Dear Progressives: You need to hear an Inconvenient Truth

[Political Heretic]

I believe that careful attention to history and the progression of capitalism in America leads one to the inevitable conclusion that we have long passed the possibility of popular revolution resulting in the dismantling of this politico-economic system and its replacement by another system.

Multiple indicators lead me to believe that there is no chance left of a revolt (be it through the ballot box or by other means) by the people leading to the dismantling of our late-capitalist society. One is the fact that despite my intense concern over poverty in the United States, the overwhelming majority of all American Citizens enjoy a quality of life that is many times greater than 90% of the rest of the world. That breeds complacency - few want to rock the boat and risk whatever little life they have carved out for themselves.

Add to this the ruthless effectiveness of late-capitalist propaganda, which Americans are inundated with every second of every minute of every day instilling a complete value system of materialism, personal worth defined by acquisition, the dumbing down of the public through sensationalist entertainment distraction. Think about it, if you ask many Americans about their favorite sports team, you'll be amazed at the level of expertise they demonstrate. Ask the same person about politics, and they are dumb as a post - that's not just the individuals fault. That's also mission accomplished by the intensive propaganda used to sustain this late-capitalist society. Remember that the ideal individual of the public in the minds of a corporate-state society such as ours is one that is ignorant and disinterested in the system, but rabidly interesting in all forms of material consumption.

Mission accomplished.

There are many other reasons why we have passed the historical point when a popular revolution was possible. But this system can no longer be changed by that sort of revolution. The system will only be changed when it collapses under the weight of its own excess. That's it. And we're already seeing this process in action. As wealth continues to be consolidated more and more into the hands of a tiny minority while at the same time the number of those slipping into relative poverty continues to increase - the basic structure of the capitalist economy (that depends on the consumption capability of its working class) continues to falter. Add to that the short-sighted "plunderer" attitude of the corporate-government that continues to adopt short-sighted policies across the entire spectrum generating massive wealth today at the expense of economic, environmental and system-wide sustainability and Capitalism is headed exactly where it was predicted to arrive: at its own destruction.

Because I don't believe that it is possible to have a popular "revolution" that changes the system from within, and feel I have strong evidence to back that opinion - I don't enjoy a love affair with radical candidates for President of this late-capitalist system who base their entire hope of getting elected on the notion that somehow there could be some "mass awakening" within the public, even though we have generations upon generations of evidence to suggest the possibility for that within our society is nil. I don't support Ralph Nader not only because I do not think that man would make a good president, despite whatever his beliefs are, but also because he will never be elected. Ever. Not in this late-capitalist society. That's why I am not voting for a third party candidate. And that's also why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

The system is not going to change until it collapses. Therefore in the meantime I am interested in supporting anyone with a chance of being elected that is most likely to do anything good for the poor. Electing Democrats, even in this broken system, is still better for social justice workers such as myself than allowing Republicans to hold office. They do more to help us in our work to meet needs than Republicans do. You can reply with "no they don't" all you want. I do this for a living. And I can promise you there is never a time when I would rather be talking to a Republican in government than a Democrat when I am trying to get the funding we need for our community and to combat poverty. They're not as good as they should be, but they are better - and better matters when homeless veterans are dying on my streets and we don't have adequate services for them. Better matters. While I wait for the inevitable collapse of this system, those little, incremental positives are EVERYTHING and that is all I care about.

So when I say I'm ambivalent about Obama and FISA, its not because I'm "confused" or inconsistent about what I believe or why. It's because the idealist in me longs for the end of this late-capitalist system, and I wish we lived in a time where we really could have leaders that would take more pure and progressive stances on a host of issues. But we don't. And the part of me that understands that, continues to sincerely hope that Obama will become President over McCain, because I KNOW that real peoples actually lives will be better for it.

[The Magistrate]

1. Hear Hear, Sir! Well Said Indeed!

My hat is off to you.

[clear eye]

85. Hardly, It's a Straw Man Argument

What progressive on DU said they want to replace the government?

[The Magistrate]

99. Not Really, Ma'am, Though If It Comforts You By All Means Cling To The Scare-Crow

Revolution is a good deal more than 'replacing a government': revolution is a profound re-ordering of economic and social arrangements, one small visible sign of which is a change in which hands hold governing authority. There are a number of people on the left who, it is evident from their comments here and elsewhere, seem to feel the aim of political action at present should be change of revolutionary scale in economic and social arrangements, that any political figure who is not aiming at revolutionary change ought not to be supported by people on the left, and is indeed unworthy of support from people on the left, to the point that support for him or her means a person is not really a leftist at all, and who reject completely the idea that consideration of whether change of revolutionary scale is a practical proposition at present should be any any part of anyone's forming a view of whether pressing for change of revolutionary scale is the proper course for political action by the left.

The gentleman's analysis of what the actual political, social and economic situation is at present is an excellent one, and from this sound ground of facing up to what actually is, there flows naturally a prescription for what should be done now that is similarly sound.

[Teaser]

147. oh there are a few

.

[depakid]

2. One thing about McCain: he'll hasten the collapse

which, due to rising petrol and natural gas costs, is inevitable.

Unfortunately, he'd also be a Herbert Hoover....

[Political Heretic]

6. It's the difference between walking or sprinting toward the cliff.

If the leader is walking there, you have more time to get people to safety along the way.

[AndyTiedye]

77. McCain Could Be A Lot Worse Than That

What if he gets angry?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Solon]

3. I don't know about that, what if he turned into another Clinton...

with a welfare-to-work scam?

Of course I find it ironic that you mention revolution and a collapse of the capitalistic system, for if a Democrat is President when that happens, most likely, they would be the first one against the wall, theoretically, or they could be leading the revolution(least likely scenario).

[Political Heretic]

9. TANF was horrible. However, social spending was UP under Clinton - WAY UP.

It's never all good or all bad. Clinton's Welfare sellout to the right blew. But as part of the bigger picture, the budgets under Clinton contained massively more spending on social entitlement programs and federal funds for state and local services than we have today under Bush.

I wasn't working in the field back then -- this I learned by studying social welfare history in graduate school and by, you know, reading and stuff too.

It's fundamental! :P

[Solon]

14. Most of the programs in question were targeting the middle class, not the poor...

I'm not saying the Democrats are worse than the Republicans, but they certainly aren't all that when it comes to what needs to be done to reduce poverty in this country.

[The Magistrate]

12. Working Families' Incomes Still Went Up Under His Presidency, Sir

More people were better off. The view that President Clinton's years in office were some oppressive slogging disaster to be regarded with distaste is not very widespread. The changes in the welfare system he put through may have been less than optimum, but it is hard to argue the previous system functioned well, or even that it functioned better than what was embodied in the new laws.

[Solon]

16. More people also started working more than two jobs to increase their income...

those years also saw one of the largest expansions in the economy, but much of that couldn't be attributed directly to Bill Clinton. There was the technology and Internet explosion that partially allowed that to happen.

[The Magistrate]

18. Quibbles, Sir

When the right man sits on Heaven's Seat, the rains come in their time and the grain ripens and weapons are displayed on walls: when the man on that chair does not hold Heaven's Mandate, the rains fail and the grain withers and weapons are in men's hands. It has been thus for millennia, and people know it in their bones. It is the most basic stuff of political life from the dawn of civilization.

[Solon]

21. True, but its still foolish...

I judge leaders by what they actually do, not because they lucked out that no major crises happened during their tenure as leader.

[The Magistrate]

23. Again, Sir, Quibbles

It takes much more nerve than has been granted me to dismiss as mere foolishness the root understanding of human beings en masse down thousands of years....

[clear eye]

86. Not to the Dual-Job Folks nt

[JoFerret]

80. Another Clinton - surely we can agree

- would be much better than another Bush.

[wyldwolf]

81. Obama states in "Audacity of Hope" that Clinton's welfare reform was good.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

102. He has to say that

"Hard working" whites across the land will freak the fuck out if a black politician has the audacity to criticize welfare reform.

[wyldwolf]

103. just the kind of justification I was referring to in another post

[mrreowwr_kittty]

105. I didn't read the other post and I don't care what it said.

Welfare is one of those 3rd rail issues that's a proxy for racism. Despite the fact that practically no one qualifies for it anymore and it's a pittance if you do get it, it's still one of the top reasons people mention for not voting Dem. If Obama was against welfare reform he could kiss his entire political future goodbye.

[wyldwolf]

106. despite your opinion on welfare issues, you made up something about Obama

[mrreowwr_kittty]

107. I made an observation about the country we live in.

[wyldwolf]

109. post #102. "He HAS to say that." You dreamed that up.

[anonymous171]

4. Wow.

:kick: :popcorn:

[dailykoff]

5. First they came for the progressives..

but I was not one of them..

[Political Heretic]

7. Hopefully it gets down to when they come for "me"

Because that will mean we're only closer to the system collapse - the only way left for there to be "progressive" change.

[dailykoff]

8. Are you still going to be cheerleading when he bombs Tehran?

Because he thinks he needs Hillary supporters or some other deluded calculation?

[Political Heretic]

10. We will be doing less bombing under Obama than under McCain.

*shrug*

[Solon]

11. Where's the assurance of that?

Studying history, Democrats and Republicans have been, more or less, following the same foreign policy plan for decades. Generally speaking, they usually respond to international crises, manufactured or not, by bombing somebody. Where's the assurance that Obama would be any different?

[The Magistrate]

15. So Who Are You Going To Vote For, Sir?

[Solon]

17. The lesser of two evils...

But I'm not going to be blind about it. I'm no lockstepper, nor am I ignorant of history, due diligence is required, whoever ends up in office. I don't trust any of these idiots.

[The Magistrate]

20. So You Have No Real Quarrel With the Man, Then, Sir: You, Too, Prefer Democrats And Sen. Obama....

Do you suggest the gentleman who wrote the piece that began this, or myself, are blind in thought or action?

[Solon]

24. Perhaps not...

Frankly, I'm not sure, making statements like "Obama will do less bombing than McCain" isn't really based in any fact, but speculation, and optimistic speculation at that. Hell, I'm not even sure Obama will get us out of Iraq, much less not start other military adventures during his term as President. We have no assurances here, just speculation. The likelihood of Obama bombing other nations vs. McCain is a matter of minute percentage points, and that's all we have to hold onto.

[dailykoff]

26. LBJ did pretty well as a Dem unabomber.

I imagine Barack could find a way to work bombing Iran into his platform.

[Political Heretic]

31. LBJ also brought us the war on poverty

Nothing is black and white.

[dailykoff]

40. You mean those riots in Watts and Detroit?

Yes, that was quite a war.

[The Magistrate]

50. Right On Schedule, Sir: Yes, Invading Watts And Detroit Was What The War On Poverty Was

It passed both House and Senate by substantial margins, you can read all about it in your library's newspaper morgue: everyone was very clear on the matter at the time....

[Political Heretic]

51. The War on Poverty saw MILLIONS get out of poverty, and was the single most successful anti-poverty

program, along with Medicare/Medicaid - also thanks to LBJ - until it began to be defunded - EVEN with its large problems and obstacles.

[dailykoff]

52. I guess that's why it left every inner city a burned-out hulk.

Somebody saw millions but it sure as hell wasn't the poor.

[Political Heretic]

55. That's the most mind-bogglingly ignorant statement I think I've ever read.

You simply don't know what your talking about.

Seeing as how I just finished writing on the history of the War on Poverty, in a paper that may be published later this year, I am fairly familiar with the historical research on this subject, and more importantly, the hard numbers of how many people moved out of poverty as a result of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

Not to mention Head Start and Medicare and Medicaid which also came from the effort. EOA was defunded by congress and later Nixon, and yes - defunding tends to have a very negative effect on those who were previously beneficiaries.

I think is ironic and slightly sad that you've now been pushed to trashing one of the most progressive social programs in American History just to prove...whatever your point is.

[dailykoff]

62. Go ahead and rewrite history, I'm sure the Heritage Foundation

is dying to make you a star. LBJ bungled everything he touched including the civil rights and anti-poverty legislation Bobby Kennedy handed him.

[The Magistrate]

64. So You Are Accusing the Gentleman Of Being A Rightist Troll, Sir?

As a matter of curiousity, do you actually find that to ever work as forensic device?

Do you find that it leaves an audience convinced your grasp of the subject exceeds that of an obviously knowledgeable opponennt's?

[dailykoff]

69. I'm not accusing him of anything.

I'm saying his rationale for giving Obama a pass on heinous policy reversals is extremely dangerous.

[The Magistrate]

72. Actually, Sir, You Said 'The Heritage Foundation Is Dying To Make You a Star'

Everyone knows the Heritage Foundation is a far right think tank, and so what you are saying by that is that what the gentleman says aligns perfectly with what the Heritage Foundation publishes and otherwise disseminates, which is, again, as everyone knows, hard-right tripe. So yes, Sir, though you may wiggle when confronted with the flat statement all you please, you did call the gentleman a rightist, and here, that means a troll.

[dailykoff]

73. You can be very literal when you want to be.

But I guess that's better than just making stuff up wholesale. Anyway enough mousetraps for one evening, goodnight.

[The Magistrate]

75. Pleasant Dreams, Sir....

[Political Heretic]

68. My you are awfully confused aren't you?

If the Heritage Foundation would be calling anyone, it would be you asking them to be their spokesperson, seeing as how you've been regurgitating their erroneous talking points nearly verbatim on this subject.

There is no rewriting of history. I have twenty five academic sources on hand I can refer you to, with specific statistics on exaclty what the War on Poverty accomplished. That's all I have access to tonight, but I have a feeling that is twenty five more than you have to reference your nonsense.

The War on Poverty was fraught with problems. And LBJ deserves criticism of his part in some of those problems. The fact remains that it lifted millions of people out of poverty, and that the poverty rate dramatically fell over the next ten years - the last time that it would do so at that level...ever to date. Out of the war on poverty legislation also came head start, medicare and medicaid - three incredibly successful programs that have had immeasurable benefits for people in need.

[JoFerret]

79. Please do not display your lack of history

in such an astoundingly silly manner.

Amazing ignorance.

[The Magistrate]

59. So It Is Your View, Sir

That the standard of living of persons at or below the poverty line circa 1960 was unimproved over the next ten years?

And you stand by the statement that the 'war on poverty' consisted of soldiers and police engaging in combat with slum dwellers in major U.S. cities?

[dailykoff]

63. Did I say that?

No, I didn't. Those are your claims plucked from who knows where.

[The Magistrate]

67. You Answered Mention Of The 'War On Poverty' Sir, With 'Watts And Detroit: Yes That Was Some War"

[The Magistrate]

46. Have You Ever Read, Sir, A Book Called 'The Accidental President'?

Truely there is nothing new under the sun.

The next move in this game is to denounce the 'war on poverty' as a sham that brought little if any real benefit to the poor at all, a cynical manipulation to cover profiteering and imperial adventure disguised as opposing Communism, but the moves are more than forty years old....

"That ain't unction, boy, that's petroleum."

[Political Heretic]

53. Anyone who reads at all will be able to recognize that lie.

They might be able to convinced "low information voters" that the War on Poverty was a sham, but there's pretty compelling hard data that is hard to argue with available to all those who claim to value truth and accuracy.

[JoFerret]

82. "Low information voters"

are probably the kind of people behind every significant social movement.

[Political Heretic]

88. I don't think that's true at all, but we have to clarify terms here:

"low information voters" I use as a little bit of a joke at the media term. However, in reality a "low information voter" has nothing to do with class, or even education. It has to do with disengagement. Social movements aren't built by the disengaged.

[JoFerret]

114. I know the difference you mean. You are right.

But - also - social change is not brought about by high information voters with a stake in the status quo.

[The Magistrate]

28. Welcome To My World, Sir....

Standing proudly for taupe in preference to charcoal grey: it is a slightly warmer color, would you not agree?

[Solon]

43. Yes, even if only slightly so...

Just a point of fact, just because this is the reality, doesn't mean we should be happy with it.

[The Magistrate]

54. Who Is Happy, Sir?

It is true that, just as some people enjoy being frightened, and so subject themselves to horror movies and roller-coasters, there are people who enjoy complaining that the world does not shape itself to them, but rather presses insistently in the opposite direction, and so subject themselves to cataloguing and pressing on any who will sit still for it the whole tale of how poorly their desires fit the space available to them. But there is nothing about this that indicates a person of superior discernment or character by compare to persons who do not share that particular taste in outlooks.

[Political Heretic]

30. It's not speculation, its observation.

Obama belongs to the democratic party that, with all of its flaws, has historically (modern history) been less hawkish than the neo-conservative dominated republican party.

Contrast that with not only McCain's party but McCain, who is pretty undeniably hawkish, to put it mildly.

I'd believe the odds are very on Obama's side. Minute percentage points are not is irrelevant. These are our choices. And between them, the choice is clear.

[Solon]

39. There is no evidence to suggest the Democratic party is less hawkish than the Republicans...

Of course, it depends on what you mean by recent, in the past 50 years, both parties have been equally hawkish, its only under Bush the lesser term that the Republicans really pulled away from the Democrats in hawkishness, but again, not by that much, only a few percentage points, if that.

[Political Heretic]

45. No, that is not factually correct.

Through the presidencies of Carter, Regan, Bush Sr. Clinton and Bush Jr. there is no credible argument to be made that the international aggressiveness of the democratic and republican executives were the same.

[Solon]

49. I already mentioned Bush the lesser as a break from the status quo...

of the past, as far as Carter, well, there were some "interventions" during his term, including bombings. Of course, that could have been blamed on his handlers, who lobbied for such things, but still, as Truman said, "The Buck stops here."

Under Reagan, he had the full support of many Democrats for his aggressiveness, same for Bush the first, both had broad bi-partisan support for their military adventurism.

[Political Heretic]

56. What happened to the buck stops here?

When it's Carter the buck stops here, but when its Regan or Bush Sr. its Democrats fault?

[Solon]

61. Did I leave them blameless?

No I didn't, indeed, they are to blame for the aggressiveness itself, however, damn near every Democrat in Congress was also complicit in this, just like now with Bush the lesser.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. if one takes a look at the people influencing Sen. Obama's point of view - they are certainly not

"doves" - but they are not ideologues either

One could certainly argue that both the "realist" "national interest" establishment hawks that influence Sen. Obama and the neoconservative and their Democratic Party equivalents of neoconservatives that influence his main rivals - all reflect an imperial and indeed capitalist world view.

However, the "realist national interest hawks" influencing Sen. Obama do have at least the restraint of their perception of national interest and Machiavellian pragmatism. These are people who do think long and deep about consequences. Thus I do believe we will be significantly less likely to see ourselves in the foolish adventures.

I recall an interview not so long ago with Noam Chomsky where he was asked how does he account for the critique of Bush policies coming from such people as James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. Professor Chomsky answered, "because they are not insane."

That is my hope and expectation of an Obama foreign policy, not that it will bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East, but simply that it will be significantly less insane.

[The Magistrate]

119. An Excellent Point, Mr. Carpenter

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. Are you by chance familiar with Jacob Heilbrunn's book, "They Knew They Were Right:

The Rise of the Neocons"?

link on Powell's Books: http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780385511810-0

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/They-Knew-Were-Right-Neocons/dp/0385511817/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214637105&sr=1-1

Mr. Heilbrunn is himself most definitely a realist Democratic hawk and holds views that I most certainly do not share. However, he does recognize this peculiar strain of thought that is now commonly known as neoconservativism - a strange mix of utopian ideology and the most rabid and un-pragmatic form of old style cold war thinking.

Mr. Heilbrunn does also point out that there are people and strains of this thought in both the Democratic Party and the British Labour Party.

I am greatly relieved that Sen. Obama has by and large stayed clear of these influences. The ONLY reason I have talked up Sen. Webb as a possible V.P. nominee in spite of his occasional personal obnoxiousness is that Sen. Webb loathes the neocons deeply, even if he is coming from a realist hawk rather than a dove perspective.

[The Magistrate]

139. No, Sir, But On Your Report It Does Sound Interesting

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish; the wicked sometimes rest."

[dailykoff]

19. Obama is not the only progressive choice.

If it becomes impossible to vote for him in conscience there is at least one other candidate whose platform is far more progressive. That's an objective fact, not an endorsement.

[The Magistrate]

Can The Gentleman Provide A Name For This Saviour In The Wings?

The name of someone who may actual come into office, and thus bar from office the worst of the available choices?

[dailykoff]

29. I'll give you a hint: a former Democratic rep from Atlanta

twice swiftboated out of office. Let me know if you need more hints.

[The Magistrate]

33. You Mean Ms. McKinney, The 'Green' Candidate, Sir?

Who could not even hold a metropolitan district, yet whom you present as a serious candidate for President.

[dailykoff]

37. She's a serious candidate for president, yes.

That is a matter of record.

[Political Heretic]

41. "serious"

This is some interesting definition of the word "serious" that I was previously unaware of.

[dailykoff]

47. She takes things like human life and the US Constitution seriously.

And I consider those serious matters.

[Political Heretic]

57. And has zero chance of getting elected.

So I don't really care what she takes seriously.

[The Magistrate]

60. Nonesense, Sir: She Treats Them as Playthings, Ornaments For a Game Of 'Let's Pretend'....

[dailykoff]

66. It might appear that way because you disagree with her approach.

But I have yet to hear her say something I disagreed with. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

71. It Appears That Way To Me, Sir, Because She Is Engaged In Great Game Of 'Let's Pretend'

In which she pretends to run for President, while actually embarking on a low rent lecture tour that hopefully will pay her living expenses for the next few months, in the course of which she ornaments herself with various invocations it pleases you, and a few others, to hear. It is not too dissimilar to niche marketing of goat cheese, as not just an exotic comestible, but one that is organic and wholesome and earthy and made by a family of goat-herds in a cool upland valley far from the commercial bustle of modern city life where all is in tune with Mother Earth, and you know it is true because there is a picture of it on the wrapper, and the words say so, right there, under the wizened but smiling face of Papa whatever, next to the six dollars an ounce price tag....

[vireo]

94. I trust organic certification more than I trust Obama

And goat cheese smells better. :evilgrin:

[The Magistrate]

95. Then You Are The Lawful Prey Of The Marketeers, Sir....

[vireo]

98. caveat suffragor

[Political Heretic]

35. Who has zero chance of getting elected.

[Jim Sagle]

74. You mean that worthless piece of Nazi filth?

She wasn't swiftboated, she was U boated...by herself.

[Political Heretic]

25. He's not a progressive choice at all. He is however, the best choice of those who can get elected.

[Solon]

32. "Best" is probably the wrong term to use, "Least offensive" is probably more accurate.

[Political Heretic]

36. Semantics

If once choice is preferable to the other, it is the best choice between the two.

[dailykoff]

34. If his platform becomes indistinguishable from McCain's,

he's going to lose to McCain. So I don't agree at all.

[Political Heretic]

38. You expect him to become Pro-life sometime soon?

[dailykoff]

42. Which one?

It's getting so hard to tell them apart.

[Political Heretic]

58. Nice. Now answer the question.

[dailykoff]

65. I am honestly unaware of either of their positions

but I'm sure they're both open to adjusting them.

[Political Heretic]

70. Well, that tells me a lot about the level of actual information you have on candidates

vs. your entrenched "opinion" and predispositions toward them.

It's not hard to find their positions. Try taking a look.

[demokatgurrl]

96. Anti-choice, please. Sorry to nitipck

but those assholes are not "pro" anyone's life except their own.

[Political Heretic]

118. Yes, thank you.

Yes, that was a poor choice of words.

[clear eye]

87. Deleted

[PassingFair]

93. *shrug* ??? OMG, you win the Ted Rall Award for internet idiocy.

"We will be bombing LESS under Obama..."

:cry:

[Political Heretic]

116. Less is better than more.

And you know it.

[Forkboy]

13. You sound like a cynical progressive.

So...welcome aboard! :toast:

I have one nit-picky disagreement with your otherwise excellent post.

Ask the same person about politics, and they are dumb as a post - that's not just the individuals fault.

It may not be just their fault but, ultimately, even with the endless propaganda, the responsibility has to fall on them and no one else. If we can see through it, if we can educate ourselves, if we can take an interest, so can they, and they should. In the end it's up to each one of us to pay attention, and to do our best to sift through the daily BS we're being spoon fed. I have a real hard time forgiving what I see as a willful ignorance, and by not at least trying to pay attention that's what it ends up being. If they can know so much about their favorite team (and I'm a fairly big fan of more than a few myself) then they have the ability to learn what is going on, and how it may or may not affect them. I believe it's our responsibility as citizens, plain and simple.

K&R :kick:

[anonymous171]

27. Dismantling the corporate media should be one of Obama's top priorities.

Once the corporate media is weakened or eliminated altogether, truly progressive candidates will finally be able to compete without having to go against both the GOP and the media.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Aye! Because that is certainly what is happening....

and the Internet is not available to everyone, and until it is used in the same way as the electronic media and their Corporate Print media partners, disinformation will continue.

To expect anyone to get through that unscathed to win a general election is pretty silly, unless this individual is allowed to garnet as large of a landslide as possible.

Those who think they know and can do better than Barack Obama getting to where we need to be to affect change should run for office.

[Forkboy]

48. As he's a very centrist politician I'm not getting my hopes up.

Though I'm certainly open to being pleasantly surprised one of these days.

[melody]

22. That sounds like the wet dream of our opponents

Yet another tactic I've been expecting from the right -- trying to get them to "vote for McCain" so he can "destroy the GOP". Yes, we had that last time with Kerry, remember?

This is our country. It's our system. It's far, far from perfect, but it's the only heritage many of us have. We need to take control back from the extremists. From then, repair will be difficult but possible. It's not beyond repair, no matter what our enemies would like to think.

[provis99]

76. but at least I can cling to my guns and religion in my bitterness

Oh, and my Budweiser, too.

[Political Heretic]

78. Indeed. And I'm sure you do.

[Orsino]

83. Peaceful revolution is becoming less and less possible.

Unfortunately, we know where that leads. :scared:

[Political Heretic]

91. Violent revolution is even less possible.

Again, because we have past the societal point where people would agree to resort to violence. Social indoctrination has worked extremely well, and in this day in our society there are next to no things that the majority of Americans would truly be willing to lay down their lives for.

I'm sure we're headed toward an increase of incidents of violence. But an organized popular uprising against the system? Nope - we're beyond the point where that is possible. All that is left is for the system to collapse in on itself, and much of the violence will come in that void and wake. It wont CAUSE the fall of the system - it will be an effect of that fall.

[Orsino]

97. I doubt that it will be very organized when it happens.

We'll see a gradual increase in violent uprisings against a government less and less able to quell them. Our government will try to squelch the sharing of information that would permit more organized resistance, and someday this will fail.

[Political Heretic]

117. You base this on what?

"Someday this will fail"

No it won't. We have long passed the point in American social history where this is possible. I hate to break this to you but "the people" are never going to rise up. My comrades on the left too often act as though this "rising up" bit is a guaranteed thing, even though it is the exception to the historical rule rather than the rule. In the case of America - we've missed the window. American indoctrination has been successful, and we now live in a culture that can not and will not organize (you can't organize when you completely lack any sense of community and have been mass encultured with the notion of rugged individuality) and will not put their lives in harms way (for all the reasons I've given in my OP which you don't account for) and in fact will never agree that there is a problem at all.

Due to the structure of this late-capitalist society the only thing that will change this system is the systems self-collapse from its own excess. Those of you holding out hope for the popular revolution are waiting on something that will never come.

[Orsino]

129. Popular revolutions *always* come.

America's government can hasten the inevitable by continuing draconian abuses of power, but I see a longer process as more likely.

edit: I just realized you're making a distinction between the collapse of capitalism and an uprising against it. I see these as intertwined.

[Political Heretic]

138. That's simply historically false.

I don't know what else to say.

[clear eye]

84. Straw Man Statement

As far as I know, no progressives on DU have been asking to replace the government. So you are using a straw man argument to tar us. Yes, I said "us". Progressives are asking for any indication that before making policy, a Pres. Obama will make some effort to understand our viewpoint because there is some, slight chance that we may have something to say that will help the U.S. recover from Bush and improve the economy. With his exclusive reliance on DLC-style economics advisors mostly out of the former Clinton administration, it's been hard to see any sign he will.

[Political Heretic]

90. You are missing the point entirely.

I'm didn't accuse anyone of asking to replace the government. I made the assertion that the only way radical change was going to come was by the collapse of the system, not through some kind of grassroots mass popular mobilization leading to revolutionary change.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[clear eye]

104. I May Not Be Clear on What You Meant, but I Know What You Said

Your title was that progressives need to hear an inconvenient truth, and your opening sentence separated from the body of the post to frame it ended with "the inevitable conclusion that we have long passed the possibility of popular revolution resulting in the dismantling of this politico-economic system and its replacement by another system." Now if that doesn't imply that the progressives are advocates of this "dismantling", I don't know what would. Otherwise why would we need to hear it?

Perhaps you are responding to David Sirota's book "Uprising", but that book advocates thorough reform or overhaul, rather than "dismantling". It's been over 20 years since "progressive" was a code word for "communist". I don't know any Progressives who will not be voting for Obama this year, but we are having a hard time going out and selling him. "Yeah, but he's better than McCain" doesn't really work as an inspirational message. Nor do I think we are out of line trying to pressure him to give real weight to progressive prescriptions for economic recovery instead of leaving it to the corporatists to exert all the pressure. Oddly, nothing in your journal is critical of the constant drumbeat of neo-cons demanding Obama move right and give up the idea of corporate taxation, nor suggests what else we could do about it.

I'm glad the Progressive Democrats of America haven't accepted your "inconvenient truth"/opinion. They might not then have been electing real progressives to the House from many districts across the country, with stances very different from Obama's. Simply throwing in the towel and waiting for collapse without people in place who would know what to do to rebuild such an economy would more likely lead to a Brazil-style disaster in which we become a labor pool willing to work for less than starvation wages, than to a better world. Serfdom lasted a millenium.

Most importantly, asking people in the party not to engage in the political process other than to vote regularly for whomever the Democratic machine throws up because of your opinion of what's "possible", resonates of John Dean's "authoritarian personality". It creates needless polarization in a community which until now has been okay with chaotically going along mixing people who boost Obama and find our concern laughable, with those who have to express our real disappointment with the contrast between the man's rhetoric and the way his policies are shaping up, or bust. The good thing is having the safety of knowing we're speaking almost entirely with others who will also be voting for Obama nonetheless.

[The Magistrate]

110. "I May Not Understand What You Say, But I'll Defend To Your Death My Right To Deny It"

My apologies, Ma'am, but something so close to Mr. Wally Gator's battle cry is an opportunity hard to pass up....

[tblue37]

89. K&R.

Thank you.

[DemocracyInaction]

92. Honey, it was all over after the 60's

My era. The establishment almost lost this country. Ever since there is no chance of any type of protest either gathering steam or being carried on the news. We WERE the news in the 60's and we awakened a lot of people. Now between the conrol of the press (the powerful realized they had made a huge mistake actually letting it be a free press)and the mustering of the local mounties, any and all attempts to have meaningful demonstrations are gone. That is why there are "protest" zones far away from organized crime figures like Bush who are now our government. And about the collapse thing---been watching the markets/oil last few days??? Oil shall bring us down; and you can't stuff your fat face and watch mindless tv when you can't pay for the food nor the cable/dish. The collapse is coming but the people are too ignorant to know what to do to replace it.

[undergroundpanther]

121. you are correct.

People in the 60's were lured by baubles of the new age crap,became inward obsessed in pop psych self improvements..trying to enlighten themselves instead of the original OUTWARD focus of sharing,love and taking care of each other(not simply fuck each other),and radical rebellion in solidarity together and that desire to liberate all,and the guts to take action against authoritarians..the things that began the revolution..

Than when the hippies blinked and the dream slipped out of focus an inward focus took over enhanced by acid trips and new age crap,naturally that abandonment,symbolized by the beginning of"latchkey kids" led to a generation that was disillusioned, vain of disco and gay bashing, and cocaine binges and drinking excesses of the hollowed out self image soul destroying party that had replaced the community .A self hating party till you puke, and smileys, glitter nails,satin shorts and farrah hair, smudged eyeliner insanely tight jeans,falling down sick from too much drunk and hollowness so numb,the game of denial and escape..That was the ugly stuff underneath pop culture in in the 70's,And Jim Jones symbolized the end of the commune and spirituality ..as a viable means of revolt.

After that than came the self for selfishness sake mentality,in the 80's with the yuppies,preppies filling themselves up with the consumer establishment, play the success game.Reagan the asshole,pardoned..and the disorganized punks opposing the yup culture Punks with politically aware anger punctuated with with spikes and wars with racist skinheads,leather and mosh pits metal heads waxing cynical screaming.

The vapid shallow side of sex combined with the whited sepulcher of religion that was already empty of meaning long before madonna said the symbolic truth thast spirituality was nothing more than a fashion, a fetish for many,and donned her bullet bra and rosary.

Than when there was nothing good left in the world was not tainted,came the angst of the nineties,The love of all things dark, the wail of despair,Kurt Kobain, and so many songs of murder,suicide, insanity, torture and rape, Nine inch nails and the downward spiral..And fashion of the day reflected the uncaring reptile mentality and the pain of acceptance and love denied, dragons were everywhere on clothes,as were satanic goats,and so much black. Venom action figure that said"I wanna eat your brains"....and Shorts that could only fit a ten year old kid with porn star written across the ass...

Now we are in the last stages of mourning of a potential long lost..and the decaying memories of what almost was as the 60's winks out as every old hippie grows too old to remember the dream.I was taught the dream by hippy anarchist sisters,I understood it and still find solace in radical writers.

Teens are beating up homeless people because of pervasive boredom powerlessness and dread..Rapper murderers talking over past artists chopped into loops,about bitches and caps in asses.. Real art is fading to death,music is so much of the same death made over pretty..in so many ways.
Reality TV exists because no one wants to risk or invest money in creating anything beautiful or sentimental without a touch of death or dispair in it.Imagination has turned sour.Teens lives are so boring,and insecure, pretending to be a car thief on a video game looks alive more than life does now. Compassion and ability to form meaningful relationships that last, has faded and things that are not funny have become funny.Like watching people fight, getting hurt or dying.Stuff like pedophile jokes(pedobear),jackass,people being sick and why is this supposed to be funny??

In the early 90's things got as morbid and evil fashion and pop culture wise as it could get without it collapsing under it's own pretensiousness..Now the style reflects a deeper pathology, for those that sense it.It reeks of that false desperate soulless optimism of those who can't relate to that dream of so long ago anymore, they are lost..in a miasma of conflicting disconnected meaninglessness they can't assemble into a cognizant whole.They wear peace signs but have no clue of it's history and It seems they dare not risk investing themselves in deep relationships but they fuck all the time and the DRAMA to fill up the holes where love should be but is not there...Fashion is drenched in the joy of death's inevitability ,the cumulation of the unconscious and desire shackled by learned helplessness,looking retro, a symbolic searching for something..lost..

A strange twist in fashion has emerged ,akin to like when a depressed person has finally decided to kill them self and secretly knows it is all done deal,and know they going to go away after the family gathering to die,finally..and they seem to have gotten so much better.. This can actually be the point at which the person has made the decision to suicide the perceived elation is actually relief.

(what is this Relief?) That humanity is going away.

I see this same thing when I see a cute skull.For I have felt it in myself..My drawings of my worst times are now expressed through fashion at the mall. There are girlie pink skulls with heart shaped eyes,guns and knives and hearts and smile faces and peace signs combined on a bandanna.. A massacre
aftermath with cutesy animals with xed out eyes and blood spatter all over the place.repeat love is Death , hug is defeat, and embrace makes the gruesome and sometimes suicidal/relief murder /relation images now are made over as CUTE, but what do they say about meaning?
and they are everywhere....Sigh.
http://www.zazzle.com/death_is_cute_shirt-235485379465581188
http://gizmodo.com/338916/hello-kitty-expands-upon-arsenal-with-ar+15-rifle

I wish so bad the hippies and yippies had not lost hold of the dream..THIS dream..

..And were aware of what was happening to their minds their connections..and not imploded in to drugs and excess, guru bullshit like charles manson and the fear of the fucking authority set in by ,kent state,..Oh I am so sad.

I watched yellow submarine recently,I got it on VHS..and the beauty and innocence and inspiring color drenched beautiful meaning filled ART and music in that movie never fails to make me cry now.
and I just can't bear what has become of each generation that arrives now,the things they find beautiful are so empty so much,its sad what they have internalized.

[GeorgeGist]

100. A country founded on the practices ...

of exploitation, extortion, and extermination of aboriginal peoples, and their lands, is regressive by intent. The means justify the end.

[ulysses]

101. good thing I haven't been awaiting revolution, then. n/t

[Cleita]

108. The two candidates who were focused on poverty,

Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, were railroaded out of becoming serious candidates by a corporate, business friendly press, that eschewed journalism for propaganda and by their own party who seems to have preferred the more corporate friendly candidates. So I don't have much hope for meaningful change from our government even if the Democrats take Washington. Our present Congress is proof of that. I think probably what will happen in the future is that civil unrest will become more and more popular and we will have riots and other types of dissent in the streets until our politicians can no longer ignore their people. Unfortunately, many people will be crushed by the economic and social forces rising before there is meaningful change.

[clear eye]

111. Why Is It We Need to Hear This? nt

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[styersc]

120. I once read a thread on this forum that lauded the Inspirational

traits of Sen Obama.

The thread to which I refer, was posted on March 19, 2008 and referred to the ability of the candidate Obama to lead this nation through necessary change, and argued in favor of his candidacy over that of Sen Clinton. One quotation reads:

"Inspiration is the fuel behind every social change, every positive policy revoultion, every victory won for social justice. History shows us over and over that CHANGE is facilitated by inspirational figures that are able to help rally and mobilize real people"

Now the author of this same thread suggests (on this very thread), "I wish we really could have leaders that would take more pure and progressive stances on a host of issues. But we don't."

Where are the spines in the Democratic Party?

We were promised an INSPIRATIONAL LEADER who would lead us through social change. Now we are told the "inconvenient truth" is that we have to abandon principle to get a super-star elected.

Who would have thought the "candidate of change" wanted us to change, not change the country.

Note: Read fast, the posting of these facts have been deleted twice thus far.

[The Magistrate]

124. The Two Quotes You Muster, Sir, Are Not Contradictory

[styersc]

125. You have suspended logic for a cult.

One statement claims to identify an inspirational leader with the rare ability lead the population to revoultionary change.

The next statement, 3.5 months later, claims that revoultion is impossible and we have to give up our hopes for real change to get a personality elected.

Anyone who is willing to give up their beliefs for the love of a personality never had sincere beliefs to begin with.

[Political Heretic]

127. No, it doesn't.

Actually neither post says what you paraphrase it to say.

[The Magistrate]

132. People Have Accused Me Of Many Things, Sir, But Substituting Emotion For Reason Is A New One

Generally comments run towards the opposite, strongly....

The first statement you quote is a statement of the general case, that inspirational leadership is, if not an essential, then certainly a leading factor, in producing any change in societal arrangements. It speaks to the whole range of degrees and fields in which change can occur. It does not invoke revolutionary change specifically, nor does it even identify inspirational leadership and change with a progressive direction, though in context that is implied. It is worth pointing out that inspirational leadership also springs up on the reactonary side, and has kindled highly retrograde societal change on occassion.

The second statement you quote speaks to the specific case of the particular time and place we find ourselves in today. It outlines the limits of what is likely obtainable at present, and the best choice among the alternatives actually available.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[Political Heretic]

126. There is change within the system and there is changing the system.

I proudly own up to my previous post, and I believe my comments in this OP remain true.

We've had all kinds of examples of limited change within the system, and the changes could amount to significant improvements in the lives of some.

This socio-political system has a limited amount of room to move back and forth from left to right within a set, narrow spectrum.

Inspiration is the fuel behind any positive thing that gets done. Where you think you see a contradiction, is because you imagine the positive policy, victories won for social justice or social change as large changes. I don't.

My point was that anything good that gets done - however small - has inspiration as its fuel. And I'd rather support someone capable of bringing small incremental change than not support anyone at all, support someone who can not win, or support someone with policies diametrically opposed to mine.

There is a spectrum of change possible within this political system. It isn't much, but its there. But then people start being outraged about why we don't elect a candidate that will make a department of peace, or institute a nation-wide living wage, or instantaneously created a nationalized single-payer health system, apparently by decree, or why we don't have a president that repeals corporate personhood, regulates the economy, and on and on.

These things are not possible unless 300 million Americans demanded it, and demanded it so strongly that they shut down the business of America. It is TOO LATE for that to happen in our late-capitalist society. Thus those things will only ever have any hope of happening after this political-economic system arrives at its natural conclusion - collapse from the weight of its own excesses and greed-driven short sightedness.

In the meantime I am firmly committed to changes that can by had within that narrow spectrum of this existing system, which is why I support Barack Obama.

Change we can believe in, is change in the lives of real americans in my neighborhood for the better. And the work I do is made easier under democrats than under republicans. Period.

[Psyop Samurai]

122. Amazing post, and unfortunately, I agree...

The window has closed. Realistically, we can only seek to ameliorate the suffering.

It was far from inevitable, however..., at least, not in the way that many would have you believe.

The window has closed because people bought the memes of inevitability. In fact, I've personally witnessed people go from "inconceivable" to "inevitable" with nothing in between. Nothing. That is indicative of either extremely effective mind control or extreme psychological weakness. Or both.

The regime of the satanic puppet king in all its obvious, naked glory was our opportunity -- a veritable gift -- but there was no one to receive it. There was nothing left of the majority of people but a hollow shell void of genuine moral or intellectual foundations, or, worse, there had never been any to begin with.

And I don't mean the brownshirt kool-aid drinkers that were clearly weaponized against us. They were always a minority meant for us to focus on, while being self-satisfied in our obvious superiority.

Think "Bush is stupid" jokes, while going to any length to cover the sickening stench of satanic murder, and you'll get an indication of what has sealed our fate.

Look at the bright side, though. Millions of people haven't offended anyone, and nobody thinks they're crazy.

[Political Heretic]

128. "Realistically, we can only seek to ameliorate the suffering" - thank you, well said.

[blindpig]

130. Truly a tribute to "Lesser Evilism".

Revolutions are not 'waited for', they are made. Truly, some times are more suited than others, but that is no reason not to begin preparing now. Organizing the masses is not something done during a revolution, it is done beforehand, if there is to be any chance of success.

It is so-called leftists like you who act as gate keepers to prevent significant action. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the Democratic Party.

The longer we wait, the worse it gets.

[The Magistrate]

133. Actually, Sir, Revolutions Pretty Much Are Waited For

Real social revolutions, as opposed to things like nationalist uprisings against foreign overlords, secessions, and proxy wars conducted by major powers in petty states, that are often mis-titled as 'revolutions', occur only when the ruling system is collapsing on itself through some combination of mis-management and external shock. The people and bodies who then appear to be directing them and to have planned them are actually mere surfers on a wave arising wholly independent of them, and which of them bobs up to the top is largely a matter of chance. History being written afterwards, in light of actual outcomes, inevitably exagerrates direction and influence and cannot avoid presenting as intended, even inevitable, what is actually almost wholly contingent and largely accidental.

The fact is no competent ruling elite in a well-managed and not over-strained state ever has or ever will permit organizing of the masses to a point where a revolution could be sprung upon it. It is never until the ruling elite is already unable to prevent its occuring that the masses are ever actually organized under revolutionary leadership to the capability of effective revolutionary action. Nor will the masses ever consent to being organized under revolutionary leadership until there seems some reasonable hope of success in the desperate enterprise, no matter what the degree of their oppression and discontent.

[Tech 9]

135. That's a nice schema

but stripped of all the verbiage, can you just tell us what you're counting as a "Revolution" and what falls under "mis-titled"? Historical examples I mean.

As an example, I'm trying to figure out how your elaborate criteria categorize Saint Just. Just as one example.

[The Magistrate]

137. The French Revolution, Sir, Was A Genuine Social Revolution

It grew from a condition in which the state was very poorly managed, run by fools, and subjected to the external strain of long and unsuccessful war. Roughly half the final budget of the Bourbons went for debt service, which is about as frank a confesson of governmental bankruptcy in every sense as is possible. France had been on the losing side of mid-eighteenth century wars, and in the nearest thing to a victory, the rebellion of England's American possessions, had lost the greater part of its battle-fleet. Prior organization had little mass effect; risings commenced as part of the old jacquerie tradition, and mass organzaton was not a feature until the deadlock of the Estates General. The revolution, when it came, aimed explicitely at a complete re-arrangement of the economic and political and social order of the country.

The failed Irish Rebellion of 1798 is a pretty pure Western case of a nationalist uprising against foreign overlords. No particular breaking strain was present (a much worse strain came in the Famine half a century later) and the rule was not inefficient and bungling, but recent events in the world had spread the feeling success was possible, and victory in early small-scale outbreaks fed this to produce a mass rising.

The 'American Revolution' was actually a secessionist outbreak. The aim of its leadership was far from a re-arrangement of the economic and political and social order, but rather its maintainance, only in a condition of political seperation from Parliament and the Crown.

The overthrow of Somoza is a recent example of a proxy war in a petty state. Its sparking, and its outcome, were wholly conditioned by the actions of the U.S. and the Soviets in the titanic struggle of the Cold War. Without Soviet assistance via Cuba the thing could not have succeeded in the face of U.S. support for Somoza, and without President Carter's withdrawing of support for Somoza, probably would have failed. The further phase of 'contra' conflict was similarly wholly contingent on Reagan's commitment of the U.S. to resuming its previous stance regarding the place.

[Tech 9]

140. The end of the feudal system was a Revolution, right?

[The Magistrate]

153. Exactly, Sir

And for continental Europe, the French Revolution was pretty much the coup de grace of the Feudal system.

It is pretty difficult, actually, to point to a successful revolution against the Capitalist system. Russia was at most a system in early stages of transition to Capitalism, and predominantly feudal in social feeling and organization in 1917; China in the first half of the twentieth century was a 'feudal system' (though the parallels are far from exact) in the final throes of a prolonged collapse. What actually has occured is a degree of reform of Capitalism, mostly through the agency of Social Democrat parties of the sort one faction of nineteenth century Socialists denounced as 'Collaberationists'....

[Tech 9]

156. I don't think I've properly expressed

how lame I think your "system" is. I don't even have any idea what we're debating here. I thought your premise that most things happen out of "necessity" as opposed to some Nietzchean fantasy that would do Batman proud or maybe something taken straight from the anals (sic) of Georges Sorel and tailor made for Hollywood scripting, is superb.

But I don't really understand the whys or wherefores of the distinctions you're making -- and I'll just set aside my disagreements with your specific commentary. Who called the Irish Rebellion a revolution in the first place? I realize that the term "revolution" gets slapped onto events rather haphazardly, but are we really so challenged that we need a whole axiomatic system to be able to tell what's what?

It seems to me that the character of each event in itself supercedes any sort of tacked on taxonomy we might try to apply. I guess for "pop knowledge" purposes it might matter, but who fucking cares at that point?

Further, the whole enterprise sort of goes to pieces when you cite the equivalent of "managerial incompetence" as the primary cause of a Revolution. Wha..?

[The Magistrate]

159. Then Study Of The Topic Is Recommended, Sir

It is a vast and fascinating one.

And yes, like it or not, the competence of the rulers at their task is a most important factor in both the commencment and the success of revolution. About the only thing of nearly so great an importance is the attitude of the state's armed forces. Revolutions neither arise from nor succeed owing to oppression and injustice: these things are continuous, the more or less normal state, and if they were the prime contributing factor, revolution would be continuous, and frequently successful. Yet it is neither.

[Unvanguard]

136. A question for you.

You intend to organize the masses, but how exactly do you intend to do any such thing?

Most of them, you must admit, do not have a revolutionary consciousness, and are not even close to one; they are not desperate, they are loyal to their government, they approve of capitalism and think the alternatives are crazy and would be disastrous.

So how will you convert them? What meaning do your radical arguments--or mine, or any other leftist's--have to them? Why would they listen to you? Why should they listen to you? They have their own lives to lead, their own troubles to deal with.

Indeed, the political inclinations and consciousness they have, you must tell them to dispense with--it is just "lesser evilism", reformism. They will surely wonder what kind of ally you are, you and your friends of the people, who insist that the struggles that might--however marginally--actually directly improve their daily lives right now are worthless. People want better access to health care, and well-protected abortion rights, and an end, however gradual, to the Iraq War; they expect, quite rightly, that Obama will be more inclined to bring them these things than McCain. You can tell them that this is just "gate keeping" all you like; it won't change those simple facts. All it will do is reinforce in their mind the perception that radicals are irrelevant and unconstructive.

The Left, where it has managed to create mass movements and enact substantially progressive change in democratic societies, hasn't done it by chanting for revolution; it has done it by being grounded in the present, in the real world, by organizing people around achievable goals that may be far from the ideal, but are real and concrete. It has done so, often, without abandoning its ultimate goals of social transformation.

Can such a transformation be achieved that way? I don't know; its track record for that ultimate standard of success is certainly not good. But leftist social revolutions have without exception ended disastrously, and in any case there is nothing to indicate that there is any real hope of launching one in this country, or in any other democratic society where the means exist for the people to demand reforms.

[Tech 9]

141. Pretty please won't you give up?

That's really what your post is asking here.

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote after sentence one in a variation of Marx's quip that "the only correct way to meet the ridiculous is with ridicule" (paraphrase). In this it becomes "the only fitting way to meet the ignorant is to ignore it".

I'm also going to ignore the contradictions between your username (anti-communist?), avatar (anarchism lol), what your post really says (reformist defeatism) and your rhetoric (schizo).

But there's a bigger point of irony here that I will address. You ask:

You intend to organize the masses, but how exactly do you intend to do any such thing?

Your sig (half of it) reads:

Solidarity with all immigrants

You answer your own question here. The only way to organize the workers is to organize the workers, ALL the workers. Labor unions are going to have to go global.

As an aside, it is wholly fitting that your quote of choice to make an anti-capitalist statement is from none other than Adam Smith.

Sorry for this interruption. You can go back to BEING a nervous breakdown now.

[Political Heretic]

142. Global Labor Unions - theorize for me, how this happens.....

I could say the only way to make things better is for aliens to comedown and shit dancing unicorns out of their asses and it would have the same feasibility as what you just said.

Give up? No. But instead of fixating on impossibilities how about actually doing something right now? I left my job working in the hi-tech field for a Fortune 100 company, went back to school and got my Masters Degree in Social Work - and now I've been through bankruptcy and get by purely day to day, but I've worked as a community organizer helping marginalized populations in my community fight for the things they deserve, worked to connect low-income and homeless individuals and families with direct social services including shelter, food, long-term housing options, legal aid, medical care and long term case management in my community - and all I plan to do with the rest of my working life is work with the countless groups of people out there making a real difference in real communities and real peoples lives. Will it be large? I don't care. If I help one person, that's one human life actually made better, which is one more than all the talk, talk, talk has managed to do.

What do you do? Anything other than sit around and talk about how ALL the workers of the world "should" unite?

I'm actively working for POSSIBLE change that impacts REAL people.

You're talking about IMPOSSIBLE change that is completely hypothetical and abstract with no plan for execution and no responsibility for you to actually go do anything other than pound on your armchair - not to mention woefully ignorant of actual social, political and economic reality and history.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

158. You avoid answering the question by breaking DU rules and insulting me.

So I ask again, what are you doing to work for change, other than sitting at a computer ranting about how it sucks because no politician is pure enough?

Anything else?

I'm amazed that you would devote such a long post to insulting me for pointing out that I'm actually busy doing something to affect actual change in real people and in my community... kind of hit a nerve there, did I?

So what do you do to match your rhetoric? Anything?

[Unvanguard]

145. Come on. Is that really the best you can do?

First, the "contradictions" you're pretending to ignore: vanguard politics are a tactic of Leninism, not communism as such, and anarchists have long criticized them. (Not that we don't have our own varieties, which pose similar problems.) As it happens, "Unvanguard" is actually more of a joke than a political statement, but explaining it is even more of a digression than the rest of this is.

I tend toward both anarchism and communism, but, in a way you seem to find inconceivable, I do not let my understanding of what would constitute an ideal society interfere with my understanding of what the reality actually is, and what can be achieved in its terms at the moment. These are two very different questions.

As for quoting Adam Smith, you're actually right--it's quite fitting that I would quote him. People who aren't inclined to agree with socialist politics generally aren't inclined to pay much attention to (say) Marx; quoting him is virtually always preaching to the choir. But Adam Smith is recognized as a foundational theorist of market capitalism, and to note the ways, which are many, in which he recognized truths that the advocates of "laissez-faire" prefer to ignore today can be very useful when it comes to actually convincing people and not just repeating revolutionary rhetoric that makes you feel good.

Ironically, organizing labor unions is exactly the kind of thing that fits well into the framework I have advanced: it is achievable, it is concrete, it improves people's lives long before any distant revolution. However, it is also "reformist" in exactly the same ways electoral action is: it contributes to a "kinder, gentler" capitalism rather than simply ushering on the revolution. Revolutionary leftists have long recognized this point. Perhaps you, too, are indulging in "reformist defeatism."

As it happens, I would draw a distinction between a purely reformist praxis that looks toward a "reformed" regulated welfare capitalism as an end, and an evolutionary socialist praxis that looks toward socialism as an end, but is willing to approach it gradually, through concrete immediate gains. Marx himself didn't believe the means of production would be immediately expropriated the moment the working class gained political power (which, in democratic countries, he was willing to accept could happen peacefully and electorally); his list of immediate policy proposals in the Communist Manifesto is actually relatively moderate.

[Tech 9]

146. The "currents" you still see haven't

mattered in like 80 or 90 years. "Anarchists" criticizing Leninism? Yeah, I think I remember that coming from Malatesta or something. Marx is irrelevant not because he's wrong but because he's unpopular or because he's "unconvincing" to every dumbass who comes down the pike? Wow, you may have found a way to shift from neutral to reverse there..

You're calling me tired and dry and them polemicizing against Leninism? You're just trying to make me feel bad.

Look the reformism and defeatism aren't because you advocate labor unions (which you only tacked on in your second post). The reformism is advocating Obama without a grounded analysis of what Obama signifies in the here and now. To actually make a case for support of Obama (even critical support although you don't do Leninism so I guess that's out) you have to say at least a few words about Clinton (Bill), Carter, RFK, and JFK. Because that's exactly what you'll be getting, redux.

The sectarian crap has gotten to the point that its mumbo-jumbo, dude. There are no Stalinists anymore. There are Maoists but its a long way removed from what we're talking about (unless you want to count Alain Badiou). There are no anarchists, nihilists, or whatever other crazy separtist groups you can come up with. There are still Trots but that's congenital. Even if all those groups still represented markedly different currents within the left, we'd have to go to work uniting them into one organized socialist left group.

The problem with you is you've picked up some bad slang from the kids at school -- "electorally", "democratically", "peacefully". You should work on your tells because its easy to read that you've got a low pair at best and I'm calling your raise. What are you gonna do tell me about the situation in Nepal or something? Oh, I forgot those are dirty "Maoists".

[Unvanguard]

150. I don't believe I've been "polemicizing against Leninism."

What on Earth are you talking about? I clarified the meaning of my username, because you saw fit to bring it up for your own reasons. I'm not going around tossing "red fascist" about.

And where did I say that Marx was irrelevant? I said that quoting Marx wasn't very convincing; for most people, he isn't much of an authority on anything, except maybe his own ideology. Marx's theory is, in some respects, still quite relevant.

As far as a "grounded analysis of what Obama signifies", I'm not sure that means much of anything in context. The point of the starter of this thread is that revolutionary politics have no grounding in what is realistically possible. The point of blindpig's reply was to suggest an alternative to this "lesser evilism": organizing people. My point was that the people are not going to be organized on revolutionary grounds; if you want to organize, you're going to have to do it with an eye towards immediate objectives in the present, which by necessity are going to fall far short of overthrowing capitalism. And this, it seems to me, is perfectly consistent with the OP's line of argument.

If what you're trying to claim is that history proves that support for Obama will accomplish nothing, then you'll actually have to support that argument; Obama's statements, and his record of action in the Senate, both speak for the fact that he is substantially more progressively-inclined than McCain, and the record of the Democratic Party in office since at least FDR shows that it is consistently more willing to enact left-oriented social reform than the Republicans are.

Edit: As for socialist unity, it's not necessarily a bad idea, but since all kinds of socialism are extremely marginalized in this country, it rather misses the point.

[Tech 9]

152. We now return you to your originally scheduled program

of lesser evilism

[Unvanguard]

154. I'll go with lesser evils over greater evils any day.

That's life.

I'm not sure what there is to gain by ignoring reality.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

161. Well, that may be how it works around here,

where many are inclined to believe anything that they want to hear coming out of a politicians mouth, even if that's not what they're really saying. But DU does not represent the majority, the 50% of the electorate which doesn't bother is more representative of the working class view. To those folks politician's promises are ass wipe, they've heard it for years and nothing gets better. If you think that any of those 'wants' that you mentioned will be adequately addressed by the next administration, whoever it is, I got a bridge to sell ya.

Your judgement on previous socialist revolutions fails to take into account the tremendous external pressures inflicted upon them by capitalist states, fails to consider the wretched condition of Russia in 1917 and apparently ignores the Cuban Revolution, which is now leading the world on the path to sustainable survival.

Compromise, adopting the social democratic or parliamentary communist models has consistently lead to being co-opted, diluted, castrated and uselessness. The socialists of France and Italy, the Greens of Germany, the Social Democrats of 1914 Europe, read 'em and weep. As long as you're playing the Man's game he's got you in a box. Time for something different. We have no choice, it's socialism or barbarism.

[Tech 9]

131. Some people are saying that..

the difference between Obama and McCain is the same as that between polio and cancer. I think that's mistaken though. Its more like the difference between a high fiber, low sodium shit sandwich and a lo-cal no fat shit sandwich.

Decisions, decisions..

Get a fiddle, the fire in the air rolls over a city near you any day now

[styersc]

143. Obama supporters are as much to blame as Obama.

In a flash Obama has gone from a "New Kind of Politician" who possess inspirational qualities that can lead us through revolutionary change to a poll watching panderer who will throw progressives and progressive principles under the bus for a few votes and no Obama supporter is willing to hold his feet to the fire. Worse, they are rationalizing his hypocrisies and demanding that others lower their expectations and ideals.

Please note for future reference. Obama is absolutely not a progressive. His failings should not reflect on the future or reputation of those who are truly working for progressive change. It is obvious, however, that Obama is going to be cast as a liberal/progressive president and every one of his failures will injure us. And when it happens you can already predict what his apologists will be screaming, "Racism...," "The CLintons were out to get him..." "The mainstream media....". But in reality it was Obama's betrayal of his base and the base's cheery willingness to let him do it.

[butterfly77]

134. KICK! and recommended...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

148. Of course you realize...

that electing Democrats (especially progressive ones) will delay the date of the collapse of the capitalist system indefinitely. We had a chance there back in 1928 to see a meltdown of capitalism, but Roosevelt came in and saved the system with the New Deal. Similarly, a President like Barak Obama is going to "sand down" the rough edges of our current capitalist system that have grown up over the last few decades, thus ensuring its stability and hegemony for another generatoni.

[barack the house]

149. Exactly what I posted earlier but far more detailed and eloquent...

I wouldn't say capitialism necessarily is evil only depending on how unrestrained it is.

[kpominville]

151. System won't collapse, our Liberties will.

I agree with you about the concentration of wealth in this late capitalist society, but I disagree with you that the system will be destroyed when the inevitable collapse comes. What is collapsing is not the system, but our liberties that have thus far protected us from the worst abuses of the System. Too many in our society have been trained to live in fear and to accept being governed in secret. They will not stand against what they currently perceive as the hand that feeds them. When the collapse comes, it will be the Constitution that finally crumbles from atrophy. When it crumbles it will not be a thundering boom heard around the world, it will be as quiet as a whisper. And when it finally happens, the full weight of the System we have created will come down upon the shoulders of the masses and only then will society finally wake up from our narcissistic complacency but by then of course, it will be too late... and that is the whole point.

It is a principle tenet of modern American Conservatism that stability is the highest goal of society. Of course this is because they define "social stability" as the ability of those with wealth and power to keep their wealth and power.

A society with a small ruling elite and a large base of working poor is inherently stable. That is why it is so damn hard to throw them off once they get entrenched and why it seems so easy for free societies to be undermined from within. Social mobility is considered a threat to social stability. That is why conservatives oppose social programs and organized labor, because they protect social mobility and thus threaten social stability.

I agree there is a collapse coming, but I don't think it is going to be those who posses the concentrated wealth and power who suffer when it happens.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, speech at the Pennsylvania State House, August 1, 1776

[Political Heretic]

157. The system will collapse. Every single system in history has.

[LWolf]

160. That's an intriguing idea.

I was with you until the part about Obama. If we can only end it by allowing the system to self-destruct, and we see it self-destructing right now, either Obama won't make a difference, at which point there's no point in voting for him, or he will, at which point we'd actually be voting to slow the process with no possibility of stopping it.

It seems like it would be a blessing to get it over with, if that's what we must do. Unless you think that a kinder, gentler destruction will somehow benefit us.

[The Magistrate]

162. The Complete Collapse Of An Economic And Political System, Ma'am

Generally entails a quantity of starvelings and corpses many find distressing....

[LWolf]

163. Yes.

If, for the sake of discussion, you accept the OP's premise, the question is this:

Which shift causes the least suffering, long term? Quick and harsh, or a "kinder, gentler" version of destruction that extends the suffering over a longer period?