Are right wing conservatives the true enemy?

[RadioRaheem84]

We come down hard on right wing conservative groups and rightfully so, but are they really the true enemy? The right wing have been mostly marginalized and have been dubbed as reactionaries by the mainstream press. While right wing hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity attract an array of listeners, their ideology only goes so far in Washington because corporate democrats are the majority.

While we're spending most of our time blaming Republicans and hating on Hannity. It seems like we're giving the true enemies who hold the real power a pass; the Corporate Clintonian Democrats that truly rule DC. I mean lets face it, the media, excluding Fox News, hates Bush (albeit gives him a pass on the war and other issues) but loves Clinton and other Democrats. They're the ones that set the agenda on NAFTA and other free trade negotiations.

I attend a Northeastern Ivy League school that is very liberal but not leftist. The level of goosestepping to Democratic rhetoric is just as frightening to watch as it is at a GOP rally on the aniversary of 9/11! They also believe in free trade, only with a "happy sustainable face". The policy wonks crowd the government buildings looking for research positions to professors who co-tail the free market mantra as much as a libertarian. The only difference is that these Dems give their creed a more "tolerant smiling face" to the neo-liberal scheme. They think they can turn free market problems into free market solutions. They want MORE AID to go to corrupt insitutions like the World Bank and the IMF.

You think its all conserivative republicans working at the World Bank, Federal Reserve and IMF? NO! It's policy wonk New Democrats like the ones I see everyday here. They don't give a shit about the people, the workers or for that matter the nation they want to serve one day. They care about finding solutions to pump up their CV or resume to one day be a part of the world elite.

This is the true enemy. Not some dumb yokel like Glenn Beck who talks his trash on the radio. But the true people in power. Wake up and quit letting these people slide just because they hide behind enviromentalism, human rights, sustainability and other buzzwords they come up in their public policy forums. They don't give a shit about any of that.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The true enemy are the capitalists, not people who are ignorant about material conditions.

[RadioRaheem84]

The true enemy are the capitalists, not people who are ignorant about material conditions.


These people are capitalists. Not only that but are just as delusional as their right wing counterparts, in that it can save the world. The only difference is that the right winger is outright honest with others about inequality being a main factor of its doctrine. The Democrats are delusional about stopping inequality through more free market solutions.

[The Douche]

I don't think anybody on here would consider the democrats any less of a class enemy than the republicans. The republicans have just recieved the majority of criticism lately because they have been the ones in power. If you look at the English posters you will see that they are more heavily critical of Labour Party politicians, this is not because they stand closer to the Tories, its because Labour is in power.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think anybody on here would consider the democrats any less of a class enemy than the republicans. The republicans have just recieved the majority of criticism lately because they have been the ones in power. If you look at the English posters you will see that they are more heavily critical of Labour Party politicians, this is not because they stand closer to the Tories, its because Labour is in power.


The Republicans can be in power all they want. The point is that their views in Washington are seen as rather inconsistent with the status quo. They always have to compromise with a rather liberal DC. The Bush administration's policies have been attacked left and right by the press and other members of Congress. Public Policy think tanks despise them. The current administration is just not good for business (except for war profiteers). It's not even so much because they're right wing, it's because they're just not following the washington line to the core. They're like rogue traders making the firm look bad. They will be booted out in order to keep the machine running.

Believe me, I am more afraid of a guy like Clinton than Bush. Bush is despised, but Clinton is loved. For that love comes all of the neo-liberal agendas he's pushed with the world's elite and without the criticism. The major neo-libeal agendas pushed to the extreme happened under Clinton, not Regan, not Bush or Bush II.

[ckaihatsu]

These people are capitalists. Not only that but are just as delusional as their right wing counterparts, in that it can save the world.


I don't think that left- (and right-wing) capitalist assholes are *delusional* as much as it is that they have mindfucked themselves so as to come off as delusional, for smokescreen purposes.

It's essentially the "temporary insanity" defense, in the political arena -- *all* capitalist assholes run into this moral hazard:

- If you're just living for you and your own, that's fine -- say so, tend to your own affairs, and don't try to act as if you're being anything *other* than just that.

- But if you're only looking out for your own, *at best* you are only consuming that which you are producing -- anyone who is making profits from financial dealings is actually tapping into society's surplus value -- that is, the efforts / labor of others.

- What's worse, many of these assholes who are consuming more than they produce then become "political" and act as if they give a shit about the state of the world, when in fact their own dealings are *subtracting* from the wealth / surplus of the world -- therefore all of their talk at the "political" level is automatically hypocritical, in comparison with their own actions.


From the revolutionary standpoint it wouldn't *matter* what their internal state is -- they could be delusional, or they could be putting on a delusional front -- what matters is that the exploitation of labor STOPS, so that society's wealth can be enjoyed by all.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Goose]

We come down hard on right wing conservative groups and rightfully so, but are they really the true enemy? The right wing have been mostly marginalized and have been dubbed as reactionaries by the mainstream press. While right wing hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity attract an array of listeners, their ideology only goes so far in Washington because corporate democrats are the majority.

While we're spending most of our time blaming Republicans and hating on Hannity. It seems like we're giving the true enemies who hold the real power a pass; the Corporate Clintonian Democrats that truly rule DC. I mean lets face it, the media, excluding Fox News, hates Bush (albeit gives him a pass on the war and other issues) but loves Clinton and other Democrats. They're the ones that set the agenda on NAFTA and other free trade negotiations.

I attend a Northeastern Ivy League school that is very liberal but not leftist. The level of goosestepping to Democratic rhetoric is just as frightening to watch as it is at a GOP rally on the aniversary of 9/11! They also believe in free trade, only with a "happy sustainable face". The policy wonks crowd the government buildings looking for research positions to professors who co-tail the free market mantra as much as a libertarian. The only difference is that these Dems give their creed a more "tolerant smiling face" to the neo-liberal scheme. They think they can turn free market problems into free market solutions. They want MORE AID to go to corrupt insitutions like the World Bank and the IMF.

You think its all conserivative republicans working at the World Bank, Federal Reserve and IMF? NO! It's policy wonk New Democrats like the ones I see everyday here. They don't give a shit about the people, the workers or for that matter the nation they want to serve one day. They care about finding solutions to pump up their CV or resume to one day be a part of the world elite.

This is the true enemy. Not some dumb yokel like Glenn Beck who talks his trash on the radio. But the true people in power. Wake up and quit letting these people slide just because they hide behind enviromentalism, human rights, sustainability and other buzzwords they come up in their public policy forums. They don't give a shit about any of that.

Wow. So idiocy is allowed, while people get banned/insulted/ostracised for straying from the party line when they clearly are leftist and intelligent?

[ckaihatsu]

Wow. So idiocy is allowed, while people get banned/insulted/ostracised for straying from the party line when they clearly are leftist and intelligent?


The question is: How come these leftist, intelligent people are not self-proclaimed anti-capitalists? And just how much of their time (and ours) are they going to waste on reformist issues like "environmentalism", "human rights", and "sustainability"?

Please keep in mind that the capitalist machine grinds on, with markets continuing to operate for pretty much anything that we would find inhumane, harmful or distasteful.


Chris

[Goose]

The question is: How come these leftist, intelligent people are not self-proclaimed anti-capitalists? And just how much of their time (and ours) are they going to waste on reformist issues like "environmentalism", "human rights", and "sustainability"?

Please keep in mind that the capitalist machine grinds on, with markets continuing to operate for pretty much anything that we would find inhumane, harmful or distasteful.


Chris

Please bear in mind that I have little time for 'environmentalism', 'human rights'. or 'sustainabilty'. Pseudo leftist hippy nonsense is not well thought of in my little world. Blairite concepts largely, trying to pull the Green vote back.

That doesn't stop that man being an idiot however.

[Comrade B]

Please bear in mind that I have little time for 'environmentalism', 'human rights'. or 'sustainabilty'. Pseudo leftist hippy nonsense is not well thought of in my little world.
So you think that environmentalism, sustaining our very habitat, which keeps us alive, is not an issue and human rights, what prevents republicans from tossing lefties like me into prison and sticking needles in my flesh, are nonsense?

In my life, I will try to make the world a better place, rather than demanding it make itself perfect.

I will vote democrat over republican to make this society someone more bearable. I don't think it will make anything significantly better, but things wont be getting much worse.

The Republicans are our enemy because they hate us. The democrats ignore us, and I am fine with that. They are opposed to us, but I would not call them "enemies".

[RadioRaheem84]

The Republicans are our enemy because they hate us. The democrats ignore us, and I am fine with that. They are opposed to us, but I would not call them "enemies".

Yes, they are our enemies because they not only ignore us but bar us from the debate as much as the GOP. People were arrested at the Democratic conventions too.


So you think that environmentalism, sustaining our very habitat, which keeps us alive, is not an issue and human rights, what prevents republicans from tossing lefties like me into prison and sticking needles in my flesh, are nonsense?


The way the pseudo-leftists and mainstream liberals frame the debate, yes. They NEVER address the impact globalization has taken on the environment. Instead they seek out free market solutions to probems created by free markets. I've seen North-Face wearing environmental science majors going off to work for Shell to "solve environmental problems". It's faux-environmentalism.

They NEVER talk about how protesting free market reforms serve as the basis for more than 50% of human rights abuses by reactionary governments. All you hear is that these governments are just brutal, but you never hear about WHY the people protest. The way many "left"-wing human rights groups have muddled the disapearences of thousands of activists in Latin America is appalling. There is no mention of why the people rejected the policies of their government, except that they believed their government to just be brutal against opposition.

I mean how can you give them a pass just because they "mean well". Do you think workers down in Bolivia gave UN Golden Boy Jefferey Sachs and the Harvard Economists a pass when they were selling off their resources? Did Mexicans give good ol' Clinton a pass when he passed NAFTA?

Get your mind correct! The neo-liberal agenda exploded onto the scene in the 90s like a wildfire. Atleast Regan and the Buchannite conservative crew had a more nationalist approach to free trade. Clinton internationalized the game and gave globalization a happy mainstream face.

[Comrade B]

Clinton internationalized the game and gave globalization a happy mainstream face.
how is this. I have never heard much from the democrats about globalization, they just ignore it and pretend that everyone is happy.
The republicans embrace "trickle down" like a cute little puppy, claiming progress from stagnation. The democrats do nothing and don't talk about the fact that they are doing nothing. On this issue, neither is better than the other, but on other issues, less harm comes from democrats. This doesn't mean I am saying they don't make problems though.

[RadioRaheem84]

how is this. I have never heard much from the democrats about globalization, they just ignore it and pretend that everyone is happy.
The republicans embrace "trickle down" like a cute little puppy, claiming progress from stagnation. The democrats do nothing and don't talk about the fact that they are doing nothing. On this issue, neither is better than the other, but on other issues, less harm comes from democrats. This doesn't mean I am saying they don't make problems though.

You have never heard Clintons famous words: The era of big government is over?

He ran on a platform of reform and progressivism and moved the Democratic party to the right. He packed his cabinet with Wall Street fat cats and big business types. The era of neo-liberalism was in full swing during the 90s.

Read David Kortens When Corporations Rule the World. It is mainly directed at the globalization policies of the Clinton era. Reagan was bad but he kept the trickle down economics within the US borders and was actually more of protectionist than Clinton. Clinton though was the opposite.

Also check out Adam Curtis brilliant doc: The Trap. Not only did Blair and Clinton liberalize trade more so than Thatcher and Reagan, but they also brought free market ideals of efficiency to government, making it much worse. So now the average man is left with shitty representation and social services and trickle down BS.

That is the Democrats for. New Democrats and New Labour.

[The Douche]

The Republicans can be in power all they want. The point is that their views in Washington are seen as rather inconsistent with the status quo. They always have to compromise with a rather liberal DC. The Bush administration's policies have been attacked left and right by the press and other members of Congress. Public Policy think tanks despise them. The current administration is just not good for business (except for war profiteers). It's not even so much because they're right wing, it's because they're just not following the washington line to the core. They're like rogue traders making the firm look bad. They will be booted out in order to keep the machine running.

Believe me, I am more afraid of a guy like Clinton than Bush. Bush is despised, but Clinton is loved. For that love comes all of the neo-liberal agendas he's pushed with the world's elite and without the criticism. The major neo-libeal agendas pushed to the extreme happened under Clinton, not Regan, not Bush or Bush II.

You totally missed the whole point of my post.

Revolutionaries oppose republicans as much as democrats.

[RadioRaheem84]

You totally missed the whole point of my post.

Revolutionaries oppose republicans as much as democrats.

sorry.

[TheFern]

The true enemies of the people are those who control things behind the scenes - not right wing idiots. Right wing radio personalities are hilarious to listen to because of their extreme ignorance. Of greater importance are those who control both the democrats and republicans and Fox News and CNN and Liberal talkshows.... not the people involved in said groups.

[RadioRaheem84]

The true enemies of the people are those who control things behind the scenes - not right wing idiots. Right wing radio personalities are hilarious to listen to because of their extreme ignorance. Of greater importance are those who control both the democrats and republicans and Fox News and CNN and Liberal talkshows.... not the people involved in said groups.


Good point. I guess I shouldn't have singled out those that believe they're doing the right thing (the policy wonks, the trendy enviromentalists and faux human rights organizations).

But YES, the real enemies are the centre-right corporate globalists that own both the Democratic and Republican parties. The thing that ticks me off is that a lot of them HIDE behind the facade of being pro-human rights, environment, etc. while push for more and more and more liberalization through their quasi-governmental agents (IMF, World Bank).

[VILemon]

These people are capitalists. Not only that but are just as delusional as their right wing counterparts, in that it can save the world. The only difference is that the right winger is outright honest with others about inequality being a main factor of its doctrine. The Democrats are delusional about stopping inequality through more free market solutions.

The people who you are talking about (liberals, Democrats, and Democratic Party "representatives") are not capitalists. The vast majority of people who fall under these labels don't own the means of production or live off of extracted labor value. Instead, they own things ranging from ipods to huge televisions to huge cars to fractional stocks in publicly traded companies. These people may not be significantly better than the right-wingers (of which much of the liberals are a more centrist faction), but they are better in certain respects that needn't be blurred.
The real enemies are capitalists, corporate "persons", and the childish ideology of work-buy-sleep-work-buy-sleep-die which holds sway over everyone above mentioned.

[EvigLidelse]

Why does there always have to be an enemy according to leftists?

[Ismail]

Why does there always have to be an enemy according to leftists?Why aren't you restricted yet?

Anyway, this is Slavyanski's take on it, from his blog:

Eventually it had to come to this, I have to say something about the CPUSA. Now to be fair, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the CPUSA. As far as I know I have never met anyone who was affiliated with the CPUSA at the time of our meeting. I embraced Marxism-Leninism when I had already left the US, so we don't really have a history. Yet early on I read many critiques of their ideology, if you can even call it that, and even the most scathing seem far too generous. Using terms like "tailing the Democrats" is just far too nice; it would be just as accurate to say "kissing the Democratic Party's collective ass more passionately than a sizable portion of America's liberals, most of whom grew fed up with the Democrats in 2006 if not 2004."

What follows is not another analysis of the CPUSA's history of revisionism and betrayal of Marxism. Subjects like that have been dealt with plenty of times, and up-to-date critiques sometimes come up on Marxism-Leninism Today (http://mltoday.com/). Enver Hoxha dealt with the issue of 'Browderism' and the CPUSA in 'Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism (http://home8.inet.tele.dk/oktober/artikler_marxistisk_bibliotek/enver_hoxha/eurocommunism.htm)'. My aim in writing here is to simply ask, 'What does it take for these people to realize that they are revisionists, of the most impotent sort, possibly in the entire world?' How can they put out the line they do, and still call themselves a 'Communist' party? It's not as if there aren't plenty of revisionist parties in the world today, but most of these parties exist in countries with proportional representation, and thus they actually run candidates in elections. As such, many of them hold seats in their respective nations' parliaments, and due to this they are, reformist though they might be, at least able to exercise some power in the interests of the working class. The Russian presidential elections are coming up on 2 March, and while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation(KPRF) and their program may be far from Marxist-Leninist, at least they have a program, they run candidates in hopes of implementing it, and the accomplishment of their goals would have real meaning for working people. More than this, it would raise the prominence of class struggle in 'mainstream' political discussion, as well as create an environment that raises class awareness in general, assuming there is a real Marxist-Leninist party present to take advantage of the situation.

The CPUSA, due to its extreme revisionism, deserves a little credit here and there. In terms of its history, perhaps a lot of credit. The US labor movement owes a great deal of gratitude to Communists and their fellow-travelers, and one has to understand the massive negative effect things such as the second Red Scare of the McCarthy era as well as the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other events, gutted the party and organized labor in general. While there were revisionists like Earl Browder, there were also great leaders such as William Z. Foster. Perhaps most admirable is the fact that CPUSA played a crucial role in the recruitment and organization of the Lincoln, Washington, and MacKenzie-Papineau battalions, which fought for the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. But today their revisionism seems so blatant that there are many 'liberals' that stand to the left of them, and its no longer anarchists this time.

The revisionism of the CPUSA is so extremely pronounced that one need not even read their program to see it; just visit their website at any given time and read some of their statements. Take for example, an article (http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/883/1/150/) from the CPUSA's 'Labor Up Front' newsletter I found on their site just a couple days ago. Apparently Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), was giving a pep-talk at a Hillary Clinton rally, and said some negative things about Barack Obama. I can remember about a month ago when it seemed like they were supporting both Hillary and Obama unquestionably. Given the fact that Obama since pulled ahead in the primaries, it is now apparent why they were supporting both Clinton and Obama as opposed to someone far more progressive, such as Kucinich. Basically, they support whoever is likely to win the nomination, and support democrats unquestionably. Take a look at some excerpts from this article alone.

Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists' union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)

Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.

In the first place it’s ironic that a labor leader should ridicule good oratory. The history of the labor movement is replete with labor leaders who inspired and moved workers to action with their ability to put into words the hopes, aspirations and demands of those who dream of a better life and a better world for working people.

Eugene Debs spoke eloquently of an industrial union for rail workers. One of his most famous speeches called for an end to workers dying in WWI as cannon fodder for the narrow interests of the industrialists and capitalists. He brought millions into the labor movement and got millions of votes on the Socialist Party ticket with his inspiring speeches. 1

Granted there is one good reason to attack the guy in question; he supports Hillary Clinton. Clinton as a the nominee is a surefire loss for the Democratic Party in 2008. A direct repeat of 2004's Kerry vs. Bush. Of course if one was reading the CPUSA's rhetoric, both a Clinton or Obama victory would be a triumph. As such they don't really have room to criticize. The bizarre thing is that they actually believe that somehow an Obama victory will be good for the working class. Head on over to the ultra-left PLP and you'll get the real scoop on Obama, such as this article and here's another one. Have a look at the Maoist RCP's Revolution Newspaper and you'll find more ugly truth about Obama. As far as 'Communist' parties go, the CPUSA is the only one fooled by Obama. Hell, it's not just Communists that aren't buying Obama's nonsense, take a look at Black Agenda Report for example. And keep in mind we're only talking about Obama here; the CPUSA actually found Hillary to be a desirable candidate before Obama started pulling ahead. Whereas after 2004 serious 'progressives' became increasingly critical of the Democratic party, particularly after 2006's midterm elections, it's all good with the CPUSA. Any Democrat will do.

So how is this related to the CPUSA's line? Revisionism usually means a Communist Party weakening its own platform until it becomes a social democratic party at best. The CPUSA is far beyond revisionism; they're not just tailing liber- uh..I mean progressives, they're kissing the ass of the Democratic party itself. Mainstream democrats are the same people who used to call themselves liberals, and out of sheer cowardice started calling themselves "progressives". Their candidates are so weak that they rarely even refer to themselves as progressives. And why? All because a fat guy on the radio and a couple hundred of his clones were allowed to make "liberal" a dirty word, and the liberals didn't have the balls to fight back. And those are people in which the CPUSA wants the working class to put its trust. As bizarre as the situation is, it is not some kind of fluke or strategy, the roots of this ultra-revisionism can be found right in the party's own program.

See, the CPUSA doesn't wage a class struggle. In the bizarre, G-rated Marxism of the modern CPUSA, the struggle is against something called "the ultra-right." Take a look at an excerpt from their party program:

The working class and all who work for a living—the vast majority of the people—face a relentless, vicious, and amoral enemy: the capitalist class. Our country is oppressed by one of the most controlling, despicable, entrenched capitalist ruling classes ever, concentrating enormous political, economic, and military power in the hands of a few transnational corporations. These corporations seek to steal, embezzle, extort, and scheme all wealth from the tens of millions of working people, from small businesses and family farmers, from men, women, and children, from seniors and youth, and from the employed, underemployed, and unemployed. They exploit people as workers on the job and the same people as consumers at the checkout counter. Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism, used to divide working people and achieve extra profits. They work hard to extend ultra-right control over the government and government policy.
The ultra-right is led by the most reactionary, militaristic, racist, anti-democratic sectors of the transnationals. They gain support for their ultra-right agenda from other political trends and social groups, most of which are misled as to their real interests, sometimes blinded by the propaganda of fear and scapegoating.
Note that in the first paragraph, the program points out that the working class and the capitalist class are enemies. Yet right after that it says that Americans have a certain type of capitalist class, 'the most controlling, despicable, entrenched' etc. Immediately we see the major problems with this kind of reasoning. For Communists, a capitalist class is a capitalist class; there may be different shades under various conditions, but this is mostly inconsequential. Based on this it follows that the CPUSA's statement here is incorrect, the American ruling class does not fit that description, at least at this time. The control of the ruling class of Russia, for example, is far more controlling and entrenched than that of the US. But the illusion of a special 'evil' ruling class in modern times is designed to set up the straw-man enemy known as "the ultra-right". What exactly is the 'ultra-right'? Let's find out:

The first tendency represents the most reactionary section of the transnationals. It took over the Republican Party and in 1980 elected Ronald Reagan and then in 1988 George H. W. Bush as President. In the 1970s and dramatically escalating following the election of Reagan, the U.S. government increased the U.S. military build-up. Across the “mainstream” political spectrum, among most Republican and Democratic elected officials, support for capitalist globalization led to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the WTO, and other international trade agreements and organizations, and to increased outsourcing of union manufacturing jobs. It attacked the very existence of unions and bargaining rights, imposed tax cuts for the rich, cut social programs, demonized foreign opponents of the U.S., covertly funded the right-wing-initiated civil war in Nicaragua, and gave weapons to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq. They picked small countries to invade, including Panama and Grenada, testing new military equipment and strategy, and breaking down resistance at home and abroad to U.S. military invasion as a policy option.
While the ultra-right suffered some setbacks during the Clinton years, it did not receive a major lasting rebuff. The election of Clinton led the ultra-right to step up attacks on Democrats, liberals, and all social programs, and to intensify their efforts in a vast right-wing conspiracy. With the election to the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2000, this ultra-right trend took an even further turn to the right, winning a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.
The main problem here is that many of the problems they attribute to the 'ultra-right', such as foreign interventions and anti-labor laws, occurred under and were sometimes even implemented by democrats as well. Democrats were more than willing to pass the Taft-Hartley Act, expanded the Vietnam war, initiated the support of the Afghan mujahadeen, bombed Iraq and maintained the sanctions against that country which led to the death of possibly one million people, bombed Serbia, and handed Bush his Iraq war on a platter while refusing to even consider impeachment for his lying to Congress. I am not trying to deny the existence of this 'ultra-right', but what has the right done that hasn't been either aided or at least unopposed by the 'left'?

The other problem with this general idea is that 'the ultra-right' is not a class. Marxism-Leninism is about class struggle, not focusing on a particular movement on the side of the ruling class at a particular time. For example, it was natural that Marxists worldwide would find themselves fighting Fascism, a movement that deserved the term 'ultra-right' 100%. However, few Marxists ever deluded themselves into thinking that Fascism, in itself, had become the main enemy of the working class in a permanent sense. To do so would be to believe the Fascists' own rhetoric about being a 'Third Way' between Communism and Capitalism. Fascism was a movement used by the ruling class of the 20s and 30s in order to thwart spreading revolution. Today's ultra-right is nothing but a tool of the ruling class; but they do not represent the ruling class as a whole. If anything they serve a very crucial purpose because their loud presence obscures the anti-working class nature of the so-called "mainstream" left. But the CPUSA takes the bait hook, line, and sinker.

It is often a tell-tale feature of revisionism to support the idea of socialism achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means. But the CPUSA is doing them one better- revisionism by proxy. At least when a Communist party runs candidates and wins seats in parliament or joins with a coalition, it at least appears possible to legislate socialism. The CPUSA would like us to believe that somehow electing Democrats is going to bring about all sorts of measures and changes which such candidates never mention. 'Progressives' have been progressively moving to the right for well over a decade, but rather than boost attention for people like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, the CPUSA prefers to back Democratic front-runners. This is beyond revisionism, this is insanity.

What this article really represents is a question that needs to be posed to the CPUSA. Perhaps it needs to be posed directly, by the membership. Namely, 'What the hell are you doing?' What possible benefit can there be from supporting Democrats, which have been proven time and time again to be every bit as planted in the pockets of big business as the Republicans? How can the CPUSA be changed so that it is a Communist Party again, and if it cannot change, is it time to start seeking another party? Until those questions have answers, one thing is certain: The CPUSA's 'Road to Socialism' is nothing but a dead end.


1. Marshall, Scott "Buffenbarger election speech could strip gears of labor unity. (http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/883/1/150/)"

[Plagueround]

Why does there always have to be an enemy according to leftists?

Yes, because those to the "right" of us don't have a history of having to have an "evil adversary" (Indians, Communists, Blacks, Immigrants, and Terrorists seem to be the most popular throughout American history, they just fill in the blank on whichever one is "the enemy").

:rolleyes:

[Coggeh]

Why does there always have to be an enemy according to leftists?
Their isn't an "enemy" in the sense your thinking , we don't look at people and go their the enemy they must be killed or what ever , we want to change and transform society . The way we may use enemy is the same way a right winger would describe a lefty , someone he disagrees with but do they hate each other ? more often than not ..no .

The change we want in society as you probably well know is targeted at a small minute minority of society for the majority of it . People should stop using other political ideologies to describe a group they may hate . These forums like do we hate social-democrats more than neo-libs crap. No for the very fact social democrats are closer to our political ideology stop saying oh their just trying to change society but their lieing to themselves we must hate them ,BS! . The very fact these people are of a political idea that they want to change society for the better is a progressive step and you can do two things , apply your ideas to them in the hope of winning them over or stay locked in your parents basement and play online "revolutionary" dickslapper all day .

[Coggeh]

The question is: How come these leftist, intelligent people are not self-proclaimed anti-capitalists? And just how much of their time (and ours) are they going to waste on reformist issues like "environmentalism", "human rights", and "sustainability"?

Please keep in mind that the capitalist machine grinds on, with markets continuing to operate for pretty much anything that we would find inhumane, harmful or distasteful.


Chris
So human rights , the enviornment and sustainability are all reformist issues now ? I suppose your a total true revolutionary cause you only care about beards .. guns ... and more beards .

[RadioRaheem84]

'Progressives' have been progressively moving to the right for well over a decade, but rather than boost attention for people like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, the CPUSA prefers to back Democratic front-runners. This is beyond revisionism, this is insanity.



Exactly, my point. Did the media really think we were stupid enought to believe that Hillary Clinton was a 'progressive'?



The very fact these people are of a political idea that they want to change society for the better is a progressive step and you can do two things , apply your ideas to them in the hope of winning them over or stay locked in your parents basement and play online "revolutionary" dickslapper all day

Oh get off it! You think some policy wonk Economist reading 'liberal' is going to give two bits about my ideas of why we should get rid of the IMF? "Apply my ideas"? LOL.

The thing is that you and like many in here think that right wing republicans run everything, so it's ok to defend the Democratic party. At the moment, the hard right is in power but they are on the fringe of Washington politics and are trying to "moderate" their party with Mcain. All I was trying to do was address that moderate corporate democrats have more sway over international economic policy than right wingers.

On the other side we have a more likeable approachable Joe with Obama. Yet, while he was busy winning my vote running as a progressive last year, he's suddenly jumped in the middle re-negotiating NAFTA this year.




So human rights , the enviornment and sustainability are all reformist issues now ? I suppose your a total true revolutionary cause you only care about beards .. guns ... and more beards .


In the way they are addressed, yes. Groups that promote solutions for these social ills address the problem like a guy putting neo-sporin on a knife wound.

[Glenn Beck]

Why does there always have to be an enemy according to leftists?

We didn't start this war.

[Glenn Beck]

Exactly, my point. Did the media really think we were stupid enought to believe that Hillary Clinton was a 'progressive'?




Oh get off it! You think some policy wonk Economist reading 'liberal' is going to give two bits about my ideas of why we should get rid of the IMF? "Apply my ideas"? LOL.

The thing is that you and like many in here think that right wing republicans run everything, so it's ok to defend the Democratic party. At the moment, the hard right is in power but they are on the fringe of Washington politics and are trying to "moderate" their party with Mcain. All I was trying to do was address that moderate corporate democrats have more sway over international economic policy than right wingers.

On the other side we have a more likeable approachable Joe with Obama. Yet, while he was busy winning my vote running as a progressive last year, he's suddenly jumped in the middle re-negotiating NAFTA this year.




In the way they are addressed, yes. Groups that promote solutions for these social ills address the problem like a guy putting neo-sporin on a knife wound.


Listen to this guy, he's in the belly of the beast. And alot of these "Economist reading liberal" college students he talks about ARE capitalists, or at least the children of capitalists. I met one who was an heir to the fortune of a major cosmetics company (which I won't name). And he fit the description perfectly. He was nuts for Obama, for "change", read blogs about the exploitation of the 3rd world like Narco News, and yet still managed to be as elitist and venal, complaining about his much lower class girlfriends "dirty" friends, driving around a huge SUV, and refusing to recycle because it was too much work (from a self-proclaimed Obama fanatic bleeding heart liberal!).

These people don't even come close to advancing their OWN professed ideals (a Nation reading latte drinking liberal driving a BMW SUV and refusing to recycle? nice) much less OURS. RadioRaheem84 is absolutely right when he says its the policy wonk liberals running things in the main. The IMF, WTO, and World Bank are FULL of liberal do-gooders who think they can save the world (and get rich doing it) with the latest 3rd world investment scheme, carbon trading, or whatever. Just open The Nation, The New Yorker, or most especially the editorial page of The New York Times.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thank you gonzeau! That's what I have been trying to say the entire time. I was starting to think that maybe most of the people in this forum have never run into this soon-to-be ruling class of people. While a lot of us in here are too busy arguing with conservative midwestern and southern folk with NO POWER or SWAY, we're letting the true power seekers slide by just because they're 'goody-good liberals'.

Stephan Marshalls brilliant new book sheds light onto what I am talking about:

http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Sheeps-Clothing-Liberal-America/dp/1932857427

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: The New Liberal Menace in America

You guys should hear the disdain from these people when I mention Nader, Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders. They love Clintonian-soft style neo-liberalism and faux progressivism. They all love to be enviromentally friendly but want to work at Shell and Exxon. They all hate sweatshops and third world exploitation but RUN at the chance to work at investment firms like Goldman Sachs or conduct research for the IMF.

It's all a charade. The right wing have no real power in this country anymore than the left. All candidates in this nation BEGIN by appealling to either the right or the left base, but END up in the middle with the corporatists.

[Zurdito]

The original post falls for the bourgeois lie that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The US bourgeoisie funds both parties with billions of dollars. Why? Because both are useful to it. If the Republicans served no purpose to the US bourgeoisie, they wouldn't exist.

Our aim is to overthrow capitalism. Do the Democrats stand in our way? Yes. Do the Republicans? Of course they do! How can you actually doubt that?

There's no "liberal conspiracy", that is just a peice of conservative propaganda used to make people believe the Republicans are different to Democrats and somehow less elitist. It keeps up the illusion of choice within liberal democracy, nothing more. Communists shouldn't help spread that bullshit.

[RadioRaheem84]

If I failed to pick up on this charade, its because I have no other means by which to call the people labeled, "liberals".

I never said that there was a liberal conspiracy. I just said that the people who call themselves liberal and support the mainline Democratic party have more sway in DC than Republicans who call themselves conservative. I know this from experience and have seen them at work. Whatever you would call the Establishment, i.e. Clinton types, Papa Bush, New Democrats, Tony Blair and the NY Times is what I am referring to as the true enemy behind the international scene.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity promote their filth on the airwaves and influence a huge portion of the populace but their actions only go so far. And the most they have ever done (which shocked the establishment) is help elect one of the worst presidents of our time. Other than that (and I know its not a small thing), their presense in DC and on Wall Street is small or atleast smaller as the presense of the moderate corporate democrat.

I still stand by what I wrote. I would rather attend a function hosted by Ron Paul (whom I do not agree with whatsoever) on corporate fraud or a Buchananite conservative rally on how globalization hurts the average worker and why we need protectionism, then attend a forum on some buzzword topics like corporate sustainability, and 'making globalization work', hosted by a New Democrat working for a policy insitute funded by the establishment.

Catch me drift?

[Zurdito]

If I failed to pick up on this charade, its because I have no other means by which to call the people labeled, "liberals".

I never said that there was a liberal conspiracy. I just said that the people who call themselves liberal and support the mainline Democratic party have more sway in DC than Republicans who call themselves conservative. I know this from experience and have seen them at work. Whatever you would call the Establishment, i.e. Clinton types, Papa Bush, New Democrats, Tony Blair and the NY Times is what I am referring to as the true enemy behind the international scene.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity promote their filth on the airwaves and influence a huge portion of the populace but their actions only go so far. And the most they have ever done (which shocked the establishment) is help elect one of the worst presidents of our time. Other than that (and I know its not a small thing), their presense in DC and on Wall Street is small or atleast smaller as the presense of the moderate corporate democrat.


You're comparing conservative journalists with ruling class liberals. I could just as easily ask you if you think Michael Moore is more powerful than George Bush.

Likewise, you're just plain worng about "Wall Street": Corporate America funds the Republicans at least as much as the Democrats, and in the last 20 years has if anything supported them more enthusiastically.



I still stand by what I wrote. I would rather attend a function hosted by Ron Paul (whom I do not agree with whatsoever) on corporate fraud or a Buchananite conservative rally on how globalization hurts the average worker and why we need protectionism, then attend a forum on some buzzword topics like corporate sustainability, and 'making globalization work', hosted by a New Democrat working for a policy insitute funded by the establishment.


I would rather attend neither.

Having said that, a Dennis Kucinich rally would mostly likely be more left-wing than any Republican rally, and while I would never vote for him or "critically support" him or sow any illusions in him, at least there you mgiht meet some trade unionists and progressives, something you would never find at a Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan rally. Not saying I would necessarilly go to one.

[spice756]

Is this a joke ?

The conservatives are scum they are backwards ,uneducated ,very ignorant ,brainwash retarts.They are sexism , homophobia , theocracy , anti-welfare and anti social programs , anti-working class ,anti-poor.

And just to dam nosy into people sex life and they are anti-common-law partner , anti-sex out of wedlock , anti- divorce , anti-single moms and amog other things just to dam nosy .

[Sendo]

Please don't call righties mental retards. (It's spelled "retard", by the way.)

Plenty of people who are so-called "slow at learning" are much smarter and wiser than the people you've described. Please don't drag the mentally challenged to the level of GOP nutcases.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this a joke ?

The conservatives are scum they are backwards ,uneducated ,very ignorant ,brainwash retarts.They are sexism , homophobia , theocracy , anti-welfare and anti social programs , anti-working class ,anti-poor.

And just to dam nosy into people sex life and they are anti-common-law partner , anti-sex out of wedlock , anti- divorce , anti-single moms and amog other things just to dam nosy .


Ok, that is a bit too stereotypical. Next thing, we're all godless heathens with no jobs that are envious of the rich and want everyone to be poor and miserable with us!

I have met some pretty smart conservatives out there who are atleast willing to acknowledge that the US is following a global corporatist trend. A lot of them have even agreed with me that we need more protectionism for our industries. As for their social views, well to each his own, I am not going to arugue with them there because they are just to fierce about it.

So maybe before you start calling others "slow, uneducated and backwards", you should check your spelling, mate. That was a pretty horrible looking post.

"retart"? What the hell is a retart?

[spice756]

First may be they have a high IQ in other things but the social views they have are retarded.The US has been very slow at progressing it was not to ww2 women will not allowd to work.It was not long ago women could not vote.In the 60's they put gays in jail.In the 60's was civil rights movement for blacks.

The state had laws on anal and oral sex .In the 60's was KKK that did rape and murder.The police have always pick on blacks and Latinos.Just look at the 1992 LA riots over racial problems with blacks.

In the 60's communists and socialists where puched and kicked and put in jail.The US has more people in jail than any other country (today) for most offenses non violent.Not to say all the wars and invading other countries.I agree the republican and democratic are the same.The only difference is the republican with their crazy backwards social views .

[EvigLidelse]

Why aren't you restricted yet?


Just asking, trying to learn and discuss. In my opinion that's pretty much how it seems to be.

Whatever, we shouldn't take it here since it'll drag the topic OT.

[spice756]

Just asking, trying to learn and discuss. In my opinion that's pretty much how it seems to be.

Whatever, we shouldn't take it here since it'll drag the topic OT.


EvigLidelse are you anti-capitalism ? EvigLidelse do you believe capitalism is bad ? Are you anti-conservatives ?

You posts history does not look good.

Anyways how do we fight this conservatives views ? It seems to me more a faith than some thing that is logical.I believe the media and goverment are brainwashing people with those conservatives views .

[ckaihatsu]

Anyways how do we fight this conservatives views ? It seems to me more a faith than some thing that is logical.I believe the media and goverment are brainwashing people with those conservatives views .



Being a revolutionary is hardly a matter of faith. It's simply about whether you support the working class of the world, which is the source of all wealth in the world, or whether you don't.



I have met some pretty smart conservatives out there who are atleast willing to acknowledge that the US is following a global corporatist trend.


Whether the capitalists organize on nationalist or global corporatist grounds is irrelevant to the interests of the working class -- it's still exploitation.



A lot of them have even agreed with me that we need more protectionism for our industries.


What are "our industries", exactly? This is a bourgeois position, and you're agreeing with an economic nationalist position by agreeing with protectionism.



As for their social views, well to each his own, I am not going to arugue with them there because they are just to fierce about it.


Conservatives represent the interests of wealth, not those of the working class. Therefore they will use strategies that divide the working class on the basis of irrelevant social distinctions, like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

It's worth arguing with them, as opportunities arise, because their racism, sexism, and hate is easily demolished. Whenever they try to pretend that they care about the state of the world, I just note that lavish, no-bid government contracts seem to work out just fine for the rich, so why don't we try the same for the poor? Any argument to the contrary of this would be attempting to divide people on some other basis, and would therefore be a racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful argument.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u