Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:57 AM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and LeftistsLast edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1) Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists Source: http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/16/rise-of-the-unholy-alliance Ron Paul, Edward Snowden, & Ralph Nader together?!? This should be fun at DU... ![]() ![]() ![]() The author, Thaddeus Russell, also covers the Snowden leaks, the aversion of US military action in Syria, Greenwald's reporting on such issues, etc. The whole article is worth a read, though I feel like I posted the four best paragraphs above. I think that Russell enjoys being a gadfly to both establishment Republicans and Democrats. In so doing, he certainly glosses-over the very real threats to New Deal Programs (especially Social Security and SNAP) and other important government regulations (environmental laws, etc.) posed by Koch-funded wolves in libertarian clothing. Nonetheless, until mainstream Democrats return to the democratic progressivism that made the Party great in the past, there is a very real vacuum that libertarians can and will fill. I would prefer that Democrats stand-up for core principles of freedom and justice, but will still cheer the principles whether the actions are led by people wearing the "L" jersey or the "D" (or "S," etc.). -app
|
65 replies, 5415 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | OP |
MohRokTah | Aug 2014 | #1 | |
L0oniX | Aug 2014 | #6 | |
KittyWampus | Aug 2014 | #13 | |
L0oniX | Aug 2014 | #16 | |
MohRokTah | Aug 2014 | #22 | |
L0oniX | Aug 2014 | #29 | |
MohRokTah | Aug 2014 | #32 | |
L0oniX | Aug 2014 | #42 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Aug 2014 | #52 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #17 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #9 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #18 | |
MNBrewer | Aug 2014 | #19 | |
MohRokTah | Aug 2014 | #21 | |
MNBrewer | Aug 2014 | #36 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #45 | |
Nuclear Unicorn | Aug 2014 | #53 | |
conservaphobe | Aug 2014 | #2 | |
JaneyVee | Aug 2014 | #34 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #43 | |
AZ Progressive | Aug 2014 | #3 | |
DireStrike | Aug 2014 | #4 | |
L0oniX | Aug 2014 | #5 | |
Thinkingabout | Aug 2014 | #7 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #8 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #24 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #38 | |
JaneyVee | Aug 2014 | #35 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #39 | |
Number23 | Aug 2014 | #44 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #46 | |
Number23 | Aug 2014 | #48 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #50 | |
Number23 | Aug 2014 | #51 | |
joshcryer | Aug 2014 | #55 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #58 | |
Eleanors38 | Aug 2014 | #60 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #10 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #11 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #12 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #15 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Aug 2014 | #33 | |
PowerToThePeople | Aug 2014 | #14 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #20 | |
TheKentuckian | Aug 2014 | #23 | |
PowerToThePeople | Aug 2014 | #25 | |
socialist_n_TN | Aug 2014 | #27 | |
woo me with science | Aug 2014 | #30 | |
Eleanors38 | Aug 2014 | #61 | |
socialist_n_TN | Aug 2014 | #26 | |
appal_jack | Aug 2014 | #31 | |
socialist_n_TN | Aug 2014 | #41 | |
joshcryer | Aug 2014 | #57 | |
socialist_n_TN | Aug 2014 | #62 | |
joshcryer | Aug 2014 | #63 | |
socialist_n_TN | Aug 2014 | #64 | |
joshcryer | Aug 2014 | #65 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Aug 2014 | #28 | |
agbdf | Aug 2014 | #37 | |
AverageJoe90 | Aug 2014 | #56 | |
Matrosov | Aug 2014 | #40 | |
JoePhilly | Aug 2014 | #47 | |
Cha | Aug 2014 | #49 | |
Union Scribe | Aug 2014 | #59 | |
AverageJoe90 | Aug 2014 | #54 |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:58 AM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
1. Anybody making common cause with Libertarians is no leftist.
They are not liberal.
They are not progressive. There are two words to describe them. Lying Libertarians. |
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:31 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
6. Anybody making common cause with corporations is no Democrat.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:53 AM
KittyWampus (55,894 posts)
13. our small family business is a corporation as most small family businesses.
So your post is ridiculously vague.
|
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:56 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
16. You know I ain't talking about small family businesses. pffft
Response to L0oniX (Reply #16)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:41 PM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
22. Yes, you were.
You used the word corporation. Every small family business is a coprporation.
|
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #22)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:12 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
29. Been calling Miss Cleo for info on what I think?
![]() |
Response to L0oniX (Reply #29)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:18 PM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
32. Doesn't matter what you "think"
If that's what you "thought", it certainly wasn't what you SAID.
|
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #32)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:31 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
42. Yea I should have made it more clear since some tend to strive to take shit how they want to.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #42)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:14 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
52. I understood that you were referring to the rent-seeking corporations.
It was so obvious it took special effort to say otherwise.
And you were also correct. |
Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:00 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
17. +100000
|
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:43 AM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
9. And the Speed-(non)-Reading Award goes to MohRokTah!
And the Speed-(non)-Reading Award goes to MohRokTah! One whole minute to jump to unfounded conclusions! Has any knee jerked this fast in history?!? Stay tuned, race fans...
Democrats who draft secret corporatist trade agreements (i.e. Clinton & Obama re TPP, TPIP, TAFTA, etc.) are not liberal, and in fact are a greater threat to the New Deal than any libertarian. Democrats who approve of torture, panopticon-levels of warrantless surveillance, rendition, and assassinations are not progressive. They are more of a threat to the Constitution than any libertarian. -app |
Response to appal_jack (Reply #9)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:01 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
18. "Democrats who approve of torture, panopticon-levels of warrantless surveillance, rendition...
Democrats who approve of torture, panopticon-levels of warrantless surveillance, rendition, and assassinations are not progressive. They are more of a threat to the Constitution than any libertarian.
Thank you. |
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:07 PM
MNBrewer (8,462 posts)
19. Even when the outcomes ARE liberal? ARE progressive?
Or is working across the party line just TOO MUCH TO STOMACH?
What bull shit. |
Response to MNBrewer (Reply #19)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:40 PM
MohRokTah (15,429 posts)
21. The outcomes in such situation will NEVER be liberal or progressive. eom
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:26 PM
MNBrewer (8,462 posts)
36. How? "by definition?"
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:56 AM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
45. Had you read the article...
Had you read the article, you would have seen the author's very concrete examples of distinctly liberal outcomes brought about by a left-libertarian coalition: stopping US military action in Syria, legalizing herb in CO and WA, etc.
So what was that about NEVER again? Kick for the morning crowd. -app |
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:17 PM
Nuclear Unicorn (19,497 posts)
53. How would opposing corporate bailouts NOT be liberal or Progressive? nt
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:02 AM
conservaphobe (1,284 posts)
2. I base my vote solely on economic issues.
The biggest problem in my life is not being able to find a job and Democrats (when they act like Democrats) are far better at creating them.
So I will never ally with libertarians, no matter how many drugs they promise to legalize. |
Response to conservaphobe (Reply #2)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:45 PM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
34. A voice of reason. We are mostly winning the day on
Social issues already without Libertarian help. It's the Libertarian economic agenda that we should all fear.
|
Response to conservaphobe (Reply #2)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:20 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
43. I agree that economic issues are of great importance right now.
I agree that economic issues are of great importance right now, and this is one of the many reasons why I remain a registered Democrat who votes straight-Party far more often than not. I believe strongly in Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, SNAP, and other progressive programs, and my own voting record reflects this belief. So cheers to you, conservaphobe:
![]() But I still WILL make some alliances with libertarians (note small 'L'). woomewithscience has done a good job in this thread of describing how we as a nation are literally teetering on the brink of Fascism at present, and I agree with this assessment. Frankly, fighting encroaching fascism is even more important to me than preserving any one particular social program (well, if they try to fuck with SS, all bets are off...), so an alliance on behalf of Harm Reduction, or the Fourth Amendment, or for that matter other substantive Constitutional Rights, is in fact very important. -app |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:25 AM
AZ Progressive (3,411 posts)
3. As bad as libertarians are, a true libertarian would not support the corporate oligarchy
True libertarians are free market purists, and that means no using the government to shut out competitors and rig the market to maintain dominance. Monopolies and oligopolies are anti-free market. Remember the ideal free market is a market full of small businesses in every industry that compete with each other and if one doesn't serve the market well, the others would or at least new competitors would rise up to fill the needs better.
Of course, libertarians hate the welfare state, hate government regulation, and like to be coldhearted, so in effect they are on the extreme opposite in some things. In some ways, the libertarians are more of a threat than modern conservatism because modern conservatism has become a caricature and a joke, as much as religions that "are out there", and is the reason that they are in trouble, whereas libertarianism is more "fresh" and more promoting of cold heartedness than even modern conservatism (which does so in large part for racist reasons.) |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:28 AM
DireStrike (6,452 posts)
4. I'd rather have libertarians than republicans.
Of course, I'd rather have neither.
I also don't recall a significant libertarian presence at Zucotti park, after the first few days. |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:30 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
5. You can find good ideas from many sources in spite of all that may be wrong.
It may be a bit of a hassle though to find a little gold at the bottom of a garbage can.
|
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:31 AM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
7. In the light of this information I intend to remain a loyal Democrat.
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:36 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
8. K&R The oligarchs and fascists succeed by keeping the people divided.
It is a tried and true tactic.
We're in a perilous place in this country. The corporate takeover is almost complete, with militarized police, persecution of journalists and whistleblowers, propaganda machines, and trade deals in the works that will enable corporations to treat Americans like they do third world workers. I will stand next to any human being who will help to stop the march of this country into fascism. Choose allies based on issues, not party labels. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:04 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
24. I'm with ya, woo.
I will stand next to any human being who will help to stop the march of this country into fascism. I'm with ya, woo, especially now. Here we are at a juncture in time when the 2014 campaign is still in the early stages, and the 2016 campaign is a political eon away. If there is any good time for Democrats to engage issues, build strategic alliances, and rally for the causes that move us forward, it is now. Now is the time when we can demand that our Democratic candidates represent OUR interests. Those who are trying to shut down debate right now by constructing Libertarian Straw-Bogeymen to scare the loyal Democrats into unquestioning loyalty are apparently very comfortable with the War on (some) Drugs, militarized police, warrentless spying, corporatist & undemocratic trade deals, fracking, etc., etc. But I wonder how they can call themselves Democrats at all... -app |
Response to appal_jack (Reply #24)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:39 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
38. +1000000000
Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:47 PM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
35. Yet the people have free will to choose sides.
And Libertarians specifically side with the oligarchy.
|
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #35)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:07 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
39. Perfect example of the talking points we are fed
to try to keep us from building coalitions against predatory policies.
A sweeping generalization, attempt to smear by party, and insistence that we must "choose sides" based only on party....while avoiding actual issues. The quintessential Third Way response. See posts 9 and 23 for actual issues related to "oligarchy." Psst...Based on these issues, corporate Democrats you defend incessantly are siding with oligarchy nearly continuously. Defeating the predators means coming together on what is best for the country. If Libertarians speak out against the MIC, or the drug wars, or the surveillance/police state, that is a GOOD thing, and actual, non-corporate Democrats need to take advantage of it. |
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #35)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:08 PM
Number23 (24,544 posts)
44. Some have been trying for a while to forge that "unholy alliance" right here on DU
But you may have missed them because they are really, really subtle.
|
Response to Number23 (Reply #44)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:38 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
46. Some love their 'ideological chains' and do not want to shed them. nt
Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1) |
Response to appal_jack (Reply #46)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:26 PM
Number23 (24,544 posts)
48. Are "idological chains" what they sell at Home Depot?
Response to Number23 (Reply #48)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:04 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
50. Well, the 'idological' chain-cutters were on-sale last month. Too bad you missed-out.
Well, the 'idological' chain-cutters were on-sale last month. Too bad you missed-out.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() You've got to give me a bit of a break. I use an i-pad for most of my posting, and I never learned to touch-type.... I guess my 'idological' chains won't come-off until I learn to at least look-up at the screen occasionally before posting. ![]() -app |
Response to appal_jack (Reply #50)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:07 PM
Number23 (24,544 posts)
51. You are cute as a bug.
![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM
joshcryer (61,591 posts)
55. "Libertarians" are *for* corporate takeover.
That's what's so stupid about this Orwellian doublespeak. The Libertarians (anarcho-capitalists, laissez-faire capitalists) are for corporations owning and controlling everything.
And yet, the left is played, again and again, because they think that their alliance is true. It simply is not. There is no convergence, we have nothing to do with them. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:00 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
58. I agree that corporate power is the gigantic blindspot of most libertarians.
I agree that corporate power is the gigantic blindspot of most libertarians.
I (a libertarian Democrat of sorts) resist government power when it is used on behalf of the elites, and corporate power at every chance I get. Whether the oppression is public or private, I believe in resistance. But your point is well-taken. Too many readers of 'Reason' see no problem in corporate dictatorship even though they are up in arms about Obama or 'socialism' in general. ![]() -app |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:56 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
60. ^^ This. The worse it gets, the more allies you WILL have...
You won't have to look for them, they'll find you.
Some here labor under the luxurious illusion that when the ship starts listing, you actually have a choice in the matter. Pristine, brittle ideologies will just be ignored for what they are: Irrelevant. |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:43 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
10. gross out.
unholy alliance is right.
the fucking devil you say. ![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #10)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:47 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
11. Divide, divide, divide.
Provoke visceral reactions rather than thought.
It's easier than actually working on solutions. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #11)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:51 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
12. if I have to I swallow the puke and do what is needed ... I will -
doesn't mean I like it or, that I didn't first puke about it.
and, I still worry about the devil in all this. It will rear its ugly head and at the worst possible moment. with much trepidation ... ugh. just ugh. |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #12)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:54 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
15. I get it. But agreeing on some issues doesn't mean needing to swallow the whole agenda.
I am tremendously encouraged that people are starting to move beyond the labels they use to keep us divided. We are being pushed into fascism by these corporate monsters, and that's no overstatement.
You're right, that we need to be careful. But we also desperately need to be forming coalitions to do something, because what we've been doing isn't working. We're all in this together. ![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #15)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:24 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
33. agreed
![]() |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:53 AM
PowerToThePeople (9,610 posts)
14. What is worse?
Common ground with a right wing libertarian or common ground with authoritarian fascist war mongers? At least there are some things that right wing libertarian has correct. The fascists (which I see have support in this thread already) are wrong about damn near everything.
|
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #14)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:31 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
20. Excellent question, PTTP. nt
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #14)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:56 PM
TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)
23. The interesting thing here is that the ones crying the loudest are ideologically locked on
"meeting in the middle and finding bipartisan common ground" with radical regressive economic feudalist, warmongering imperialist, have protected and even endorsed those behind torture and spying on Congress and the American people, partnered with those seeking to destroy public education, and have made repeated efforts with commissions and "gangs" to come up with ways to cut Social Security themselves.
These people are not liberals they work steadfastly against our values and most basic laws, they ridicule and oppose transparency and accountability for the powerful and the wealthy, they attack or at best ignore every union but the police, they tirelessly push disastrous free trade agreements over and over despite lying to get elected, they bail out economy destroying banksters but wring hands about the moral hazards of helping struggling people, and whistle blowers are attacked and jailed but torturers are declared patriots. Supposedly they are liberal because they aren't bigots but they sure called gay rights a pony until the country passed them right by and many of them quick to side with police that murder black kids in the street and with policies that hobble opportunity and upward mobility for minorities while supporting those that have us locked away for bullshit. |
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:05 PM
PowerToThePeople (9,610 posts)
25. Everything you say here is true, REC *10000. n/t
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:07 PM
socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)
27. Funny how that works isn't it....
![]() |
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:13 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
30. Hear, hear.
It's easy to cut through the bullshit propaganda to see who is really on your side.
Simply watch the policies that are being defended, over and over again. |
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 11:17 PM
Eleanors38 (18,318 posts)
61. "A pocket full of mumbles, such are promises."
Too much of that in what passes for Party leadership. Frankly, they are FAR more trigger-fingered criticizing anything to the left of LBJ than anything on the far right. The Party leadership fears the FR, and cannot risk the slightest reform without defining itself, and thereby incurring the wrath of corporate power; they have made impotency into a creed.
|
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:06 PM
socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)
26. Well Trotsky said you should be prepared to make a United Front..........
with even the Devil and his grandmother if it's necessary to gain a victory on a single issue or even a range of issues. The Old Man also said that in any UF you should be prepared to turn your guns on your front partners at any time AFTER you achieve your limited goals.
Words to live by AFAIC. |
Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #26)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:17 PM
appal_jack (3,813 posts)
31. Well, I'm certainly no Trotskyite, but...
Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1) I sincerely doubt that Trotsky would have anything good to say about libertarians, but yes, he was about those temporary United Fronts and subsequent betrayals. Not words to live by in my book... Yes, Trotskyites and libertarians have marched in anti-war marches together at times, but the posted article is about more substantive left-libertarian alliances to achieve reforms, not revolutions and firing squads.
Interestingly, I recall my days of the late 1980's when I lived in NYC and actual Trotskyites and anarchists (as I described myself at the time - no more, though) could be found together doing the Central American Solidarity and Anti-Death Squad work that was important then. One of my teenaged anarchist buddies who was exceptionally well-read for his (or anybody's) age would tease the Trotskyites about "turning guns on front partners" after the revolution. Some of them actually would dissemble, bow their heads, and shuffle their feet when called on this. We thought it was hilarious, but still marched together in the anti-Death Squad rallies, because Reagan was a bastard and numbers counted. -app |
Response to appal_jack (Reply #31)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:25 PM
socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)
41. I'm not a "Trotskyite" either since that's what Stalinists called us.....
usually right before they executed us. I much prefer Trotskyist. But you're right, Trotsky would have thought of libertarians as capitalist anarchists and considered them worse than useless. Most of the time anyway. But in some matters he would have considered them "the Devil and his grandmother" if working with them achieved something positive for the working class.
That's about what I think about them. |
Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #26)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:32 PM
joshcryer (61,591 posts)
57. Trotsky was wrong.
At the Congress Trotsky rounded on the Workers' Opposition:
"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!" Trotsky spoke of the "revolutionary historical birthright of the Party": "The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy..." http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/06.htm#h1 We have literally nothing in common with fucking laissez-faire capitalists. Nothing. Literally. The idea that this is actually being proposed by so called socialists is beyond comprehension. Read this post I made to see what so called Libertarians say and what they mean. They are kings among kings of doublespeak and misinformation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100278930 |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #57)
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 07:59 AM
socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)
62. The most vociferous arguments I have are usually with libertarians.....
but if they're correct on a specific issue, I'm not going to oppose them ON THAT ISSUE just because they're incorrect on everything else. You can support NSA and endless wars overseas if you want simply because the libertarians oppose them. I personally will oppose them too.
As to Trotsky being wrong in your example, if the working class because of temporary hardships imposed in reaction to an inevitable counterrevolution inspired and directed by the capitalist class, turns to fascism then yes, I will oppose that too. |
Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #62)
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:41 AM
joshcryer (61,591 posts)
63. If you read my post you'll see there is no agreement.
None, it's a trick. It's like a trick climate change denialists use or creationists use. Use language you would agree with or that seems sensible, but mean something completely different.
Rosa Luexmburg had plenty to say about Lenin and Trotsky's "slogans" against "imperialism." And it wasn't very kind. The Petropavlovsk resolution was in no way imperialist. Trotsky later learned just how bad Stalin's type of Marxist-Leninism was. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #63)
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 06:45 PM
socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)
64. Once again, I don't CARE what they mean by a particular type of "opposition".......
on any issue. I know what I mean by opposition and that's what counts. And I have so little in common with libertarians, most of whom are anarcho-capitalists, that I couldn't conceive of a situation where I'd actually support any sort of libertarian candidate for any office. I personally have seen (and have said this before) their agenda as a fraud. They claim freedom for people in personal issues and for capitalism in the big issues. But just like any libertarian that gets elected to anything, they support the capitalists NOW in their oppression, while claiming that the personal libertarian issues are "next". And that "next" never comes.
However, if a libertarian claims to be in favor of legalization of marijuana or claims to be against foreign adventurism, or claims to be against the NSA, I'm NOT going to stand up and say he or she is wrong on those issues just because they are being brought up by a libertarian. IOW, I'm NOT going to change MY positions because some moron of a libertarian is like some stopped clock and is right those two times a day. |
Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #64)
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:18 AM
joshcryer (61,591 posts)
65. You don't have to disagree on a perceived overlap.
But you fall into a very big trap if you don't call them out on their BS.
A climate change denier says "we don't have an exact value for CO2 forcing." That is absolutely, 100%, true. The denier is correct we don't have an exact value. We have a range. And that rage is correct to several sigma. It's very likely to be within that range. So we know with 95% certainty but then the denier retorts, "But you don't really know." That's the language of the libertarian capitalist. They are absolutely for marijuana legalization, but they are not against discrimination based upon marijuana usage. How is this compatible with our views? There is no compatibility. They are fooling us. Even on issues we agree upon, they don't actually agree. So, fine, you say "if they try to block non-discrimination based on marijuana usage, we'll call them out on it." Except at that point it's too late, you've been their ally, they will call you an ally, they will say that you agree on all issues but this one, and what does it matter, who wants more laws, right? You come to the table with a lower hand and they know it. That's how the Reganites, the Libertarians, have been winning. They force the narrative to be about their faux views and when you call them on it you're left standing there with nothing. I refuse to ally with libertarians because I know what happened when the anarchists allied with the state socialists who shared their views. I know about the prison camps, I know about the forced labor, about the executions. And really, right wing capitalism is actually fascism, so why I would ally with fascists on even the smallest detail is beyond me. |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:10 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
28. posted to for later.
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:28 PM
agbdf (200 posts)
37. I dislike Libertarians even more than Republicans
I also dislike the extreme radical Left. I have never forgiven Nader and his kooky followers for costing Gore an outright electoral win in 2000.
|
Response to agbdf (Reply #37)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM
AverageJoe90 (10,745 posts)
56. "I also dislike the extreme radical Left". Me, too, even though I used to be.....
on the fringes myself. But I know better now.
In fact, I'm not terribly fond of the fringe left in general these days, even if some aren't also swinging to the end of the spectrum. But I personally don't consider folks like Suey Park, Mikki Kendall, Noel Ignatiev, Trudy at Gradient Lair, etc. to be my allies, for various reasons(for example, Suey Park lost her shit over a Colbert sketch, Kendall stirred up a bunch of shit with that annoying little #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen hashtag, and the not-so-decent lady at G.L. has some obvious issues of her own, including constant hate-ons towards white feminists who happen not to agree with her 100%. And I could go on.). I'm sure some may disagree, but it doesn't hurt to cut out individual people and cliques who may be genuinely dragging a movement down.....something that, I think, Occupy should have done with the Paulites a long time ago; just as the more hardcore literal "white privilege" pushers in Social Justice, the Paulites and their fellow libertarians have done much more harm than good for Occupy. I'm all for a "Big Tent", but sometimes, you gotta kick a few people out, you know? I'd honestly take someone like Melissa Harris-Perry over Glenn Greenwald any day, anyway. |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:02 PM
Matrosov (1,098 posts)
40. Libertarians are useful idiots
I would not fear libertarians too terribly much. They are doing an excellent job splitting the GOP in half right now, with their opposition to social conservatives. At the same time, they will never be in a position to hold a great deal of power, as the majority of conservatives are going to oppose their for their stance on things like same sex marriage, while the majority of progressives aren't going to vote for a group that would gut the federal government and leave the poor and the sick to die.
|
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:45 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
47. Most of those now claiming to be Libertarians are embarassed former Republicans.
They voted for Bush twice, and they now can not escape the fact that his 2 terms were a total disaster.
They are social and fiscal conservatives who are pro-business, and pro-expanded use of the military to achieve business objectives. They hate Democrats and liberals. They played around with being Tea Party members until that group proved to be totally insane. They voted for Romney. And they'll be voting for the GOP candidate in 2016. They'd love to get Dems to stay home. |
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:33 PM
Cha (267,964 posts)
49. They are all "ratfuckers".. what's the big mystery?
Ratfucking
Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their book All the President's Men. Ratfucking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking |
Response to Cha (Reply #49)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:08 PM
Union Scribe (7,099 posts)
59. Leftists are "ratfuckers"? nt
Response to appal_jack (Original post)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:23 PM
AverageJoe90 (10,745 posts)
54. Unfortunately, it seems we've been making a fair number of mistakes lately.
And not just with Greenwald and folks like him. There's a much wider problem afoot. EOM
|