I'm starting to believe more and more that Liberals are possibly our biggest enemies.

[R_P_A_S]

I don't know. perhaps is this entire Ron Paul fucking circus that's sweeping these loons. I gotta admit I used to think Liberals were only half a step away from being socialist. maybe not communist. BUT at least Socialist at that. BUT I think I've come to the conclusion and I've come to grips with that possibility that they are indeed dangerous 'class' themselves(?) I can easily see them manifesting into a counter revolutionary group and infiltrate the communist party with their own agenda, one that's not revolutionary.

I can't quite put the finger on them, or what is it about them that makes me be weary of them more of Neocons! seriously! at least with these capitalist neocons you know for certain they are your class enemy! and they stand by that and will go to war with you. but these loons, Liberals they'll stand and protest with you they might even shake your hand and join a movement but once you want to go further and push for popular democracy and revolution they turn into your enemy.

I think all anarchist, communist and socialist should stay away from planning or uniting Liberals as they could pose a threat to a legit popular movement...

[mikelepore]

This is the distinction that I see.

Conservatives won't take a stand against the capitalist cause of our social problems, and very often they don't see anything with the miserable effects either. They plant bad seed and they also think that the lousy crop is just fine.

Liberals are more likely to deplore the effects while they support the cause of those effects. They plant bad seed and then they complain about the crop.

[Red_or_Dead]

Well, I read a thing or two about liberalism, and I would say that the thing that separates them from us is the fact that they tend to favour a free market, with limited or no government intervention. They dont call it "liberalisation" of the market for nothing. Tho it depends, of course on how liberal parties handle such things, and what position they take up, but thats the theory behind liberalism anyway.

[LSD]

The problem with modern "liberalism", as conceptualized in the Northern American political sense, is that it's foundationless.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberalism used to mean something. It meant freedom and the conditions of ataining it. In economic terms it meant liberalizing markets, opening them up to competition and trade. At that point, though, free trade and open markets were a threat to the power of the entrentched aristocratic classes and so they fought back as conservatives, to conserve the status quo.

This association of "liberalism" with capitalism still exists in most of the world, and persisted in the United States until Roosevelt overthrew the fourth party system and hijacked the word "liberal" from the American right-wing forever.

At that point, you wanted to be a "liberal". It was still associated with things like the enlightnement and the American revolution. So the democrats pinned this notion of "liberalism" to their new big government spending program and divested the word of any lexical meaning.

Over the past sixty or so years the American right has made the rather clever political decision to simply accept that inversion of the language since it allows them to present a neater sound bite. Now they can attack liberals both economically and socially. Hell, they've even manged to turn "liberal" into a dirty word in large swashes of America. In deepest Kansas, a "liberal" is a "flip-flopper" and a "pussy", if not a downright "faggot".

So now the "liberal" left is chained to a word they don't like which represents an ideology they don't ascribe to. Modern American "liberalism" is a patchwork of what in other countries would be called social-democracy or progressivisim or "Christian" democracy with a thread of neoliberalism running through it.

Such a "liberal" has precious little theory at his core. He likes government spending, but he doesn't trust the government; he wants capitalism but he doesn't trust the market. Basically, he's a pragmatist, balancing the two "evils" against each other, secretly hoping that someone can come up with a third option.

It's that insecurity that we can work with. Liberals, ultimately, don't have a solid ideology to rest on, but the conservatives do. They don't just like the market, they believe in the market. And if you believe that capital markets render a just societ, you can never be swayed towards communism,

But since "liberals" only view the market as a means and not an ends, we can work with them, and subtly insinuate that maybe the people are the answer to that nagging question they didn't know they were asking: what is the third option?

[Ismail]

LSD is correct. Conservatives believe in what they say, whereas liberals are more swayed towards emotion and don't focus on economics much. Conservatives are bigger enemies simply because these are the types that are more likely to defend people like Pinochet or Suharto as "defending their people against Communism." They also know what they're talking about when it comes to economics, since they fully support capitalism. Granted, they either hold an idealized, "nothing we can do", or "but that's good" view of it.

Liberals can be imperialist too under the guise of human rights, but yeah.

[Winter]

I've noticed that liberals are afraid of being accused as catering to the "far left". Funny how it's okay for conservatives to be in the far right. That just goes to show how far right American politics really is.

[Sleeping Dog]

What does Dr. Ron Paul (Libertarian) have to do with "Liberals". Yes Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau) guys are "classical liberals" but that isn't Phil Ochs lovable "liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States)".

[Jimmie Higgins]

First, there are two kinds of modern "Liberals". There's the establishment "Liberal" who ideologically opposes worker's power or socialism or communism. This would be people like Todd Gitlin or many writers in the Nation or NPR. Often they are really the enemy just as a Bill O'Riley is. If the US shifted left, these establishment liberals would talk more left in order to keep workers tied to the system.

Then there's everyday liberals or working class liberals who identify liberalism with the "great society" and the "New Deal" and supporting unions and civil rights. I think these are potential allies and can be won to socialism.

[Sleeping Dog]

First, there are two kinds of modern "Liberals". There's the establishment "Liberal" who ideologically opposes worker's power or socialism or communism. This would be people like Todd Gitlin or many writers in the Nation or NPR. Often they are really the enemy just as a Bill O'Riley is. If the US shifted left, these establishment liberals would talk more left in order to keep workers tied to the system.

Then there's everyday liberals or working class liberals who identify liberalism with the "great society" and the "New Deal" and supporting unions and civil rights. I think these are potential allies and can be won to socialism.Digger,
I concur (honestly I would like to personally reaffirm my old SDS ties with Mr. Gitlin); sure we all have "a dream"! The fear mongering difficulty remains "commies want to share your house with low life lazy slugs". Grandiose declarations of solidarity are little consolation when even Proudhon's mild assertion of personal property inheritance appear in jeopardy.

[SouthernBelle82]

As a former liberal I'd have to agree. Liberals and commies/socialists aren't too different on social issues but they are still for free trade. However there are some liberals who are waking up and want more fair trade. A good example is Bryon Dorgan's book "Take This Job and Ship It." He's a Senator I forget from where.


Well, I read a thing or two about liberalism, and I would say that the thing that separates them from us is the fact that they tend to favour a free market, with limited or no government intervention. They dont call it "liberalisation" of the market for nothing. Tho it depends, of course on how liberal parties handle such things, and what position they take up, but thats the theory behind liberalism anyway.

[Sleeping Dog]

As a former liberal I'd have to agree. Liberals and commies/socialists aren't too different on social issues but they are still for free trade. However there are some liberals who are waking up and want more fair trade. A good example is Bryon Dorgan's book "Take This Job and Ship It." He's a Senator I forget from where.You are correct. When the oppressor defines the your plain of existence recognition of actuality is very nearly impossible to achieve.:eek:

[Raúl Duke]

From my experience, I think liberals (and especially some "apathetic" {they're aren't exactly so but they aren't tightly labeled to a political side} people, they seem more "open minded" to what you have to say.)should be attempted to won over.

However, the idea of a popular front might create problems since we sometimes (or most of the time) don't even have the same world-view analysis (i.e. they may not concentrate on class struggle, label themselves more "anti-war" than "anti-imperialism", etc). Such a difference creates problems related to tactics (liberals are likely to turn the campaign into an endorsement for x politician, etc) and to the front's position (anti-war or anti-imperialist?, etc)


Liberals can be imperialist too under the guise of human rights, but yeah.I call them the "white-man's burden" liberals since some (or all) of their pro-war (imperialist) positions are based on stuff like "they need us to help them built a democracy...without us they are just going to kill each other...etc."

[Tekun]

I think Malcolm said it best, he summed it up by saying that while conservatives are wolves who show their fangs at every opportunity, liberals are wolves dressed as sheep who are just as dangerous as their down-the-hall counterparts

[Cheung Mo]

To call liberals are biggest enemy is to paint Ralph Yarborough -- the integrationist, socially liberal, pro-labour Democrat who clobbered Bush I and his racialist propaganda in the 1964 Texas Senatorial election -- as being worse than the likes of Strom Thurmond. Given that Yarborough spent his political career giving the shirt off his back to the little guy and bettering the lives of African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas, I think that's pretty insulting. I use Yarborough as an example because he's about my favourite U.S. politician of all time.