The Ron Paul Counter Revolution

[marxist_god]

The Ron Paul Counter Revolution

Written by Shane Jones
Friday, 07 December 2007

http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/478/73/


“The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” - Ron Paul

Given the lack of a mass working class party in the U.S. and the instability that characterizes the current state of affairs on a domestic and global level, there is enormous pressure to “vote for somebody”. It is therefore not surprising that some workers and youth are curious about Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s bid for the Presidency. His primary draw is his vocal “anti-war” stance, which gives him some distance from the majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It is mainly on this issue that his supporters find support for the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution”. An example of this could be seen in the nation-wide regional anti-war demos of October 27th, where small contingents of his supports came out in various cities to promote his campaign.
But does Ron Paul offer anything that can truly be called a “revolution”, or is he more of the same from the capitalists’ ranks? Should workers and students in the anti-war movement, or in general, give him support in any way?
Ron Paul has been involved in U.S. politics for some time now, but the key issue for workers and youth to understand about him is that in his nine terms in office as a Republican, he has focused above all on turning back the wheel of history to a more “ideal” form of capitalism: a “pure” bourgeois constitutional republic.
Paul calls for strong “individual rights” and greater “freedom”. However “rights” when taken out of the real context of society, become little more than the jargon of the ruling class; i.e. the “right of private property” becomes an eternal truth. To view society in its full scope, we must understand it in terms of the different classes that exist and the conflicting interests between these classes. On a whole number of issues of fundamental importance, Paul is at odds with the basic interests of the U.S. working class.
While Paul’s opposition to the war has garnered him support, we must understand the way in which he opposes the war. Instead, he is in favor of an isolationist policy – that is, a policy of “strengthening” the U.S. by pulling it out of the rest of the world. In this epoch of globalization, such a notion is not only absurd but impossible within the limits of capitalism in its imperialist stage of development. To end U.S. imperialist intervention, an internationalist working class policy must be carried out. This could only happen through the coming to power of the working class here at home, something he is sharply opposed to. Sorry Ron; you can’t eat your cake and have it too! And as for all his non-interventionist demagogy, Paul did vote to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan as part of the “war on terror”.
When it comes to immigration, Paul favors strong enforcement measures, voting for the 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and saying: “Enforcing the law was important, and border security is important … about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.”
He has also voted against alerting Mexicans about the activities of groups such as the Minutemen, who “enforce” immigration law with vigilante methods. He also voted for a bill that would require hospitals to report on any treatment received by immigrants without documents. The bill also specified that hospitals aren’t required to provide care to undocumented immigrants if they can be deported “without a significant chance of worsening their condition.”
On the issue of women’s reproductive rights, Ron Paul is a staunch opponent, consistently voting against access and funding. He also wants a total overturn of Roe v. Wade. Apparently women’s “individual rights” are not as important as the right of private property for this want-to-be President.
He is also hotly against federal funding of public schools – he favors private schools in their place – which if actually implemented would result in an even wider gulf of disparity between those who could afford quality education and those who could not.
On the question of the separation of Church and State, Paul has the following to say: “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” And: “Separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” As well as: “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” This “revolutionary” sounds more like Rasputin than Thomas Jefferson!
Paul also voted against the most recent rise in the minimum wage, meager as it was. He is also against the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make the union certification process easier for workers. And while he “opposes” NAFTA, it is not on a working class basis, rather he claims it is “not free trade enough,” rather, that it is “managed trade”.
Ron Paul does not want a society in which the social production of humanity is rationally and consciously planned democratically by the majority. Instead, he envisions an idealized bourgeois republic, governed by the logic of the inhuman capitalist market, a world where the only conscious economic planning takes place in private by and for those who will turn a profit from production. For the rest of us he presents only a false hope of a benevolent ruling class. Simply put, he dreams of the current state of society without all its problems. However, the war, the economic crisis facing millions, sky high incarceration rates, etc., all stem directly from the rule of the capitalists.
We must understand that capitalism is not a reversible process. It has its own laws of development that inevitably tend towards instability, and by extension to revolution. In wanting to turn back the clock of social development to a fictitious “ideal” form of libertarian capitalism, Ron Paul wants the opposite of that change: counter revolution!

[SouthernBelle82]

Good article and it does point out the hypcorisy. He's good with private properties instead of my own body. Go figure. I definitley think we all need to stop this guy and hope he never becomes president.

[R_P_A_S]

bravo!

this exactly the stuff i need in order to shut up all those "leftist" who claim Ron paul is cool or something

[Raúl Duke]

Wow, Ron Paul is extremely reactionary (although that shouldn't be a surprise...what surprises me is that their are people who support him thinkig
he's something "progressive" or whatever)

He's really against abortion rights and public schools? It does seem that the only rights he does care about are property rights... (I wonder if he is sincere about "pulling out"...after all you could just straight out lie and than blame congress for "not being able to pull out" or whatever)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:58 am
“The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” - Ron Paul
I thought "decent people" and "private property owners" were the same thing in the minds of Ronpaulists?

Luís Henrique

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:21 am
what surprises me is that their are people who support him thinkig
he's something "progressive" or whatever
It's people's lack of political knowledge. They probably could not have identified what political ideology he was without out the help of others.

These are the same people who define anarchism as complete chaos and mob rule and the same people who define communism as a government that force everone to make the same amount of money. I don't have to tell you all what's wrong with those two definitions.

Bottom line, we need to educate the people.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:21 am
Wow, Ron Paul is extremely reactionary (although that shouldn't be a surprise...what surprises me is that their are people who support him thinkig
he's something "progressive" or whatever)

He's really against abortion rights and public schools? It does seem that the only rights he does care about are property rights... (I wonder if he is sincere about "pulling out"...after all you could just straight out lie and than blame congress for "not being able to pull out" or whatever)
Well I remember seeing a video where in one republican debate he claimed to be a supporter of Nixon's during Vietnam and voted for him. So what does that mean? He claimed to be a republican all his life even though we know that's not true. During the 80's I believe (or maybe early 90's?) he ran for president with the libertarian party. Oh now on some site where it's a Ron Paul freak fest I was shouted at for posting off topic in a thread but now there's been way more posts since then of people posting off topic and they're not getting yelled at. Of course they're all kissing Ron Paul's ass. I'll try to find his so-called "We the People" act and post it here. He's also put up a federal amendment to ban abortion even though he's always claimed it should be up to the states. Apparently not. Oh and I've heard him speak about being an OBGYN doctor and he says he doesn't inform patients about having the option to an abortion. The last time I checked that's called malpractice and is illegal. So it seems he and his supporters only support laws they like. The people don't really choose...they do. If you don't like their choices than fuck you apparently.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 19, 2007 01:11 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 19, 2007 01:11 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:21 am
what surprises me is that their are people who support him thinkig
he's something "progressive" or whatever
It's people's lack of political knowledge. They probably could not have identified what political ideology he was without out the help of others.

These are the same people who define anarchism as complete chaos and mob rule and the same people who define communism as a government that force everone to make the same amount of money. I don't have to tell you all what's wrong with those two definitions.

Bottom line, we need to educate the people. [/b]
Oh that's so true. On the other board where I was shouted at for having the nerve to be something other than a libertarian only maybe one or two people had an independent mind. Everyone else was parroting off of each other. In a class I had this past term there was a Ron Paul supporter and you could tell he was using talking points and repeated the same crap over and over again. To summarize basically if you didn't agree with them and see the same things their way you were mentally ill or brainwashed and you need to be "deprogramed." Gee here I thought they were for liberty and freedom and the right for people to make up their own minds. If someone is truly going to be a libertarian they'll get there themselves. That's generally how things work. I used to be a liberal but after doing research on Hugo Chavez for a presentation for a class I did research on socialism (to understand him better and his presidency) I became more interested and started reading more about socialism and knew it fit me better than being a liberal did. They preach a lot about a so-called "nanny" state but than they're contradicting themselves. They want people to choose for themselves instead of the federal government and if you look at all the issue polls since the 2008 primary campaign season has started the public is on the leftleaning side with the issues. They want a better public education system and are even taking seriously the idea of a national health care program. So it comes to it again about them choosing everything and if you disagree with them than you're mentally ill. They're not interested in education. I tried to tell them about socialism but all they talked about is the so-called "nanny" state. All I said in return was you pay the nanny not the other way around. When was the last time a babysitter paid you for the babysitting? :rolleyes: I tried to get one person to see how they were wrong about socialism by saying how if an actual socialist was saying you were wrong about socialism that should make you stop and think but it didn't.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 19, 2007 05:51 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 19, 2007 05:51 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:21 am
Wow, Ron Paul is extremely reactionary (although that shouldn't be a surprise...what surprises me is that their are people who support him thinkig
he's something "progressive" or whatever)

He's really against abortion rights and public schools? It does seem that the only rights he does care about are property rights... (I wonder if he is sincere about "pulling out"...after all you could just straight out lie and than blame congress for "not being able to pull out" or whatever)
Well I remember seeing a video where in one republican debate he claimed to be a supporter of Nixon's during Vietnam and voted for him. So what does that mean? He claimed to be a republican all his life even though we know that's not true. During the 80's I believe (or maybe early 90's?) he ran for president with the libertarian party. Oh now on some site where it's a Ron Paul freak fest I was shouted at for posting off topic in a thread but now there's been way more posts since then of people posting off topic and they're not getting yelled at. Of course they're all kissing Ron Paul's ass. I'll try to find his so-called "We the People" act and post it here. He's also put up a federal amendment to ban abortion even though he's always claimed it should be up to the states. Apparently not. Oh and I've heard him speak about being an OBGYN doctor and he says he doesn't inform patients about having the option to an abortion. The last time I checked that's called malpractice and is illegal. So it seems he and his supporters only support laws they like. The people don't really choose...they do. If you don't like their choices than fuck you apparently. [/b]
I also wanted to add on from my last point about them making the decisions or fuck you. That's the difference between them and socialists. Look at Hugo Chavez in his last election with the referendums he put up. The people voted them down and he accepted it. I'm sure he had his own biased opinions about it privately (what president doesn't?) but publically he respected the people's wishes and didn't fight it or anything even though he could have since it was a close election. Libertarians are nothing more than fascists wannabe jerks in my opinion.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:59 pm
They preach a lot about a so-called "nanny" state but than they're contradicting themselves...I tried to tell them about socialism but all they talked about is the so-called "nanny" state.
Well about revolutionary socialism, we look to ABOLISH the state itself.

Next time the free-market libertarians go after you, challenge them to abolish the state itself.

The reason they won't do this is because the existence of classes is dependent on the existence of the state. They know this and will not want to abolish the state all together, just keep some of it.

Also you used to be a liberal and now you're a socialist. Excellent. Now you should also get familiar with the works of many revolutionary leftists.

We here look to make a classes and STATELESS society with the means of production being in the hands of workers. This is the ultimate goal (we'll probably never see it in our lifetime but we must work so that workers get ready for when they're ready to advance to such a step).

So next time they go after you, challenge them, tell them if they hate the "nanny" state so much, GET RID OF IT ALL TOGETHER AND NEVER HAVE A STATE AGAIN. Just see what they say.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 19, 2007 07:28 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 19, 2007 07:28 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:59 pm
They preach a lot about a so-called "nanny" state but than they're contradicting themselves...I tried to tell them about socialism but all they talked about is the so-called "nanny" state.
Well about revolutionary socialism, we look to ABOLISH the state itself.

Next time the free-market libertarians go after you, challenge them to abolish the state itself.

The reason they won't do this is because the existence of classes is dependent on the existence of the state. They know this and will not want to abolish the state all together, just keep some of it.

Also you used to be a liberal and now you're a socialist. Excellent. Now you should also get familiar with the works of many revolutionary leftists.

We here look to make a classes and STATELESS society with the means of production being in the hands of workers. This is the ultimate goal (we'll probably never see it in our lifetime but we must work so that workers get ready for when they're ready to advance to such a step).

So next time they go after you, challenge them, tell them if they hate the "nanny" state so much, GET RID OF IT ALL TOGETHER AND NEVER HAVE A STATE AGAIN. Just see what they say. [/b]
Well I don't want to go that far personally so yea. But I have said that Ron Paul wants to do that and they are like "oh no no no." So I have done that already and they just say something about how they just want the states to have more power. We've already discussed this as a country and that's why we had the civil war. I guess they fell asleep a lot during American history class eh? The whole reasoning of the civil war was a states rights vs federal government and the federal government won. Yea when I was a liberal there was always something missing though. It didn't feel really right ya know? Than I started reading more about socialisim and it agreed more with me. However I wouldn't call myself an extremist socialist. That would be closer to Communism and I don't go that far. But I'll keep that in mind about abolishing the government all together when they ***** about a "nanny" state. They're fine with it as long as it's THEM in control.

[SouthernBelle82]

Here is a link to Ron Paul's so-called "We the People" act.

Link- http://www.fantasycongress.com/legislation_info?legID=549

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:02 pm
Here is a link to Ron Paul's so-called "We the People" act.

Link- http://www.fantasycongress.com/legislation_info?legID=549
Oh fewxs, should we coup it!?

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:59 pm
Well I don't want to go that far personally so yea...However I wouldn't call myself an extremist socialist. That would be closer to Communism and I don't go that far.
The idea of the eventual abolishment of the state is the goal of basically everyone here. I think you need to know what your political goal should be and what your political position is and what forum this is.

And the idea of the abolishment of the state itself is not extreme. This is a part of thinking of revolutionary leftism since the begininning from Karl Marx to Mikhail Bakunin to Rosa luxemburg to Noam Chomsky, etc.

The reason we want to abolish the existence of the state itself is because the state is one class oppressing another. Also the existence of a state allows classes to exist. True freedom only comes when there is no state.

Remember how I criticized many Ron Paul fans of not even knowing what ideology he is while supporting him??....maybe you might be in that same situation, except for leftism. I'm NOT trying to scare you away from revolutionary leftism but I don't want people to just fall into ANY ideology without knowing what it is. So I suggest you read up, think, and learn.

Also just know that the existence of the state will probably not be eliminated in our lifetime but that's how the future seems to be going. Please read up and then analyze for yourself.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 19, 2007 08:22 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 19, 2007 08:22 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 07:59 pm
Well I don't want to go that far personally so yea...However I wouldn't call myself an extremist socialist. That would be closer to Communism and I don't go that far.
The idea of the eventual abolishment of the state is the goal of basically everyone here. I think you need to know what your political goal should be and what your political position is and what forum this is.

And the idea of the abolishment of the state itself is not extreme. This is a part of thinking of revolutionary leftism since the begininning from Karl Marx to Mikhail Bakunin to Rosa luxemburg to Noam Chomsky, etc.

The reason we want to abolish the existence of the state itself is because the state is one class oppressing another. Also the existence of a state allows classes to exist. True freedom only comes when there is no state.

Remember how I criticized many Ron Paul fans of not even knowing what ideology he is while supporting him??....maybe you might be in that same situation, except for leftism. I'm NOT trying to scare you away from revolutionary leftism but I don't want people to just fall into ANY ideology without knowing what it is. So I suggest you read up, think, and learn.

Also just know that the existence of the state will probably not be eliminated in our lifetime but that's how the future seems to be going. Please read up and then analyze for yourself. [/b]
Oh I see now. So because I disagree with one thing that must some how mean I'm ignorant. :rolleyes: That's pathetic. And I know damn well what this forum is and what I believe etc. Don't insult me. I've never insulted you. I don't accept class rule but I do accept boarders because they are a part of the world whether it's with international boarders or not. Also you need to stick with speaking for yourself and not "everyone here." That includes me and I don't want you speaking for me. I can speak for myself just fine thank you. I know what the hell I am etc. so don't insult me. with your holier than thou bullcrap. Take that to someone else. Plenty of people here disagree with each other all the time. Doesn't mean either people are ignorant etc. Get over yourself.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:11 am
bravo!

this exactly the stuff i need in order to shut up all those "leftist" who claim Ron paul is cool or something

hello my friends, however we should be compassionate and loving with Ron Paul's supporters, remember that Ron Pauls supporters are hard working americans, betrayed by democrats and worried about neocons and Bush's destruction of the world. We cannot blame them.

Ok what you have to understand is that politics is based on marketing your product. You cannot get popularity in real politics, if you don't advertise your good and service. The problem with the left is that the left doesn't have money as the right to advertise the product. if the left had huge millions of dollars to rent TV spots, TV stations, TV ads, most americans would be leftists already

That's why Ron Paul is getting a lot of support, coz of his marketing

marxist_god

[peaccenicked]

Quite simply. Ron Paul is the only repubublican or democratic presidential candidate that wants to pull out of Iraq.

The question is what do we do about that. I would say vote for the bastard, but explain that libertarianism is a monetary hell that despises the poor and working class people.

The thing is voting tactically means voting without principles, just for the best of evils.


Pulling out of Iraq might not help the American people that much. It means less mother sons being killled, and end to genocide in Iraq with over million reported dead. Not bad for a financial reform. The thing is the US is basically practising liberatarianism anyway. watch Sicko.

With Ron Paul emphasise his anti war position, after all it is real, even though it may be a lie.

[bootleg42]

Actually, with libertarians, they'll want to get rid of the big insurance companies and make the patient pay the doctor directly from their pockets. They claim that if insurance companies were gotten rid of, competition between doctors would force prices to drop, and doctor care would be cheaper than today while people will be paying for it directly out of their pockets to the doctor's themselves, and not to the insurance companies.

Such a thing is not present in the current U.S. system, which is not any better either. Both would have GRAVE effects on the poor and working people and even to many of the same U.S. white middle class male white chauvinist who are pushing for this to happen.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:01 am
Quite simply. Ron Paul is the only repubublican or democratic presidential candidate that wants to pull out of Iraq.
For the sake of accuracy: Kucinich also wants to pull out of Iraq.

[peaccenicked]

Should have checked that someone told me that.

I think he is better. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_EfHtPZ20)


What I should have said perhaps is the Ron Paul who has the most money, has the better chance.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 20, 2007 05:14 am--> (marxist_god @ December 20, 2007 05:14 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:11 am
bravo!

this exactly the stuff i need in order to shut up all those "leftist" who claim Ron paul is cool or something

hello my friends, however we should be compassionate and loving with Ron Paul's supporters, remember that Ron Pauls supporters are hard working americans, betrayed by democrats and worried about neocons and Bush's destruction of the world. We cannot blame them.

Ok what you have to understand is that politics is based on marketing your product. You cannot get popularity in real politics, if you don't advertise your good and service. The problem with the left is that the left doesn't have money as the right to advertise the product. if the left had huge millions of dollars to rent TV spots, TV stations, TV ads, most americans would be leftists already

That's why Ron Paul is getting a lot of support, coz of his marketing

marxist_god [/b]
Advertising a lot does not mean you're popular. It means it's spam. Where is Ron Paul in the polls again? Not number one? Gee what do you know.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:01 am
Quite simply. Ron Paul is the only repubublican or democratic presidential candidate that wants to pull out of Iraq.

The question is what do we do about that. I would say vote for the bastard, but explain that libertarianism is a monetary hell that despises the poor and working class people.

The thing is voting tactically means voting without principles, just for the best of evils.


Pulling out of Iraq might not help the American people that much. It means less mother sons being killled, and end to genocide in Iraq with over million reported dead. Not bad for a financial reform. The thing is the US is basically practising liberatarianism anyway. watch Sicko.

With Ron Paul emphasise his anti war position, after all it is real, even though it may be a lie.
So I guess Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel don't exist in the presidential race according to you. They all want to get out of Iraq. Only difference with Richardson is he wants to keep troops at the embassy and that's all. If you're voting for the bastard you're voting for what he believes in and endorsing that. If you're not libertarian or a libertarian republican why would you vote for him? Ron Paul isn't antiwar. He just thinks the military should be used to protect the country. He doesn't say to stop fighting does he? No that I've heard.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:14 am
Should have checked that someone told me that.

I think he is better. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_EfHtPZ20)


What I should have said perhaps is the Ron Paul who has the most money, has the better chance.
So money decides who has the best chance? Have you looked at all the issues with Ron Paul? He doesn't want anything the issue polls say. The issue polls that are out there have the people wanting everything Ron Paul is against. Please. Money does not equal popularity. Funny how he's still low in the polls. Of course the Ron Paul people claim he isn't included but they haven't provided any proof of that just their wild consperiacies with no proof.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 20, 2007 07:51 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 20, 2007 07:51 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 07:01 am
Quite simply. Ron Paul is the only repubublican or democratic presidential candidate that wants to pull out of Iraq.
For the sake of accuracy: Kucinich also wants to pull out of Iraq. [/b]

yeah true, the alternative media and conspiracy theorists out there pissed off with Bush and neocons are all rallying around Ron Paul, but not Kucinich, i don't understand why? Maybe coz Kucinich is "socialist" according to them, loves the UN, loves Mexicans and immigrants, and is a love of "big fat government", welfare-state, regulated statist health care, and he is not a hardcore federalist white nationalist

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:33 pm
Money does not equal popularity.

Hi my friend, well in USA money is every thing. Have you heard this quote by Antonio Montana Scarface: "First you gotta get the money, after the money comes the power. After the power comes the girl." -Tony Montana, Scarface

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+December 19, 2007 07:59 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ December 19, 2007 07:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:28 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:59 pm
They preach a lot about a so-called "nanny" state but than they're contradicting themselves...I tried to tell them about socialism but all they talked about is the so-called "nanny" state.
Well about revolutionary socialism, we look to ABOLISH the state itself.

Next time the free-market libertarians go after you, challenge them to abolish the state itself.

The reason they won't do this is because the existence of classes is dependent on the existence of the state. They know this and will not want to abolish the state all together, just keep some of it.

Also you used to be a liberal and now you're a socialist. Excellent. Now you should also get familiar with the works of many revolutionary leftists.

We here look to make a classes and STATELESS society with the means of production being in the hands of workers. This is the ultimate goal (we'll probably never see it in our lifetime but we must work so that workers get ready for when they're ready to advance to such a step).

So next time they go after you, challenge them, tell them if they hate the "nanny" state so much, GET RID OF IT ALL TOGETHER AND NEVER HAVE A STATE AGAIN. Just see what they say.
Well I don't want to go that far personally so yea. But I have said that Ron Paul wants to do that and they are like "oh no no no." So I have done that already and they just say something about how they just want the states to have more power. We've already discussed this as a country and that's why we had the civil war. I guess they fell asleep a lot during American history class eh? The whole reasoning of the civil war was a states rights vs federal government and the federal government won. Yea when I was a liberal there was always something missing though. It didn't feel really right ya know? Than I started reading more about socialisim and it agreed more with me. However I wouldn't call myself an extremist socialist. That would be closer to Communism and I don't go that far. But I'll keep that in mind about abolishing the government all together when they ***** about a "nanny" state. They're fine with it as long as it's THEM in control. [/b]



I do love the nany state. but I don't understand who is nany? I have a weight-lifter friend called nany, he lifts 385 in bench, a football player. hahahaha just joking

Yeah you guys are right, the ultra-capitalist neoliberals of America always brag about the "nany state" as being evil, taking over "our personal lives"

marxist_god :)

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:24 pm
I do love the nany state. but I don't understand who is nany? I have a weight-lifter friend called nany, he lifts 385 in bench, a football player. hahahaha just joking

Yeah you guys are right, the ultra-capitalist neoliberals of America always brag about the "nany state" as being evil, taking over "our personal lives"

marxist_god :)
They complain about the "nanny state" but they don't want to get rid of the state itself. That's how I challenge the libertarians. I force them to really HATE the state, making them come out with the "big borther" and "nanny state" statements. Then I challenge them to actually abolish the state itself. Needless to say, they don't go for it. It's a great way beat them.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 20, 2007 08:49 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 20, 2007 08:49 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 08:24 pm
I do love the nany state. but I don't understand who is nany? I have a weight-lifter friend called nany, he lifts 385 in bench, a football player. hahahaha just joking

Yeah you guys are right, the ultra-capitalist neoliberals of America always brag about the "nany state" as being evil, taking over "our personal lives"

marxist_god :)
They complain about the "nanny state" but they don't want to get rid of the state itself. That's how I challenge the libertarians. I force them to really HATE the state, making them come out with the "big borther" and "nanny state" statements. Then I challenge them to actually abolish the state itself. Needless to say, they don't go for it. It's a great way beat them. [/b]
I'll definitley have to try it the next chance I get. I don't believe in that personally but it'd be fun to watch them try to answer the challenge.

[SouthernBelle82]

Here's some articles about Ron Paul and race issues he has.

Links-

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/4c5af80...ea-000032e1de7e (http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/4c5af802-6fc5-4029-bbea-000032e1de7e)

http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/ron_pauls_jewish_problem

[MT5678]

all libertarians have issues. some are insane.
Libertarians fail to understand the nature of the state and its relation to the bourgeois. The unjust war in Afghanistan was undertaken as a means to relegitimize militaristic propensities. This is why the U.S. didn't even take up the Taliban on their October 5th offer to extradite, or why it didn't listen to Afghan leaders when they asked the U.S. to let them deal with bin Laden.

And the war in Iraq is all about oil, as we know. And markets. A bigger consumer base is good for the bourgeois. That's why Paul Bremer input stuff like Order 39 to try to start neoliberalism in Iraq. He's gone know. Lets hope his values don't advance, although the IMF is trying with its "revenue-sharing" plan.

The CIA is a collection of corporate hitmen. Just look at their gross record of coups and destabilization campaigns in Latin America, rife with massive human rights violation.

And the U.S. maintains protectionistic measures to block goods from the "South", while killing "Southern" economies with subsidized products forced on tariff-less nations such as Mexico and in the future, Colombia.

The state exists to advance the interests of the bourgeois, as we know. But libertarians like Ron Paul pretend not to know.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:41 am
all libertarians have issues. some are insane.
Libertarians fail to understand the nature of the state and its relation to the bourgeois. The unjust war in Afghanistan was undertaken as a means to relegitimize militaristic propensities. This is why the U.S. didn't even take up the Taliban on their October 5th offer to extradite, or why it didn't listen to Afghan leaders when they asked the U.S. to let them deal with bin Laden.

And the war in Iraq is all about oil, as we know. And markets. A bigger consumer base is good for the bourgeois. That's why Paul Bremer input stuff like Order 39 to try to start neoliberalism in Iraq. He's gone know. Lets hope his values don't advance, although the IMF is trying with its "revenue-sharing" plan.

The CIA is a collection of corporate hitmen. Just look at their gross record of coups and destabilization campaigns in Latin America, rife with massive human rights violation.

And the U.S. maintains protectionistic measures to block goods from the "South", while killing "Southern" economies with subsidized products forced on tariff-less nations such as Mexico and in the future, Colombia.

The state exists to advance the interests of the bourgeois, as we know. But libertarians like Ron Paul pretend not to know.
Your post reminded me check out the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." It talks just about those issues you mentioned. I've read reviews and heard interviews from the author and from that it seems like it's a very good book. Definitley something I sooner or later want to read.

[MT5678]

Yeah, ive heard of that book. A book I liked was Year 501 by Noam Chomsky. It was writtern in 1993, but since most of the stuff it talked about happened in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it is very relevant today. After finding out about all those coups and all that neoliberal hell that the IMF and its cronies put the workers through, my life changed forever.

[bootleg42]

Since this Ron Paul counter-revolution is basically the middle class fighting back, I'd like to share a quote from Marx about the middle class of England of the time, and Marx himself makes a good point to which we can learn:

"The English middle class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of the majority, so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power. But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war."

-Karl Marx, New York World, July 18, 1871

[RedKnight]

I believe that a case could be made for an anarchist to support Ron Paul, as part of a popular front. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston4.html

[Digitalism]

It's people's lack of political knowledge. They probably could not have identified what political ideology he was without out the help of others.

These are the same people who define anarchism as complete chaos and mob rule and the same people who define communism as a government that force everone to make the same amount of money. I don't have to tell you all what's wrong with those two definitions.

Bottom line, we need to educate the people.

You know, I actually fit that criteria until now. Before I found this board I was actually a "supporter" in a sense, of Ron Paul. And you hit it with the rest. I also thought "anarchism" was chaos (well, not in a way you might think, street wars, protests etc.) and I didn't really know exact definition of communism until now. So I think you're right with what you're saying.. Thank goodness for this site. :)

[Refugee from Earth]

I don't think he's anti-state at all. He doesn't mind the big state when it comes to "strong enforcement" against immigration, defending private property, or making sure that women wouldn't be able go to a doctor for an abortion. He claims there's nothing to say the church shouldn't be involved in the state - but how does this tie in with being anti-state? Also, if that's right about his pro-war attitudes in the past, it proves that his current "anti war" stance is just opportunistic.

It seems like he's just opposed to the state doing anything good. Like schools, hospitals, welfare, etc. Why should taxpayers money go towards anything except violence, racism and religion?

I mean, a 700 mile fence? I've never heard anything more ridiculous. It's like he's gone mad with power he doesn't even have.

[quevivafidel]

Ron Paul is a nut. He wants to end birth-right citizenship for "anchor babies" and he's a total reactionary on the illegal immigration issue. Also, he's anti-choice and anti-gay marriage [but he'll let the states decide what to do in terms of those issues]. Other than the Iraq War, he's a run-of-the-mill conservative Republican. I'm supporting Barack in this election; he's not very liberal and most certainly not radical, but he's got some good ideas and some good ideas is a whole lot better than no good ideas. Any Democrat (except maybe Lieberman) would be better than most Republicans.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ron Paul's relative success on the internet largely has to do with the fact he's different. Most Americans are not keenly aware of contemporary libertarianism, so when they hear about someone who supposedly wants to "get ALL government" out of their lives, it sounds appealing. Have a hair in your soup? It's the government's fault! :p

Libertarians have been quite successful at organizing in the past 20 years, but I think the progressive/leftist movement is learning. The call for democratic localism is becoming louder, and the libertarian message just isn't cutting it. I've noticed socialists, anarchists, and communists even down here becoming more vocal and organized. This year was the first time since the labor department started taking in numbers that union membership increased. I think this, coupled with current economic problems and the possibility of a credit crunch, could mean quite a lot for our movement.

[bootleg42]

You know, I actually fit that criteria until now. Before I found this board I was actually a "supporter" in a sense, of Ron Paul. And you hit it with the rest. I also thought "anarchism" was chaos (well, not in a way you might think, street wars, protests etc.) and I didn't really know exact definition of communism until now. So I think you're right with what you're saying.. Thank goodness for this site. :)

I'm glad. Thank goodness for people like you. Go teach other people. You don't have to get them to be communist or anarchist but at least you can get people to recognize the REAL definition of communism and anarchism and for them not to use such ignorant definitions.

Also you should help other people recognize the true political ideologies of politicians and for those people to be able to correctly identify and define those ideologies. Helping people being able to do that is a HUGE step for human kind.

[RedAnarchist]

How come this guy is apparently running for President of America yet when we hear about these votes they're having, he's never even mentioned? Hes not very successful in these votes is he?

[thehardestpart]

How come this guy is apparently running for President of America yet when we hear about these votes they're having, he's never even mentioned? Hes not very successful in these votes is he?


No, He's not. He's only an internet phenom.

[Faux Real]

Paul has been getting anywhere in between 4% and 14% of the vote in the 6 state primaries so far, so yes, his run will end in complete failure, thank goodness. I'm so sick of the so-called "libertarians" believing that a single man will be able to overpower the capitalist state, rallying behind the old "liberty" of wage slavery, "freedom" to starve, and thinly disguised white supremacist racism.

[ComradeR]

It's pretty much been said. Ron Paul is a joke and in a few years he will be all but forgotten. A small note in the history of this bourgeois charade they call a democracy.

[Sleeping Dog]

Anarcho-Capitalists are one sick set of puppies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's pretty much been said. Ron Paul is a joke and in a few years he will be all but forgotten. A small note in the history of this bourgeois charade they call a democracy.

Actually I think Ron Paul represents a disturbing development. In the 60s there was the Vietnam-Syndrome which caused people to question the bi-partisan basis of the cold war and become opposed to US imperialism.

Now in the US there is a Iraq-syndrome. But it hasn't effected the larger picture; it's a skepticism of the Republicans, not the whole "War on Terror", let alone the American Empire itself.

With the Republicans loosing all credibility at the same time that the far-left is disoriented and fractured and the "liberals" unable to present an alternative to the Staus Quo, the door has been opened to reaction. We see the rise of the Minutemen and Ron Paul as the "alternative" to mainstream politics.

Instead of opposing the war on Iraq on the basis of anti-imperialism, they oppose it because "Islamo-fascists can never be civilized". Instead of opposing the attacks on the working class, they blame immigration. I see very dark times ahead in the US if the left can't begin to win people to and present an alternative to recession and war.

[ComradeR]

Actually I think Ron Paul represents a disturbing development. In the 60s there was the Vietnam-Syndrome which caused people to question the bi-partisan basis of the cold war and become opposed to US imperialism.

Now in the US there is a Iraq-syndrome. But it hasn't effected the larger picture; it's a skepticism of the Republicans, not the whole "War on Terror", let alone the American Empire itself.

With the Republicans loosing all credibility at the same time that the far-left is disoriented and fractured and the "liberals" unable to present an alternative to the Staus Quo, the door has been opened to reaction. We see the rise of the Minutemen and Ron Paul as the "alternative" to mainstream politics.

Instead of opposing the war on Iraq on the basis of anti-imperialism, they oppose it because "Islamo-fascists can never be civilized". Instead of opposing the attacks on the working class, they blame immigration. I see very dark times ahead in the US if the left can't begin to win people to and present an alternative to recession and war.
I agree, while Ron Paul himself is nothing and will be forgotten before to long it is the social forces behind him that we have to look at. People are slowly becoming fed up with the status quo and beginning to look for an alternative. This can ether be a good development or a very bad one, if the left can get it's act together we could help direct this growing discontent in the right way. If not then it will give rise to reaction and fascism.

[Sleeping Dog]

Striving for and hopefully being means of public communication is the only defense available against further development of our current fascist state.

[Zurdito]

here's quite a funny peice of irony: smart guy has dumb son. or in other words, communist folk legend Woody Guthrie's son endorses Ron Paul

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/01/arlo-for-ron.html

[NoGodsNoMasters]

A question to all here.

Whether or not you agree with all of his or her stances who does everyone here believe best represents the socialist/communist viewpoint. Give your opinions even if you don't plan to vote or believe that the current electoral system is not worth supporting. Also, please confine your choices to major candidates who have a shot at the presidency.

I think I would have to say Obama is my candidate of choice.

[BIG BROTHER]

All I can add, is that on my way to school I saw a board that said "Ron Paul Revolution" at first I tought o man! maybe there will be a communist candidate, but when I checked on the internet who he was, I became so dissapointed.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Ron Paulites tend to be:

Naive soft-liberals who heard "anti-war" and thought he was a good guy without looking deeper into his agenda
Cocaine-snorting trust fund kids who hate paying taxes
Fascists/ Neo-nazis/ racial nationalists/ anti-Semites
Palaeoconservatives
Conspiracy theorists "omg 9/11 was inside jobb!111"