual producers might have direct links much more with other parts of the world but which sector is not dependent on oil? Also, some will now support candidates who position themselves as "anti-war" in order to retain credibility etc., but there's no doubt that by necessity the Americans will need to keep stepping up their aggression in some way (even if just through sanctions or UN backed "peacekeeping" missions, or through backing militias) towards the Middle East, because their entire economic stability is under threat from that, and they do know it, just look how much attention the bourgeoise press in the USA gives to demonising any regime in that region which challenges them.

So really I don't think that Ron Paul's extremely radical words about isolationism could be put into practice. In fact the US establishment seemingly has done everything over the past two years to stop even a Democrat getting into the White House because apparently they fear their policies may be too moderate to save the US's ass from Chinese competition for oil. OF course you'll tell me that the Demcorats are also a boureoise party, but I'll say to you that there's a double game plan here - one to pullprogressive sections of US society as far right as possible through the extremely powerful front that is the treacherous Democratic Party, and another to make it as hard as possible for those same Democrats to get into power in case they pull the debate further left and integrate more progressive forces than the establishment would consider responsible.

[Dimentio]

Libertarianism adresses the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie.

In what way has American imperialism actually benefited the petties? British and French imperialism did benefit the petties in those countries during the 19th century, while the American petties are left aside in the current phase of imperial expansionism.

Libertarianism has a sort of potency, and could become the dominant ideology for a segment of American petties.

In Europe, Ron Paul would have been viewed as a right-wing populist, like for example Fortuyn or Haider.

But he is still probably one of the smarter candidates in the election.

[Robespierre2.0]

When it comes down to it, bourgeois elections and the candidates don't matter.

That said, though, I can't help but hate Ron Paul with a fiery passion. His supporters are the most obnoxious bunch of ****s to ever be involved in politics. Ron Paul himself is a dumbass that doesn't realise that capitalism only sustains itself by imperialism nowadays.

Libertarianism is being made out to be the 'rebellious ideology', and sadly, lots of young people are buying into it (as I once did). I actually kind of hope the fucker gets elected to these kids can see the ugly reality of capitalism for themselves.

I can't help but vomit a little bit in my mouth when I see "Ron Paul Revolution" stickers.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 24, 2007 11:09 am
When it comes down to it, bourgeois elections and the candidates don't matter.

That said, though, I can't help but hate Ron Paul with a fiery passion. His supporters are the most obnoxious bunch of ****s to ever be involved in politics. Ron Paul himself is a dumbass that doesn't realise that capitalism only sustains itself by imperialism nowadays.

Libertarianism is being made out to be the 'rebellious ideology', and sadly, lots of young people are buying into it (as I once did). I actually kind of hope the fucker gets elected to these kids can see the ugly reality of capitalism for themselves.

I can't help but vomit a little bit in my mouth when I see "Ron Paul Revolution" stickers.
Exactly what I'm trying to point out. Ron Paul and his "followers" need to get a grip on reality.

[Dimentio]

I think that there is a segment of the US Petty Bourgeoisie who actually have nothing to lose on a reduction of military spenditure, and therefore has a rational reason to support Paul.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:45 pm
This I don't understand. One thing is to say that sections of the US bourgeoisie may not have understood the need for war on Iraq right now to shore up their economic prospects (or even that a small minority could profiteer from "betting against" the US), but I don't think any reasonably educated member of that class would underestimate the importance of the Middle East as a whole.
Not underestimating the importance of the Middle East does not equate, however, to support policies like Bush's. On the contrary, it is easily arguable that Bush's policies in fact undermine American positions in the Middle East - not to talk about Latin America, where it is more obvious than just arguable.


Is any significant section of the US bourgeoisie not aware of the damage that would be done to them if OPEC countries switched their trading to Euros? Do they really not see the threat from states like China to their ability to have cheap access to the regions resources, or the increasing tensions with the EU and Russia over this? I think it's hard to believe that they'd see the Middle East as anything other than the most important part of their empire. Of course individual producers might have direct links much more with other parts of the world but which sector is not dependent on oil?

Oil can be bought in Latin America or Russia, too. And evidently, superating the American dependency on oil would be a strategic aim for the American bourgeoisie as a whole.


Also, some will now support candidates who position themselves as "anti-war" in order to retain credibility etc., but there's no doubt that by necessity the Americans will need to keep stepping up their aggression in some way (even if just through sanctions or UN backed "peacekeeping" missions, or through backing militias) towards the Middle East, because their entire economic stability is under threat from that, and they do know it, just look how much attention the bourgeoise press in the USA gives to demonising any regime in that region which challenges them.

Yes, it is possible that they follow such route. The price to pay is to have challenging regimes all over Latin America, while having all their retaliatory capacities deadlocked in the Middle East.


So really I don't think that Ron Paul's extremely radical words about isolationism could be put into practice.

Well, probably not, or probably not to the extent that he and his supporters imagine. But no politician can put into practice exactly what s/he intends; it is always necessary to make concessions to reality. Paul could obviously reduce the American military presence abroad, and even renounce a Middle Eastern presence completely; this wouldn't bring a coup d'état against him (it would probably make his presidency a failure, and prevent his reelection, probably reinforcing the more imperialist factions of the American bourgeoisie, but that's different).


In fact the US establishment seemingly has done everything over the past two years to stop even a Democrat getting into the White House because apparently they fear their policies may be too moderate to save the US's ass from Chinese competition for oil.

The Democrats are the American establishment, even more than the GOP. And it should seem clear, at this moment, that no one fears more a Democrat victory than the Democrats themselves, as they play too much the middle class delusions of too many Americans. But that does not mean that they support Bush's policies; it just means that they can't figure out a viable alternative.


OF course you'll tell me that the Demcorats are also a boureoise party, but I'll say to you that there's a double game plan here - one to pull progressive sections of US society as far right as possible through the extremely powerful front that is the treacherous Democratic Party, and another to make it as hard as possible for those same Democrats to get into power in case they pull the debate further left and integrate more progressive forces than the establishment would consider responsible.

I don't think this analysis is correct, nor do I think that the bourgeoisie is about going as much to the right as possible. The Democrats are not just a bourgeois party; they are a State party. They are part of the core of American bourgeois politics, and they can't be removed from there without dismantling the whole system, with dire consequences for the Republicans themselves. Give Nader or Paul the same conditions the Democrats and Republicans have - and you will have real political debate back to American politics; something the State has been trying to avoid as much as possible.

I would never call the Democratic Party treacherous. Treacherous is British Labour; treacherous is German SPD, or French PS. The Democrats are, have always been, the other side, and not a marginal wing of the other side, but it's hardest core.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

I would never call the Democratic Party treacherous. Treacherous is British Labour; treacherous is German SPD, or French PS. The Democrats are, have always been, the other side, and not a marginal wing of the other side, but it's hardest core.

yes, fair point. I jsut meant that the Democrats are able to draw in social movements and then betray them, but you are right, it's confusing to call them "treacherous" in that way. I'll answer to the rest when I have more time.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 01:38 pm
I would suppose that the American bourgeoisie has different fractions and sectors, and that the policies of each of them are different. What people have been saying is that Paul's ideas don't match the interests of the American ruling class, and as such he can be pidgeonholed as a "freak" - ie, a petty-bourgeois politician.

There are two difficulties with such analysis. First, I am not sure that Paul is that much cut out from the American bourgeoisie. After all, he manages to get elected to House in a "winner takes all" electoral system. It seems clear to me that a sector of the American bourgeoisie tends strongly towards isolationism; Bush's work of art was to convince them (with the help of events out of his control) that a brutal imperialist intervention abroad wasn't incompatible with such isolationism. Five years later, facts have shown that Bush's policies are in fact incompatible with isolationism. So I wouldn't doubt that a lot of bourgeois money and efforts are going to move towards a candidate with more credible isolationist credentials.

Second, people seem to be overestimating the degree of control the bourgeoisie exerts over its political representatives. Stating that Paul would never be able to implement his policies because they are not in the interest of the American bourgeoisie is false; just consider Bush's policies. It is clear by now that Bush's policies do not fulfill the expectations of any considerable sector of the bourgeoisie. To the isolationists, he is squandering American money abroad; to the "imperialists" he is focusing in the wrong place of the world, becoming entangled in the insoluble enigmas of Iraqi internal politics, while Latin America goes alienated with increased speed and depth. Yet Bush isn't being forced to resign or to change his policies; the State apparatus is strong enough to allow him to squander his remains of popularity to the end without institutional disasters.

So I would say that more knowledge and better class analysis would be necessary to correctly assess Paul's campaign. I would like to see how much money he's been able to collect, especially in comparison with the other Republican candidates; and also, it would be necessary to understand to which extent the GOP leadership believes it is possible to make a significant run this time; if they deem victory impossible, it is more likely that they would risk running an "inviable" candidate, thus preserving their big dogs for a next occasion (remember McGovern's candidacy in 1972).

Luís Henrique
Excellent post.

Also to know, over 99% of Paul's funds had come from individuals, with almost half (47%) raised from small contributions ($200 or less). There is no doubt the mid-to-upper white suburbian middle class is funding him unlike the other candidates who just get their money directly from huge business.

To me he seems like a real representative of the petty bourgeoisie more than the bourgeoisie. In the U.S., the petty bourgeoisie have been alienated and THEY seriously believe that the government favors "colored people" more than anyone. Also the multiple government benefit programs, that require tax money, are barely used by petty bourgeoisie so they don't like the idea of paying taxes to support what they believe, "lazy people".

His potential voters are EXTREMELY anti-leftist. So please everyone, don't ever think that the people liking him could have been supporters of us because they never would have been. They're another type of right wing that is equally as dangerous as the current right wingers (republicans and democrats) ruling the United States today.

Paul's ideas will hurt working and poor people.

[Cheung Mo]

I will not deny that Ron Paul and his supporters are racist fucks, but anybody opposed to the War on Drugs while supporting roughly the same socioeconomic policies of he neocons is materially far less racist than the current crop of neo-consevatives in power now.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 12:28 am
I will not deny that Ron Paul and his supporters are racist fucks, but anybody opposed to the War on Drugs while supporting roughly the same socioeconomic policies of he neocons is materially far less racist than the current crop of neo-consevatives in power now.
really?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html


More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

Seems like he just allocates his racism differently to the neo-cons, not like there's less of it.

[Comrade Rage]

He also believes in 'ending the welfare' subsidies----------notice how he talks like immigrants take up the majority of participants in those programs.

Ron Paul's a racist gnome.

[synthesis]

Racist or not, he represents a sizable portion of Americans who have views about illegal immigrants that are largely unfounded and distorted but are provoked by the natural processes of the capitalist system, which include a tendency to find labor as cheap as possible. Rather than dismissing them as devils we should be focused on re-educating people as to the real source of the economic pitfalls facing the American working class.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Rather than dismissing them as devils we should be focused on re-educating people as to the real source of the economic pitfalls facing the American working class.
Exactly. In fact, many people are against illegal immigration because believe the garbage put forward by the right-wing media that illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from American workers. What we should do is to point out that illegal immigrants are not the problem, the bourgeoisie is.

[SocialistMilitant]

How can people even believe that nonsense? Are Americans lining up for the shit jobs in this country? Someone has to fill them up.

[bootleg42]

Just more proof that the majority of the United Statian population are enemies of the poor and working people of the world.

[Zurdito]

Racist or not, he represents a sizable portion of Americans who have views about illegal immigrants that are largely unfounded and distorted but are provoked by the natural processes of the capitalist system, which include a tendency to find labor as cheap as possible. Rather than dismissing them as devils we should be focused on re-educating people as to the real source of the economic pitfalls facing the American working class.


I'm not dismissing anyone as devils except for demagogues like Ron Paul.

That said, Ron Paul's base as far as I know is hardly working class. The groups who percieve the most material "squeeze" from immigration are in the black community - yet that's not the base of Ron Paul's support. His support as far as I can see comes from petty bourgeoise bigots who, asuming they have listened to the candidate they support, oppose welfare for immigrants and employment laws, and therefore want to actually increase the process of immigrants being used as cheap competition, rather than prevent it.

In that case then Ron Paul's supporters aren't even protectionist workers, they're exploiters and disillusioned middle class white boys who have no problem with outsourcing and cheap immigrant labour, but who don't want to have to hear Spanish or see brown kids living next door to them.

And yes, check ***************, they advertise for Ron Paul on there.

[synthesis]

I'm not dismissing anyone as devils except for demagogues like Ron Paul.


Yet his style would not be effective without receptive conditions. He's utilizing these distorted views for political gain, and to simply dismiss him as "the enemy" is to trade legitimate analysis and solutions for passive-aggressive contempt.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 26, 2007 06:01 pm


I'm not dismissing anyone as devils except for demagogues like Ron Paul.


Yet his style would not be effective without receptive conditions. He's utilizing these distorted views for political gain, and to simply dismiss him as "the enemy" is to trade legitimate analysis and solutions for passive-aggressive contempt.
Right, but I have analysed him, rather than simply dismiss him. I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for here. You seem to be arguingthat he is an outlet for genuine grievances. I disagree, I think he's an outlet for petty-bourgeoise disillusionment. If the working class was acking him in any great num,bers I might pa him more attention.

NB I do take groups like the BNP more seriously in England, because they do have a working class base, and they propose traditional fascist policies which can address some of the grievances of the marginalized. But Ron Paul is a libertarian whose main base is internet geeks.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:26 am
Just more proof that the majority of the United Statian population are enemies of the poor and working people of the world.
No they have been fooled by the media to believe the non sense about losing jobs. There are a lot that don't care about the poor and working class, but I don't think it is the majority. The media in the US does a good job of skewing the story such that any type of socialism is bad. Most people in the US believe that socialism/communism are the same thing and that along with anarchism (which most define as chaos ) are the antithesis of democracy. The majority of the US population don't realize that they are not mutually exclusive. The problem is just ignorance.

On the subject of Ron Paul. Ron Paul ran as a libertarian in 2000 (?). He is not really a republican, in the normal sense of the word. I wouldn't say that his policies are intentionally racist. He believes the government is only there to protect the people. And so there are many social programs he will not support, because of that view. Additionally, the President can only do so much with out the support of congress. So, in my opinion he would be mostly a lame duck president if he did win.

What I would like see happen; I would like to see Giuliani win the Republican nomination. The religious right has said they would break away and form their own party. This would result in a third party sitting in congress and senate. This party would need the support of the Republican party to pass any bills. This would show the US population that a third party could work in our political system, and I believe it would truly be a change for the better in the US. That being said, I don't want Giuliani to win the presidency, just to be nominated by the GOP.

[Tatarin]

The religious right has said they would break away and form their own party.

I find this hard to believe. The Republicans are practically the religious right. Forming their own party would only result in confusion and probably a split within the US right, something they wouldn't benefit from.


This party would need the support of the Republican party to pass any bills.

Again, why all this? Why not just "infiltration"?


This would show the US population that a third party could work in our political system, and I believe it would truly be a change for the better in the US.

Maybe, but it would only go so far. There are countries elsewhere in which there are three to ten "major" parties, but none of which makes any serious change. The point is to somehow make people know about what communism really is, and I doubt any party can do that within the capitalist system.

[Dimentio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

He is a very efficient demagogue indeed.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:47 pm

The religious right has said they would break away and form their own party.

I find this hard to believe. The Republicans are practically the religious right. Forming their own party would only result in confusion and probably a split within the US right, something they wouldn't benefit from.


This party would need the support of the Republican party to pass any bills.

Again, why all this? Why not just "infiltration"?


This would show the US population that a third party could work in our political system, and I believe it would truly be a change for the better in the US.

Maybe, but it would only go so far. There are countries elsewhere in which there are three to ten "major" parties, but none of which makes any serious change. The point is to somehow make people know about what communism really is, and I doubt any party can do that within the capitalist system.
I guess I should have been clear on what type of positive change I was speaking of. I was more or less speaking about environmental policy, foreign policy, and some domestic policy changes. I would doubt that the US will be socialist or communist anytime soon.

[Dimentio]

If you want to build a platform in the US, you must first conquer a base in the states first, then move upwards to the federal level.

[Rage]

My dad supports Ron Paul mostly because Ron Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian (Paul is an ex-libertarian) that has any shot at winning. I went to a libertarian meeting a couple weeks ago and lots of people there are going to vote for Ron Paul.

Lots of people are supporting him because he has said he would end the war instantly (him and kucinich are the only people I know of willing to do that).

Ron Paul has a LOT of posters and signs in my city. I think he will end up having a huge campaign.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:51 pm
What we should do is to point out that illegal immigrants are not the problem, the bourgeoisie is.
The problem is people believe the bullshit-- when it is all bourgeois lies.

What people really need to do is abandon the electoral system and fight capitalism by other means.

[Tatarin]

On the other hand, Ron Paul uses the one trick to get into elections, which is not to create a party but to be apart of one of the two, and when the chance is given, to run on his own politics.

I wonder, what did he do all these years before he decided that "America needs to change"?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

yes, and unfortunately people fall for it as if it will actually change something.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:30 pm
Lots of people are supporting him because he has said he would end the war instantly (him and kucinich are the only people I know of willing to do that).
See this bothers me. I'm not going to say that Kucinich is a leftist like most of us here but of all the major candidates for the U.S. presidency, Kucinich is more to the left than any of the other candidates.

Now BOTH he and Paul want the war to end and both have said that they would end the war.........yet I don't see people in the U.S. jumping for joy for Kucinich the way they do for Paul. The difference between the two??................one is more to the right and one is more to the left and guess which one is getting this popularity???.......the rightist.

The excuse that many U.S. people make for support Paul is that he will end the war.....so would Kucinich but yet those same voters don't even like him nor does he get any love.

This shows that the majority of the U.S. population prefers rightist policies because it benefits them (at the expense of the U.S. poor and working class and the third world poor and working class of course).

Unfortunally in the U.S., the poor and working class are outnumbered by the people in the U.S. who live "well enough" to not care about leftist change or even to not need it.....makes me sad.

Someone please prove me wrong.

[Tatarin]

This shows that the majority of the U.S. population prefers rightist policies because it benefits them (at the expense of the U.S. poor and working class and the third world poor and working class of course).

I wouldn't say they prefer it. Well, they do, but I feel it is more because of the constant propaganda directed towards the left. In other words, anything that is considered "left" means bigger government, bureaucracy and "big brother". That is probably also one of the reason why people in the US are unwilling to let go of the cold war mentality.

I mean, Ron Paul has stated that the war on drugs is useless and should be scrapped (also that people themselves should choose what drugs to use), and that people who is in prison for drug crimes (i.e., smoking a joint etc) is to be released immediately. This seems completely un-Republican, yet no one has come out to say that Ron Paul is a hippie, or in-the-clauset-Democrat, or "communist" or anything else.

The level of ignorance here is enormous.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by bootleg42+October 29, 2007 05:25 pm--> (bootleg42 @ October 29, 2007 05:25 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 01:30 pm
Lots of people are supporting him because he has said he would end the war instantly (him and kucinich are the only people I know of willing to do that).
See this bothers me. I'm not going to say that Kucinich is a leftist like most of us here but of all the major candidates for the U.S. presidency, Kucinich is more to the left than any of the other candidates.

Now BOTH he and Paul want the war to end and both have said that they would end the war.........yet I don't see people in the U.S. jumping for joy for Kucinich the way they do for Paul. The difference between the two??................one is more to the right and one is more to the left and guess which one is getting this popularity???.......the rightist.

The excuse that many U.S. people make for support Paul is that he will end the war.....so would Kucinich but yet those same voters don't even like him nor does he get any love.

This shows that the majority of the U.S. population prefers rightist policies because it benefits them (at the expense of the U.S. poor and working class and the third world poor and working class of course).

Unfortunally in the U.S., the poor and working class are outnumbered by the people in the U.S. who live "well enough" to not care about leftist change or even to not need it.....makes me sad.

Someone please prove me wrong. [/b]
I think the focus on Ron Paul, is because the media in the US is to the right. If you watch the debates and you read the US news, there was never much mention of Kucinich. He ran last election and if you told people that they wouldn't believe you. The candidate with the most favorable media coverage will be the one to win. Sadly, in the US a candidate is picked by the media. A good example of a media assassination was Howard Dean's scream. It wasn't even a big deal, but the media made him out to be crazy and it was over.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by lvleph+October 30, 2007 12:27 pm--> (lvleph @ October 30, 2007 12:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:25 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 01:30 pm
Lots of people are supporting him because he has said he would end the war instantly (him and kucinich are the only people I know of willing to do that).
See this bothers me. I'm not going to say that Kucinich is a leftist like most of us here but of all the major candidates for the U.S. presidency, Kucinich is more to the left than any of the other candidates.

Now BOTH he and Paul want the war to end and both have said that they would end the war.........yet I don't see people in the U.S. jumping for joy for Kucinich the way they do for Paul. The difference between the two??................one is more to the right and one is more to the left and guess which one is getting this popularity???.......the rightist.

The excuse that many U.S. people make for support Paul is that he will end the war.....so would Kucinich but yet those same voters don't even like him nor does he get any love.

This shows that the majority of the U.S. population prefers rightist policies because it benefits them (at the expense of the U.S. poor and working class and the third world poor and working class of course).

Unfortunally in the U.S., the poor and working class are outnumbered by the people in the U.S. who live "well enough" to not care about leftist change or even to not need it.....makes me sad.

Someone please prove me wrong.
I think the focus on Ron Paul, is because the media in the US is to the right. If you watch the debates and you read the US news, there was never much mention of Kucinich. He ran last election and if you told people that they wouldn't believe you. The candidate with the most favorable media coverage will be the one to win. Sadly, in the US a candidate is picked by the media. A good example of a media assassination was Howard Dean's scream. It wasn't even a big deal, but the media made him out to be crazy and it was over. [/b]
A population which judged John Kerry as too liberal wasn't going to vote for Howard Dean, scream or no scream.

I think we need to recognise that in imprialist countries in general, political discourse is usually slanted towards the more reactionary sections of the bourgeoise, or the "centre right" (cut taxes, oppose immigration, strong foreign policy, etc. are key issues for the masses) whilst in third world countries it's generally slanted towards the populist centre-left sections of the bourgeoisie (public services, job creation, standing up to the imperialist states etc. are key issues for the masses). Now as the world's "super-power", by far the most powerful imperialist state, the US discourse will tend to be more right-wing than most. This won't change overnight, White America is not going to be a recolutionary force for the forseeable future. However, what revolutionaries should orientate towards are the excluded sections of society, the people who won't won Presidential elections - it's not even worth worrying about if soccer moms vote for Paul or Kuchinic, because out of those two Ron Paul will always win int hat constituency.

So what's the answer? The answer is that American voters really aren't that powerul. The American middle class is tied to the apron string of the bourgeoisie, of the state, thus it always was and always and always will be in any imperialist state. The state makes it clear what needs to happen for it to survive - aggression abroad, repression at home, etc., - and the Middle Classes aren't stupid, they want to protect their little pot of gold, their rung on the ladder just above the masseswhoo toil away below them (including millions of poor Americans). so let's stop worrying if Mr.NASCAR or whatever you want to call him votes for reactioanries - he always will, he owes his priveliges to them.

But the point is that American imperialism will collapse in on itself *abroad* - it's losing control of the oil markets, it's losing out in comeptition for vital, scarce and diminishing resources to China, Russia, and maybe even the EU. It's dependent on the hostile creditors who underwrite it. The blood sacrifice needed to keep itself just standing still is increasing all the time - blood of its people and blood of its subjects abroad. And without their co-operation, ultimately, it can't operate. So when it has it's access to credit and oil gradually undermined, this pack of cards that is he American fantasy, the credit bubble, telly-tubby land, will collapse much quicker and more dramatically than most people expect. Of course we can't know when, or what will be the spark, but assuming most of us here are young, at some point in our lifetimes we will see great crises ahead, I feel - and if you think that's unrealistic, just think that in your grandparents lifetime they've seen the most collosal economic collapses and imperialist wars that humanity has ever seen.

So it's these times, when the costs of these crises hit the poor at home and abroad hardest, that the poor will, by necessity, become a revoltuionary force. The petty-bourgeoisie mostly will not; and mostly they will not matter, as they'll be a declining, demoralised, dependant, parasitical force.

This is why we should build the framework constantly amongst the workers, and amongst the academia and the intelligentsia and the people who already show an orientation towards at least listening to us or to questioning the status quo; because although we won' become a majority before a revolutionary situation (sparked by a crisis), when revolutionary situations *do* arise we must be ready. If we'd spent our time worrying about dead-ends like Kuchinich or moralising to White America and wondering why they can't just be a nicer kind of imperialist, rather than building basis to override these people, then we'll not be up to the challenge, frankly speaking.

[synthesis]

The same argument that working class people who support the right are misguided by the system applies to the middle-class as well.

Much of the radical right-wing which is not proletarian in nature is composed of people who have been instructed by the left that their race and affluence gives them power, which they do not feel corresponds with their situation. It originates from a feeling of disenfranchisement from a system where opposition to the system tends to only consider the most oppressed people in terms of class and race.

In the right petty-bourgeois climate, this feeling of disenfranchisement will lead to Communism, and in other situations it will lead to "white nationalism," Militia movements, and paranoid Illuminati ramblings.

These people have been historically snubbed by the left as a part of the oppressive system, yet their affluence and whiteness has not given them any sort of real power, because there is a specific set of people who truly "run shit" and whose interests do not necessarily lie tangent to affluent whites.

In other words, the world is not run by affluent suburbia, and to say that these people are enfranchised to any meaningful degree in this capitalist system would be to take our focus off the dictatorship of capital.

My ultimate conclusion from the analysis is that to focus on these people is inimical to our interests, for they are only capitalizing on the same sense of powerlessness that tends to produce leftists from the affluent white community.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 30, 2007 09:21 pm
The same argument that working class people who support the right are misguided by the system applies to the middle-class as well.

Much of the radical right-wing which is not proletarian in nature is composed of people who have been instructed by the left that their race and affluence gives them power, which they do not feel corresponds with their situation. It originates from a feeling of disenfranchisement from a system where opposition to the system tends to only consider the most oppressed people in terms of class and race.

In the right petty-bourgeois climate, this feeling of disenfranchisement will lead to Communism, and in other situations it will lead to "white nationalism," Militia movements, and paranoid Illuminati ramblings.

These people have been historically snubbed by the left as a part of the oppressive system, yet their affluence and whiteness has not given them any sort of real power, because there is a specific set of people who truly "run shit" and whose interests do not necessarily lie tangent to affluent whites.

In other words, the world is not run by affluent suburbia, and to say that these people are enfranchised to any meaningful degree in this capitalist system would be to take our focus off the dictatorship of capital.

My ultimate conclusion from the analysis is that to focus on these people is inimical to our interests, for they are only capitalizing on the same sense of powerlessness that tends to produce leftists from the affluent white community.
these people may feel aggreived and disenfranchised, but they do not feel a sense of social injustice - and that it was makes a marxist. What they feel is a kind of betrayal that the masses "below" them on the one hand and their bosses on the other don't respect their petty bourgeoise (really bourgeoise installed but they see it as their own) morality and that their bosses don't give them any respect along with the money they throw at them for licking shit off their bourgeoise shoes all day. Ultimately marxism is not about having "sympathy" for anyone who might feel upset about anything - Marx noted that at his time there were large number of reactionary forces in society, such as some old landowners, or the urban petty bourgeoisie who were being wiped out by big business etc. - who had extremely hard lives and who hated capitalism. But the point of marxism is to fix society - and these moralistic middle classes with a patch of land to call their own and a lifetime of having it drilled into them that they're better than the people in the third world and in the inner cities are always going to oppose the workers when it comes down to it.

Look at any revolutionary situation, hell look at Argentina in 2001/2002. The middle class had lost its savings to international banking, it had lsot everything, some of them were literally on the street bartering their last belongings for a meal. And for a time they protested; they managed to bring down 4 governemnts in one week. But then, the swing to the right began as soon as things looked like "getting out of control". Why? Because they had a terror bred into them of the dark-skinend kids from the slums turning up at their nicely polished doors with guns and working class accents, demanding money. That's the nature of a class society I'm afraid, the bourgeoisie has its foot soldiers on the ground, and they take the form not just of the servants of the state, but of the middle class, the people with something to lose - a home, a "bond" to replace the savings they lost, a network of friends with influence who can make sure they keep a grasp on the ever decreasing slice of pie, etc. Feel sorry for them if you want, see them as harmless if you want, but these are the people who uphold bourgeoise society, who teach its values in schools and int he press, who enforce its values in the workplace and in the social security offices and in the ballot box. They will fight to the death to defend the cornerstones of bourgeoise society IMO, and I think in any revolution we have to be prepared to crush these people hwen they stand between us and the ruling class.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Zurdito+October 30, 2007 10:30 pm--> (Zurdito @ October 30, 2007 10:30 pm)
Kun Fanâ@October 30, 2007 09:21 pm
The same argument that working class people who support the right are misguided by the system applies to the middle-class as well.

Much of the radical right-wing which is not proletarian in nature is composed of people who have been instructed by the left that their race and affluence gives them power, which they do not feel corresponds with their situation. It originates from a feeling of disenfranchisement from a system where opposition to the system tends to only consider the most oppressed people in terms of class and race.

In the right petty-bourgeois climate, this feeling of disenfranchisement will lead to Communism, and in other situations it will lead to "white nationalism," Militia movements, and paranoid Illuminati ramblings.

These people have been historically snubbed by the left as a part of the oppressive system, yet their affluence and whiteness has not given them any sort of real power, because there is a specific set of people who truly "run shit" and whose interests do not necessarily lie tangent to affluent whites.

In other words, the world is not run by affluent suburbia, and to say that these people are enfranchised to any meaningful degree in this capitalist system would be to take our focus off the dictatorship of capital.

My ultimate conclusion from the analysis is that to focus on these people is inimical to our interests, for they are only capitalizing on the same sense of powerlessness that tends to produce leftists from the affluent white community.
these people may feel aggreived and disenfranchised, but they do not feel a sense of social injustice - and that it was makes a marxist. What they feel is a kind of betrayal that the masses "below" them on the one hand and their bosses on the other don't respect their petty bourgeoise (really bourgeoise installed but they see it as their own) morality and that their bosses don't give them any respect along with the money they throw at them for licking shit off their bourgeoise shoes all day. Ultimately marxism is not about having "sympathy" for anyone who might feel upset about anything - Marx noted that at his time there were large number of reactionary forces in society, such as some old landowners, or the urban petty bourgeoisie who were being wiped out by big business etc. - who had extremely hard lives and who hated capitalism. But the point of marxism is to fix society - and these moralistic middle classes with a patch of land to call their own and a lifetime of having it drilled into them that they're better than the people in the third world and in the inner cities are always going to oppose the workers when it comes down to it.

Look at any revolutionary situation, hell look at Argentina in 2001/2002. The middle class had lost its savings to international banking, it had lsot everything, some of them were literally on the street bartering their last belongings for a meal. And for a time they protested; they managed to bring down 4 governemnts in one week. But then, the swing to the right began as soon as things looked like "getting out of control". Why? Because they had a terror bred into them of the dark-skinend kids from the slums turning up at their nicely polished doors with guns and working class accents, demanding money. That's the nature of a class society I'm afraid, the bourgeoisie has its foot soldiers on the ground, and they take the form not just of the servants of the state, but of the middle class, the people with something to lose - a home, a "bond" to replace the savings they lost, a network of friends with influence who can make sure they keep a grasp on the ever decreasing slice of pie, etc. Feel sorry for them if you want, see them as harmless if you want, but these are the people who uphold bourgeoise society, who teach its values in schools and int he press, who enforce its values in the workplace and in the social security offices and in the ballot box. They will fight to the death to defend the cornerstones of bourgeoise society IMO, and I think in any revolution we have to be prepared to crush these people hwen they stand between us and the ruling class. [/b]
Wage slavery is a form of oppression. Although, a Marxist doesn't seem to be concerned with wage slavery.

[Zurdito]

of course a marxist is concerned with wage slavery, but we recognise that as the vast majority of the world's population are wage slaves, you can't ignore differentiations between them. A middle class person who owns his own home, lives in a safe area, has his savings paying a tidy interest rate etc. is not worth the same amount of effort as a striking postman or an inner city youth. Of course we want to see as many wage slaves as possible join the revolution, but tactically, you have to concentrate your efforts where they have best effect. An hour spent agitating in an office full of middle aged middle class tories is an hour you will never get back which you could have spent to greater effect somewhere else.

[synthesis]

They are still wage slaves nonetheless. They do not have the same consciousness of this as the working class due to their affluence, but the powerlessness remains. You are saying, "I haven't dismissed them without proper Marxist analysis," and I am saying that you cannot dismiss them, period, regardless of what Marx may have said.

Their anger is born of the same frustration as the rest of us - that we do not have control over our own lives. I simply disagree with your approach; sometimes, people are not your enemy until you convince them so.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:12 pm
of course a marxist is concerned with wage slavery, but we recognise that as the vast majority of the world's population are wage slaves, you can't ignore differentiations between them. A middle class person who owns his own home, lives in a safe area, has his savings paying a tidy interest rate etc. is not worth the same amount of effort as a striking postman or an inner city youth. Of course we want to see as many wage slaves as possible join the revolution, but tactically, you have to concentrate your efforts where they have best effect. An hour spent agitating in an office full of middle aged middle class tories is an hour you will never get back which you could have spent to greater effect somewhere else.
I spend everyday at work speaking about Anarchism. I think at times I am actually getting through to some of them. I have organized a mass resignation, that is in the works, but as wage slaves we have to find other jobs to be able to actually resign. The hardest part will be getting them to coincide. I have admitted to those that are resigning that it will most likely not happen, but we should make sure we state our reasons for quitting as each one of us do so. Additionally, for those that may stay on I have spoken to them about forming a worker union. They are state employees and have yet to have a union. My self and another worker discussed the possibility of a strike. I stated that government employees are not allowed to strike and they replied that if 300 professionals were to strike there would be nothing they could do about it (most of us have master's degrees).

Anyway, my point is; spreading revolution is not a waste no matter whom you are speaking to.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 31, 2007 12:52 am
Their anger is born of the same frustration as the rest of us - that we do not have control over our own lives.
And they tend to blame the poor. Also these same middle class people are the ones on the frontline of the "anti-latino immigration movement" in the U.S. These are the same people who are pissed that in many places in the U.S. (like mine :D ) the people only speak spanish and very little English is spoken. Even the bourgeoisie are not against the immigrants as much as the middle class. This is a hatred specifically of the white suburbian middle class.

I say we should concentrate our time on the poor inner city lower class people because if they were to take arms, even outnumbered, they'll beat that middle class because that U.S. white suburbian middle class would never take up arms and if they did, they will not have the same drive and desire that the true proletariat would have.

Though please everyone, continue with your comments. I want to hear more opinions on this subject. I could change my mind but please, more opinions.

[synthesis]

And they tend to blame the poor.

If there is ignorance in these people, we should not be faulting them, but rather ourselves for having failed to convince them of the truth of the situation. There are no gains to be made in slandering them without providing a viable solution to the matter.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:14 am
Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
Im trying to figured this out on my own.. but how are Ron Paul's policies exactly going to be "DISASTROUS FOR WORKERS????"

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 08, 2007 05:48 am--> (R_P_A_S @ December 08, 2007 05:48 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 11:14 am
Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
Im trying to figured this out on my own.. but how are Ron Paul's policies exactly going to be "DISASTROUS FOR WORKERS????" [/b]
How will it be disastrous? By creating widespread inequality never before seen in the first world.

Here are a few example of what he advocates:
He wants to abolish minimum wage laws.
He wants to abolish anti-trust laws.
He wants to privatize our social security benefits.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+December 08, 2007 06:09 am--> (SocialistMilitant @ December 08, 2007 06:09 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:48 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 11:14 am
Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
Im trying to figured this out on my own.. but how are Ron Paul's policies exactly going to be "DISASTROUS FOR WORKERS????"
How will it be disastrous? By creating widespread inequality never before seen in the first world.

Here are a few example of what he advocates:
He wants to abolish minimum wage laws.
He wants to abolish anti-trust laws.
He wants to privatize our social security benefits. [/b]
why does he want to abolish minimum wage?

anti-trust laws? sorry Im lost. :(

[bezdomni]

ron paul is popular because of the internets.

[bootleg42]

He wants a COMPLETELY free market.

Today's U.S. has laws which piss off alot of free market lovers. Such laws (such as minimum wage, etc) make the free marketers pissed.

And don't forget he wants to privatize schools claiming that if they're privatized, the schools will compete with each other and they'll actually teach kids (people like Paul blame teacher's unions for bad education in the U.S.).

It'll be a disaster.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:33 am
He wants a COMPLETELY free market.

Today's U.S. has laws which piss off alot of free market lovers. Such laws (such as minimum wage, etc) make the free marketers pissed.

And don't forget he wants to privatize schools claiming that if they're privatized, the schools will compete with each other and they'll actually teach kids (people like Paul blame teacher's unions for bad education in the U.S.).

It'll be a disaster.
ok that makes sense. anyone else care to break stuff down like bootleg?

[dannthraxxx]

Ron Paul is an assbackward clown.


Internet Geek Phenomenon.



If you're going to bother voting, atleast vote for someone with half a chance and vote Edwards.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:50 am
Ron Paul is an assbackward clown.


Internet Geek Phenomenon.



If you're going to bother voting, atleast vote for someone with half a chance and vote Edwards.
??? :lol:

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:50 am
Ron Paul is an assbackward clown.


Internet Geek Phenomenon.



If you're going to bother voting, atleast vote for someone with half a chance and vote Edwards.
I would say don't even bother with voting at all. :lol:

[Cheung Mo]

rofl..Didn't he vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 pm
rofl..Didn't he vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
more info on this?

[SouthernBelle82]

Depends on what you mean by "popular." Look at him in the polls. The last poll I saw earlier this week had him at 7%. Hardly "popular." And I wonder about his money too because if he's getting so much money why isn't he rising in the polls?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:10 pm
I'm really not sure that he's that popular, it's just that his posse is full of internet geeks who are very vocal on the internet.
In some communities online that's called spamming. ;)

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:34 pm
Ron Paul doesn't serve capitalist interests. Firstly, he doesn't seem to understand that the US needs imperialism to sustain itself. Why would the capitalists let go of billions upon billions of dollars to fit into Ron's idealistic view of the world?

Besides, even if he became the president, what would he do if all corporate interests pressured him to meddle with other countries? Would he arrest them? Expose capitalism to what it really is?

Second, he is most likely a racist, he seems to think that most crime comes from immigration and non-whites, and not that they are the most oppressed (thus leading to crime as a way to sustain their lives).

Thirdly, he is a fierce anti-communist and extreme-right fundamentalist, which doesn't serve our comrades in the US.
Right. We're a capitalist society so it's kind of unrealistic to go to another type of society with money and so whether or not people like capitalism we're still a society with capitalism and all. I'm a socialist and realize that so I do what's realistically possible.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:58 pm
He is more an internet phenomenon than anything else. But I would lik to make a few points about him in case anyone has the wrong idea

Like all Libertarians, he is in reality a crypto-fascist, Libertarianism was just fascisms way of re-establishing itself after it got hammered in the forties

To emphasise this, he is a member of the extreme right John Birch society

But in reality it doesn;t matter. Even if he were to be elected (which he won't) he would never be able to get anything through congress. Not only would he smash workers rights, he would grossly mismanage things for the bourgoisie and the bourgoisie don't like mismanagement when it comes to their money.

He is indicative of a problem in America though, where people treat the constitution as if it were sacred, rather than a reactionary document from another age.
And another thing it seems that they seem to forget that the Constitution can and does get amendment and there's no rule in the Constitution against it the last time I checked.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 08, 2007 05:33 pm--> (Edric O @ September 08, 2007 05:33 pm)
Dick [email protected] 08, 2007 05:39 pm
I'd forget about that idea, bootleg. He's never going to be president. Also, you will never create a revolutionary situation by "using" reactionaries to make matters worse for the workers, for two reasons:
Just standing behind individual bourgeois politicians (especially ones that don't stand a chance) will not make the communist movement any stronger.

The "tactic" of communists supporting reactionary measures to "make the people more rebellious" is so monumentally dumb and discredited, that it does not even deserve serious consideration. At best, the proletariat will ignore the revolutionary leftist organizations doing this, and carry out the revolution outside of it. At worst, this ridiculous "tactic" leads to the crushing of the workers' movement as a whole.


Well said. In fact, I would remind all comrades that the "tactic" of communists refusing to fight reactionary politicians in order to "make the people more rebellious" played a role in helping Hitler rise to power.

As for Ron Paul, the fact that he has a decent foreign policy (which he would never be allowed to implement, by the way) does not change the fact that his domestic policies are extremely reactionary and his laissez-faire capitalism would cause the most misery and suffering for American workers since the Great Depression.

Besides, his support among Republicans hovers between 1% and 3%. He will never, ever be nominated, let alone become President. [/b]
And Paul really isn't antiwar. He just thinks the military should protect the country here at home instead of abroad. If a vote came up tomorrow to help Darfur he would vote against it going by his voting pattern since he's been in Congress.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 08, 2007 06:04 pm
Ron Paul's supposed popularity is mainly due to a lot of young people who generate a lot of hype for him on the internet, but among actual voters, he has very little support. He's like the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party, and he doesn't have any chance of winning.
Well this young person doesn't like Ron Paul or his ideas etc. So not all of us are. :) A good number of us young people are also supporting people like Obama and Edwards. I'm supporting Richardson.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:48 pm

U.S. consitiustion was written by racist, sexist, Bourgeoisie slave owning men

I don't think you're being fair to the Founding Fathers of the United States.


ALSO, can someone explain how such a guy is popular???

Popular among whom?

He is popular among the libertarians because he is a free-market nutjob like them.

He is popular among the Constitutionalists because he upholds the Constituion much better than someone like Bush or Guliani.

He is popular among the racists because of his hard stance towards illegal immigration. Just go to *************** if you do not believe me.

And he might be popular among other Americans because he holds positions that are considered liberal, such as his stance toward drugs, privacy, capital punishment, torture, foreign intervention, etc.


hes popular because hes the ONLY republican in the debates who actually saying anything of any worth

You're probably right.
Well I could be called a Constitionalist and I don't support him. Here is a link were Paul obviously doesn't know the Constitution very much: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Here he claims there's a "war on religion" and that there's no such thing as the seperation of church and state even though it's clearly there. And I know my Constitution because it's a part of my major to know it.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:19 pm
Democrat Version of Ron Paul

Mike Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Mike_Gravel
No Gravel isn't a democrat version of Paul. They have like one or two issues they agree on like the IRS and Fairtax and that's it. Please don't spread lies.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 08, 2007 08:27 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 08, 2007 08:27 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 12:10 pm
I'm really not sure that he's that popular, it's just that his posse is full of internet geeks who are very vocal on the internet.
In some communities online that's called spamming. ;) [/b]
In some internet communities, making ten posts in a row is considered spamming.

Please don't make multiple posts.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by lvleph+October 30, 2007 12:26 pm--> (lvleph @ October 30, 2007 12:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:25 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 01:30 pm
Lots of people are supporting him because he has said he would end the war instantly (him and kucinich are the only people I know of willing to do that).
See this bothers me. I'm not going to say that Kucinich is a leftist like most of us here but of all the major candidates for the U.S. presidency, Kucinich is more to the left than any of the other candidates.

Now BOTH he and Paul want the war to end and both have said that they would end the war.........yet I don't see people in the U.S. jumping for joy for Kucinich the way they do for Paul. The difference between the two??................one is more to the right and one is more to the left and guess which one is getting this popularity???.......the rightist.

The excuse that many U.S. people make for support Paul is that he will end the war.....so would Kucinich but yet those same voters don't even like him nor does he get any love.

This shows that the majority of the U.S. population prefers rightist policies because it benefits them (at the expense of the U.S. poor and working class and the third world poor and working class of course).

Unfortunally in the U.S., the poor and working class are outnumbered by the people in the U.S. who live "well enough" to not care about leftist change or even to not need it.....makes me sad.

Someone please prove me wrong.
I think the focus on Ron Paul, is because the media in the US is to the right. If you watch the debates and you read the US news, there was never much mention of Kucinich. He ran last election and if you told people that they wouldn't believe you. The candidate with the most favorable media coverage will be the one to win. Sadly, in the US a candidate is picked by the media. A good example of a media assassination was Howard Dean's scream. It wasn't even a big deal, but the media made him out to be crazy and it was over. [/b]
While the media is rightwing they over played Dean's "popularity" he didn't have the support on the ground and he came in third place in Iowa. If you listen to his speech with the "scream" then you can hear him talk about coming in third place in Iowa and how he couldn't have imagined he would go that high. At the Iowa dinner they had polls scrolling and Kerry was winning with I believe Dean in second.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:45 pm
[QUOTE=lvleph,October 30, 2007 12:27 pm]
A population which judged John Kerry as too liberal wasn't going to vote for Howard Dean, scream or no scream.

I think we need to recognise that in imprialist countries in general, political discourse is usually slanted towards the more reactionary sections of the bourgeoise, or the "centre right" (cut taxes, oppose immigration, strong foreign policy, etc. are key issues for the masses) whilst in third world countries it's generally slanted towards the populist centre-left sections of the bourgeoisie (public services, job creation, standing up to the imperialist states etc. are key issues for the masses). Now as the world's "super-power", by far the most powerful imperialist state, the US discourse will tend to be more right-wing than most. This won't change overnight, White America is not going to be a recolutionary force for the forseeable future. However, what revolutionaries should orientate towards are the excluded sections of society, the people who won't won Presidential elections - it's not even worth worrying about if soccer moms vote for Paul or Kuchinic, because out of those two Ron Paul will always win int hat constituency.

So what's the answer? The answer is that American voters really aren't that powerul. The American middle class is tied to the apron string of the bourgeoisie, of the state, thus it always was and always and always will be in any imperialist state. The state makes it clear what needs to happen for it to survive - aggression abroad, repression at home, etc., - and the Middle Classes aren't stupid, they want to protect their little pot of gold, their rung on the ladder just above the masseswhoo toil away below them (including millions of poor Americans). so let's stop worrying if Mr.NASCAR or whatever you want to call him votes for reactioanries - he always will, he owes his priveliges to them.

But the point is that American imperialism will collapse in on itself *abroad* - it's losing control of the oil markets, it's losing out in comeptition for vital, scarce and diminishing resources to China, Russia, and maybe even the EU. It's dependent on the hostile creditors who underwrite it. The blood sacrifice needed to keep itself just standing still is increasing all the time - blood of its people and blood of its subjects abroad. And without their co-operation, ultimately, it can't operate. So when it has it's access to credit and oil gradually undermined, this pack of cards that is he American fantasy, the credit bubble, telly-tubby land, will collapse much quicker and more dramatically than most people expect. Of course we can't know when, or what will be the spark, but assuming most of us here are young, at some point in our lifetimes we will see great crises ahead, I feel - and if you think that's unrealistic, just think that in your grandparents lifetime they've seen the most collosal economic collapses and imperialist wars that humanity has ever seen.

So it's these times, when the costs of these crises hit the poor at home and abroad hardest, that the poor will, by necessity, become a revoltuionary force. The petty-bourgeoisie mostly will not; and mostly they will not matter, as they'll be a declining, demoralised, dependant, parasitical force.

This is why we should build the framework constantly amongst the workers, and amongst the academia and the intelligentsia and the people who already show an orientation towards at least listening to us or to questioning the status quo; because although we won' become a majority before a revolutionary situation (sparked by a crisis), when revolutionary situations *do* arise we must be ready. If we'd spent our time worrying about dead-ends like Kuchinich or moralising to White America and wondering why they can't just be a nicer kind of imperialist, rather than building basis to override these people, then we'll not be up to the challenge, frankly speaking.
Seriously? LOL Have you looked at the records between Dean and Kerry? Kerry is more liberal than Dean ever was. Dean is a conservative democrat possibly on the edge of being a moderate. He was for same-sex unions and things like that. Calling Dean a liberal is pretty funny. Dean was/is closer to the DLC then Kerry. Being slanted to the right? If that's the case why after polls after polls are people going progressive? People are finally opening their minds to having a national health care program which is a socialist program and people are opening their minds up some more to same-sex marriage. The American people are only as powerful as they want to be. If people don't get up and vote then of course there won't be any change.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+December 08, 2007 06:09 am--> (SocialistMilitant @ December 08, 2007 06:09 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:48 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 11:14 am
Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
Im trying to figured this out on my own.. but how are Ron Paul's policies exactly going to be "DISASTROUS FOR WORKERS????"
How will it be disastrous? By creating widespread inequality never before seen in the first world.

Here are a few example of what he advocates:
He wants to abolish minimum wage laws.
He wants to abolish anti-trust laws.
He wants to privatize our social security benefits. [/b]
He also doesn't think that the corporations should be told about not doing pollution in the rivers etc. and based on that I believe that he also wouldn't stop companies from sending jobs over seas and we've seen how that's been working out for us eh? How is he supposed to create jobs if they're all going over seas?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:33 am
He wants a COMPLETELY free market.

Today's U.S. has laws which piss off alot of free market lovers. Such laws (such as minimum wage, etc) make the free marketers pissed.

And don't forget he wants to privatize schools claiming that if they're privatized, the schools will compete with each other and they'll actually teach kids (people like Paul blame teacher's unions for bad education in the U.S.).

It'll be a disaster.
Even if schools are private wouldn't there still be teacher unions? How is making the schools private mean there aren't unions? I don't get that.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 08, 2007 04:05 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 08, 2007 04:05 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 08:33 am
He wants a COMPLETELY free market.

Today's U.S. has laws which piss off alot of free market lovers. Such laws (such as minimum wage, etc) make the free marketers pissed.

And don't forget he wants to privatize schools claiming that if they're privatized, the schools will compete with each other and they'll actually teach kids (people like Paul blame teacher's unions for bad education in the U.S.).

It'll be a disaster.
Even if schools are private wouldn't there still be teacher unions? How is making the schools private mean there aren't unions? I don't get that. [/b]
Maybe because private school teachers are typically not unionized.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by FoB+December 08, 2007 09:32 pm--> (FoB @ December 08, 2007 09:32 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:05 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 08:33 am
He wants a COMPLETELY free market.

Today's U.S. has laws which piss off alot of free market lovers. Such laws (such as minimum wage, etc) make the free marketers pissed.

And don't forget he wants to privatize schools claiming that if they're privatized, the schools will compete with each other and they'll actually teach kids (people like Paul blame teacher's unions for bad education in the U.S.).

It'll be a disaster.
Even if schools are private wouldn't there still be teacher unions? How is making the schools private mean there aren't unions? I don't get that.
Maybe because private school teachers are typically not unionized. [/b]
Even so could they still have the unions? I'm sure there are some who are. I guess I don't see how having private schools automatically means no more unions.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by SovietPants+December 08, 2007 08:44 pm--> (SovietPants @ December 08, 2007 08:44 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:27 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 12:10 pm
I'm really not sure that he's that popular, it's just that his posse is full of internet geeks who are very vocal on the internet.
In some communities online that's called spamming. ;)
In some internet communities, making ten posts in a row is considered spamming.

Please don't make multiple posts. [/b]
Sorry. I'll do better. :blush: Just catching up and all.

[MT5678]

is it possible to edit your posts instead of continually posting?
It is a cheap way to boost your Post Count.

Anyways, we don't need Ron Paul to get us the situation we need. Any Republican will do. Heck, Democrats may do as well, but their role is to pretend to represent the proletariat, so they would delay the impending revolution.

[bootleg42]

Hate to bring the thread back but I found something very good on youtube.

An anarchist basically puts down and exposes Ron Paul for what he is (a newer 21st century semi-fascist). Need not to say, the U.S. white male chauvinist middle class attacks the video via comments and there were some videos I saw responding to the anarchist that make NO sense.

The first video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61VR-GACMA

The second one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_014AG9AJDU

We need to fight back against these crypto-fascists and we can start online. Remember, someone like Ron Paul may not be president of the U.S. today, but there is no doubt (with the way the U.S. white middle class is moving, more to the "libertarian-right") that there'll be a president like this in the near future and we revolutionary leftists must know how to battle them because such people like Paul will eliminate workers rights completely.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:21 pm
We need to fight back against these crypto-fascists and we can start online.
[img]http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/Amish_Hobo/dont-worry-im-from-the-internet.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[bootleg42]

LMAO, great one.

Still, I make a serious point.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 08, 2007 12:20 am--> (R_P_A_S @ December 08, 2007 12:20 am)
Originally posted by SocialistMilitant+December 08, 2007 06:09 am--> (SocialistMilitant @ December 08, 2007 06:09 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:48 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 11:14 am
Ron Paul seems to only have the support of conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's mostly Alex Jones fans and people with the 9/11 Truth Movement that seem to regard Ron Paul as the saviour of the American republic.

It's a good thing he has no chance of being president, since his extremist libertarian policies would have a disastrous effect on American workers.

At least when the Republican primaries are over and done with, the Ron Paul cultists will hopefully stop spamming the internet with their garbage.

As a side note, since most of Paul's supporters are opposed to the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism, it would be good if we could win them over to a left-wing perspective, though that's probably an uphill battle.
Im trying to figured this out on my own.. but how are Ron Paul's policies exactly going to be "DISASTROUS FOR WORKERS????"
How will it be disastrous? By creating widespread inequality never before seen in the first world.

Here are a few example of what he advocates:
He wants to abolish minimum wage laws.
He wants to abolish anti-trust laws.
He wants to privatize our social security benefits. [/b]
why does he want to abolish minimum wage?

anti-trust laws? sorry Im lost. :( [/b]
He wants to abolish the minimum wage because it is 'interfering with the free market by arbitrarily setting a standard for the cost of labor' or some bollocks.

Anti-trust laws are the ones designed to (supposedly) prevent monopolies. He thinks they're contrary to capitalism and the 'free-market'.

bootleg42
(with the way the U.S. white middle class is moving, more to the "libertarian-right") that there'll be a president like this in the near future and we revolutionary leftists must know how to battle them because such people like Paul will eliminate workers rights completely.
EXACTLY. Like it or not, it's happening, people, and we have to deal with it.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:44 am
Now before you all read, I do NOT support Paul or any capitalist. I hate them all and wish them all the worst possible. :hammer:

Now about this new Ron Paul popularity, this guy is a nutjob. He acts as if the U.S. constitution is god itself without even realizing that the U.S. consitiustion was written by racist, sexist, Bourgeoisie slave owning men. This is a guy that basically wants to bring back old school capitalism that would make millions within the country suffer more (especially here in the inner city where I live).

But I was thinking.........and again it's just a thought..........we could use him......

I mean FIRST he does not want to "police the world". This allows potential socialist movements to occur in third world countries. Just off the top of my head.....Colombia with the FARC (think what you may of them, just understand the big picture). Ask yourself why they haven't the FARC been able to finish off the semi-fascist Uribe government??? Well that's because the famous school of the americas is not far away and there are U.S. bases all around latin america and any advancement by ANY communist guerillas in the area would would be put down right away.

BUT with this threat gone, any movement within latin america has a possibility to advance forward without the worry that the U.S. is going to take them out.

Also this puts an end to the Iraq war. Also this gets U.S. troops out of the phillipines, maybe advancing communist guerillas there (if they were strong to begin with, I don't get alot of news about them).

SECOND, his nutty free market strategy and his wanting to get rid of federal programs will quickly radicalize the workers of places like the inner cities and even in rural areas. Then people can see the capitalism is and always was the root to all their problems.

THIRD, his stance towards undocumented workers will also radicalize my fellow latinos here in the U.S. I mean we know there were socialists forces behind the may day protests of 2006 (which I was a part of). But now we can see the latino population (excluding Miami for obvious reasons) to look for radical solutions and well they'll raise up too.

With the end of wars by the U.S. and the radicalizing of workers in the U.S.........things can progress as they should. I think having this man in Washington can create the atmosphere many of us have been waiting for to occur in the U.S.

Again, I'm not a capitalist but I am just thinking strategy. I know the blow would be big to workers of the U.S. but it would be big enough to trigger a QUICK response which could lead to some sort of revolution or the birth of big movements.

Of course if I'm wrong, please someone correct me. Opinions please.

ALSO, can someone explain how such a guy is popular???

Hey my friend, don't hate, leave the hate for evil people. Hate their ideologies not their personally.

Well i think that the reason of why Ron Paul, Kucinich are running in the mafia-cartels of Republican Party and Democrat Party is because american-voters are real closed minded, backward, very hard, traditional people who vote by habits and traditions and not by reasoning. Americans behave like that in every affair of life, by habits, traditions instead of reasoning, for example most americans get married with the same brands, the same foods, the same neighborhoods, same churches, and americans hate changes, changing friends, brands, etc and if Kucinich or Paul run thru an independent party, no americans will support them

marxist_god

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:12 am
Well i think that the reason of why Ron Paul, Kucinich are running in the mafia-cartels of Republican Party and Democrat Party is because american-voters are real closed minded, backward, very hard, traditional people who vote by habits and traditions and not by reasoning. Americans behave like that in every affair of life, by habits, traditions instead of reasoning, for example most americans get married with the same brands, the same foods, the same neighborhoods, same churches, and americans hate changes, changing friends, brands, etc and if Kucinich or Paul run thru an independent party, no americans will support them

marxist_god
Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are not heroes and are running in the republican and democratic party because both ARE REAL republicans and democrats respectively.

And with your language, your making it seem like both Paul and Kucinich are some sort of heroes. I wouldn't want the people behind any of these two guys if they were in one of the major two parties or not!!!

[Great Helmsman]

This is what Ron Paul supporters actually believe:

Paulestinian
posted 11/30/07 @ 1:48 AM MST
Whoever wrote that article, I do'nt think he understands the purpose of Dr. Paul's gold standard. Purestrain gold is the purest and most naturally occuring element ever. It makes much more sense than using FIAT money which is backed by nothing and manipulated by internationtal lords of finance.

Gold can be an ore metal but if it was just that then how would the earliest humans have found it and used it for trade before they worked out how to "refine" it? Gold can come in an "ore"; but the best examples of it to mine is where it's pure and in seams. Purity when it comes to gold is just % gold over the "area" of it; so generally the smaller the "area" the greater the chance of total "purity" and the highest examples of that will be purestrain. When peolpe pan for gold they find tiny purestrain grams; not gold bars. But like that prssperctor who was looking for gold and left his footprint right next to a purestrain seam that he walked past; that's what everyone is ultimately looking for - gold that is 100% pure right out of the earth that you only have to pull out and don't have to refine impurities from. Something noble is what shows it's true qualities straight away without hiding them; that's why gold is a noble metal because it comes out of the ground "whole" the same way a noble person's character is exactly what you see. That's where the meaning of the word "noble" being used for precious metals comes from in the first place.

I think your right about not mixing non-noble metals with gold or silver to try and "improve" them since gold and silver being purestrain are the source of their value and qualites; as for why gold I think it's just lucky there's something that exists that makes up all the things a unit of value and a currency should have. You can imagine a world where gold does'nt exist and everyone uses silver and thinks that's best; and you can imagine a world where something better than gold exists and gold their is like silver to us but for us when a human being thinks of the idea of "value" and all that means the thing in the world which matches that most closely is always gold. That's why gold has always been valued the ihghest through history; has always kept it's same inherent value in history because that value is part of what people think of it. Human nature has'nt changed since the Garden of Eden; and gold has'nt changed either so the relation between gold and humans is a constant which explains why when things go bad in the economy and society they look to gold.

Our current economy is plummeting and we ca'nt reply on FIAT currency to protect us especially when we are being manipulated by people like George Soros. Dr. Paul has delivered 4,000 babies in his career, and he's about to deliver twins called the American Dollar and the U.S. Constitution

link (http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=f0557584-37a0-4055-835c-973ca56fd577)
I honestly have no fucking clue what they are babbling about. Arguing this stuff with libertarians is like trying to have an enlightened discussion about Nazi Aryan mythology.

[SouthernBelle82]

I agree with everyone's comments about these groups. They're nothing more than spammers on the internet and offline. It's annoying. Try debating them and when they can't they resort to name calling and all this other childish crap. They have no respect for other view points and only like to parrot each other. One thing too is interesting is they all parrot each other. You rarely come across a Paul supporter who can think for themselves. In a class of mine there was a Paul supporter and he always talked about the same thing and you could tell they were doing talking points.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 am
I agree with everyone's comments about these groups. They're nothing more than spammers on the internet and offline. It's annoying. Try debating them and when they can't they resort to name calling and all this other childish crap. They have no respect for other view points and only like to parrot each other. One thing too is interesting is they all parrot each other. You rarely come across a Paul supporter who can think for themselves. In a class of mine there was a Paul supporter and he always talked about the same thing and you could tell they were doing talking points.

i have been studying, i mean i am studying and observing the situation in America. I see something wrong that the US society is going to. The US society is moving toward a very dangerous ideology, which is white-nationalist, anti-state, anti-social, anti-collectivism, Robinson Crusoe, egocentric, isolationist, ideology. what do i mean by this: I mean that right now a large porition of american voters, the white middle yuppie bourgeisie class hate Democrats welfare "big government" system and at the same time hate Bush's fascism, patriot acts, dollar devaluation, and wars. But the alternative that Americans are choosing, the path that US society is choosing is *worse* than Bush. And this is Ron Paul, Ron Paul is a lot worse than Bush, he is a Hitler in disguise, his ideology is libertarian white-nationalist Malthusian, Thatcherist Economics from the Chicago Boys school of Milton Friedman and Luwig Von Mises 2 racist e

i have a theory and sort of prediction that tells me that Ron Paul would be a hitler in USA. that's how Hitler rose, Hitler rose as an "option" to Germany chaos, and as an anti-UN, anti-globalization, as a pro-nationalist Germany etc.


marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 am
I agree with everyone's comments about these groups. They're nothing more than spammers on the internet and offline. It's annoying. Try debating them and when they can't they resort to name calling and all this other childish crap. They have no respect for other view points and only like to parrot each other. One thing too is interesting is they all parrot each other. You rarely come across a Paul supporter who can think for themselves. In a class of mine there was a Paul supporter and he always talked about the same thing and you could tell they were doing talking points.
Ron Pauls supporters are white nationalists, and yeah according to nationalists UN is a bad boy, Bush is a wimp, who can't keep Mexicans in Mexico, and the food coupons, soup kitchens, and free medicines must be abolished

Go figure out for yourself Ron Paul's dangerous and much worse than Bush ideology

marxist_god

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 19, 2007 04:05 am--> (marxist_god @ December 19, 2007 04:05 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 am
I agree with everyone's comments about these groups. They're nothing more than spammers on the internet and offline. It's annoying. Try debating them and when they can't they resort to name calling and all this other childish crap. They have no respect for other view points and only like to parrot each other. One thing too is interesting is they all parrot each other. You rarely come across a Paul supporter who can think for themselves. In a class of mine there was a Paul supporter and he always talked about the same thing and you could tell they were doing talking points.
Ron Pauls supporters are white nationalists, and yeah according to nationalists UN is a bad boy, Bush is a wimp, who can't keep Mexicans in Mexico, and the food coupons, soup kitchens, and free medicines must be abolished

Go figure out for yourself Ron Paul's dangerous and much worse than Bush ideology

marxist_god [/b]
Oh sure. Ron Paul would do away with so many federal agencies. At least with Bush he just puts his croonies in and you can always take them out eventually. With Ron Paul you wouldn't even have a chance to fix the agencies etc. Plus I would be wasting my time in college with my degree.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:05 am
Ron Pauls supporters are white nationalists, and yeah according to nationalists UN is a bad boy, Bush is a wimp, who can't keep Mexicans in Mexico, and the food coupons, soup kitchens, and free medicines must be abolished

Go figure out for yourself Ron Paul's dangerous and much worse than Bush ideology

marxist_god
What a mistake you'll make if you think that all Ron Paul supporters are white nationlaist. No doubt MANY (and I mean MANY) White Nationalists support him.

But many of the people supporting him are either:

A) Hardcore Libertarians that always were libertarian. They would vote for Paul either way and they know why.

B) People who hear him being the only presidential candidate that "sound smart" in the debates. These people just lack political education, as they could not identity what the political position of Ron Paul is (free-market libertarianism)

C) People wanting out of Iraq and they hearing things like "I want to get government off your back" and "I want to eliminate the income tax" at the same time. Such a combo of ideas sounds VERY attractive to the a-political person who gets hit hard by income tax and who hates the Iraq war. This person could even be a working person.

D) People wanting something different. NO DOUBT, out of all the presidential candidates in all the debates, he stands out as different from all the rest. It doesn't mean he's good, but he is DIFFERENT from all the rest. Not only that but he has the advantage of constantly debating the neo-conservatives. He then looks like the only politician who is confronting the "Bush type of governing", aka the neo-conservatives which means he looks very attractive. Also the way the mainstream media ignores him makes him look like a rebel of some sort and that helps him.

E) The neo-fascists, who have made no secret their support for Paul (Stormfront supports him big time). No need to explain that one.

F) Anarchists who are on crack. I've seen one too many anarchist vids on you tube supporting him. I know most anarchists DON'T, you anarchists here are anti-capitalist and are a part of US, the revolutionary left. Those anarchists, on you tube, either never read the material, or they're just on too much crack.

G) People who are sick of Israel's crimes. There are plenty of people involved with the U.S. government and NGO's who are sick of the way the U.S. supports Israel so much, claiming that the country can't afford it (they don't look at the human side of it, JUST the economic side). They hear of how Paul would stop giving Israel so much aid, they then jump on his bandwagon.

Now some of the groups I mentioned here (B,C,D and even F) are just not educated. If you asked them what anarchy meant or what communism meant, you'd get crazy responses. Also if you'd ask them who Ayn Rand was, they'd have no clue. This lack of education shows that we as revolutionary leftists need to educate the people. I stated that group C could have many people in the working class. They won't have a clue that he'll get rid of minimum wage or most labor laws. They'll hear a few things (like I listed) and they'll be attracted right away.

We must be active via education. Talk to people. Be smart and NOT dogmatic. Challenge people (that is in thinking, challenge their knowledge on terms, ideas, make them define basic things to you, etc).

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 19, 2007 05:29 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 19, 2007 05:29 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:05 am
Ron Pauls supporters are white nationalists, and yeah according to nationalists UN is a bad boy, Bush is a wimp, who can't keep Mexicans in Mexico, and the food coupons, soup kitchens, and free medicines must be abolished

Go figure out for yourself Ron Paul's dangerous and much worse than Bush ideology

marxist_god
What a mistake you'll make if you think that all Ron Paul supporters are white nationlaist. No doubt MANY (and I mean MANY) White Nationalists support him.

But many of the people supporting him are either:

A) Hardcore Libertarians that always were libertarian. They would vote for Paul either way and they know why.

B) People who hear him being the only presidential candidate that "sound smart" in the debates. These people just lack political education, as they could not identity what the political position of Ron Paul is (free-market libertarianism)

C) People wanting out of Iraq and they hearing things like "I want to get government off your back" and "I want to eliminate the income tax" at the same time. Such a combo of ideas sounds VERY attractive to the a-political person who gets hit hard by income tax and who hates the Iraq war. This person could even be a working person.

D) People wanting something different. NO DOUBT, out of all the presidential candidates in all the debates, he stands out as different from all the rest. It doesn't mean he's good, but he is DIFFERENT from all the rest. Not only that but he has the advantage of constantly debating the neo-conservatives. He then looks like the only politician who is confronting the "Bush type of governing", aka the neo-conservatives which means he looks very attractive. Also the way the mainstream media ignores him makes him look like a rebel of some sort and that helps him.

E) The neo-fascists, who have made no secret their support for Paul (Stormfront supports him big time). No need to explain that one.

F) Anarchists who are on crack. I've seen one too many anarchist vids on you tube supporting him. I know most anarchists DON'T, you anarchists here are anti-capitalist and are a part of US, the revolutionary left. Those anarchists, on you tube, either never read the material, or they're just on too much crack.

G) People who are sick of Israel's crimes. There are plenty of people involved with the U.S. government and NGO's who are sick of the way the U.S. supports Israel so much, claiming that the country can't afford it (they don't look at the human side of it, JUST the economic side). They hear of how Paul would stop giving Israel so much aid, they then jump on his bandwagon.

Now some of the groups I mentioned here (B,C,D and even F) are just not educated. If you asked them what anarchy meant or what communism meant, you'd get crazy responses. Also if you'd ask them who Ayn Rand was, they'd have no clue. This lack of education shows that we as revolutionary leftists need to educate the people. I stated that group C could have many people in the working class. They won't have a clue that he'll get rid of minimum wage or most labor laws. They'll hear a few things (like I listed) and they'll be attracted right away.

We must be active via education. Talk to people. Be smart and NOT dogmatic. Challenge people (that is in thinking, challenge their knowledge on terms, ideas, make them define basic things to you, etc). [/b]
Yes Stormfront and other Nazi wannabe's support him. There's video evidence of it on youtube.com The fact that Paul hasn't seperated himself from them says a lot to me. He could easily make a press statement or a video or something.

A) Sure and they've probably been supporting him for a good while. I think it's dishonest in my opinion that he runs as a republican in Texas if he's not one. Of course now days he's saying he is republican and has been one his whole life and voted republican during the Vietnam war. But yet he's against the Iraq war?? Makes no sense whatsoever to me. If he's so against the foreign policy that comes with Iraq than why did he support Nixon and Vietnam?

B) Well compared to the other boobs in the republican primary it's easy to sound smart against them. I wonder how he would do against like John Edwards or Obama or even Richardson or Biden. LOL Biden vs Paul would be a good debate. I think Biden would kick his ass just because he loves to speak and he's good at it.

C) Although there are other candidates who say they're going to get out of Iraq too. I believe Biden has said so, Richardson has and of course Kucinich and Gravel. So there are a lot of other good candidates out there with Iraq.

D) However Ron Paul isn't that different from the other neocons and far rightwingers except the "Patriot Act" and Iraq. Everything else is the same. He's a total regressive. Look at his voting record over the years.

E) No argument from me there.

F) Or they've been hanging around people who just think like them and never had anyone talk to them about anarchy etc.

G) You don't have to be a Paul supporter to be for that. I'm tired of it too and the hypocrisy but I'm a Richardson supporter. Ron Paul doesn't have control over the budget I don't believe. I believe that's Congress's job isn't it? From my debating them earlier today they have no clue what socialism is. All they do is talk about the "nanny" state even though the nanny doesn't pay you. You pay the nanny. Heh. But yea they are ignorant on other forms of government and they speak a lot about other people being brainwashed but they are themselves and don't even know it. LOL. I find that ironic.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 19, 2007 05:54 am--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 19, 2007 05:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 04:05 am
Ron Pauls supporters are white nationalists, and yeah according to nationalists UN is a bad boy, Bush is a wimp, who can't keep Mexicans in Mexico, and the food coupons, soup kitchens, and free medicines must be abolished

Go figure out for yourself Ron Paul's dangerous and much worse than Bush ideology

marxist_god
What a mistake you'll make if you think that all Ron Paul supporters are white nationlaist. No doubt MANY (and I mean MANY) White Nationalists support him.

But many of the people supporting him are either:

A) Hardcore Libertarians that always were libertarian. They would vote for Paul either way and they know why.

B) People who hear him being the only presidential candidate that "sound smart" in the debates. These people just lack political education, as they could not identity what the political position of Ron Paul is (free-market libertarianism)

C) People wanting out of Iraq and they hearing things like "I want to get government off your back" and "I want to eliminate the income tax" at the same time. Such a combo of ideas sounds VERY attractive to the a-political person who gets hit hard by income tax and who hates the Iraq war. This person could even be a working person.

D) People wanting something different. NO DOUBT, out of all the presidential candidates in all the debates, he stands out as different from all the rest. It doesn't mean he's good, but he is DIFFERENT from all the rest. Not only that but he has the advantage of constantly debating the neo-conservatives. He then looks like the only politician who is confronting the "Bush type of governing", aka the neo-conservatives which means he looks very attractive. Also the way the mainstream media ignores him makes him look like a rebel of some sort and that helps him.

E) The neo-fascists, who have made no secret their support for Paul (Stormfront supports him big time). No need to explain that one.

F) Anarchists who are on crack. I've seen one too many anarchist vids on you tube supporting him. I know most anarchists DON'T, you anarchists here are anti-capitalist and are a part of US, the revolutionary left. Those anarchists, on you tube, either never read the material, or they're just on too much crack.

G) People who are sick of Israel's crimes. There are plenty of people involved with the U.S. government and NGO's who are sick of the way the U.S. supports Israel so much, claiming that the country can't afford it (they don't look at the human side of it, JUST the economic side). They hear of how Paul would stop giving Israel so much aid, they then jump on his bandwagon.

Now some of the groups I mentioned here (B,C,D and even F) are just not educated. If you asked them what anarchy meant or what communism meant, you'd get crazy responses. Also if you'd ask them who Ayn Rand was, they'd have no clue. This lack of education shows that we as revolutionary leftists need to educate the people. I stated that group C could have many people in the working class. They won't have a clue that he'll get rid of minimum wage or most labor laws. They'll hear a few things (like I listed) and they'll be attracted right away.

We must be active via education. Talk to people. Be smart and NOT dogmatic. Challenge people (that is in thinking, challenge their knowledge on terms, ideas, make them define basic things to you, etc).
Yes Stormfront and other Nazi wannabe's support him. There's video evidence of it on youtube.com The fact that Paul hasn't seperated himself from them says a lot to me. He could easily make a press statement or a video or something.

A) Sure and they've probably been supporting him for a good while. I think it's dishonest in my opinion that he runs as a republican in Texas if he's not one. Of course now days he's saying he is republican and has been one his whole life and voted republican during the Vietnam war. But yet he's against the Iraq war?? Makes no sense whatsoever to me. If he's so against the foreign policy that comes with Iraq than why did he support Nixon and Vietnam?

B) Well compared to the other boobs in the republican primary it's easy to sound smart against them. I wonder how he would do against like John Edwards or Obama or even Richardson or Biden. LOL Biden vs Paul would be a good debate. I think Biden would kick his ass just because he loves to speak and he's good at it.

C) Although there are other candidates who say they're going to get out of Iraq too. I believe Biden has said so, Richardson has and of course Kucinich and Gravel. So there are a lot of other good candidates out there with Iraq.

D) However Ron Paul isn't that different from the other neocons and far rightwingers except the "Patriot Act" and Iraq. Everything else is the same. He's a total regressive. Look at his voting record over the years.

E) No argument from me there.

F) Or they've been hanging around people who just think like them and never had anyone talk to them about anarchy etc.

G) You don't have to be a Paul supporter to be for that. I'm tired of it too and the hypocrisy but I'm a Richardson supporter. Ron Paul doesn't have control over the budget I don't believe. I believe that's Congress's job isn't it? From my debating them earlier today they have no clue what socialism is. All they do is talk about the "nanny" state even though the nanny doesn't pay you. You pay the nanny. Heh. But yea they are ignorant on other forms of government and they speak a lot about other people being brainwashed but they are themselves and don't even know it. LOL. I find that ironic. [/b]

Hello Southernbell: you are one of the most objective members of this forum, there are too many dogmatic, sectarian leftists, i don't like debating with them, beucause they have a sort of Maoist, Stalinist authoritarianist world view

marxist_god

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:02 am
Hello Southernbell: you are one of the most objective members of this forum, there are too many dogmatic, sectarian leftists, i don't like debating with them, beucause they have a sort of Maoist, Stalinist authoritarianist world view

marxist_god
Aw thanks marxist. I at least try to understand everyone. :)

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:02 am
Hello Southernbell: you are one of the most objective members of this forum, there are too many dogmatic, sectarian leftists, i don't like debating with them, beucause they have a sort of Maoist, Stalinist authoritarianist world view

marxist_god
There may be a handfull of Stalinist, but I doubt you find more then a few. You'll find a few Maoists here yes, and they (IMO) can be very dogmatic sometimes.

But to call anyone that disagrees with you dogmatic is just as wrong. Take people's responses (piece by piece) and explain how they're dogmatic and stuff.