HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rise of the 'Unholy Allia...

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:57 AM

 

Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists

(starting quote at the fifth paragraph of the article)

Eight months after Naderís "Freedom Watch" pronouncement, Ron Paul supporters along with socialists, anti-market anarchists, and other lefties of various stripes were the first to set up camp in Zuccotti Park and launch the Occupy Wall Street movement. There were arguments over whether advocates of free markets belonged in the movement, whether the economic crisis was caused by deregulation or by government encouragement of high-risk financial speculation, and whether the solution to the crisis was greater or less government control of business, but the libertarians stayed. As Occupy spread to other cities, libertarians were almost always a visibleóthough minorityópresence at the encampments. "One would more reliably come across vocal Ron Paul supporters at Occupy events than vocal Obama supporters," reported Michael Tracey in the American Conservative. "It was not lost on the Zuccotti Park crowd, for instance, that Ron Paul personally expressed a measure of support for the movement earlier than most any other national U.S. politicianĖaside from Sen. Bernie Sanders or Rep. Dennis Kucinich."

(snip)

In the summer of 2013 the "unholy alliance" wreaked havoc on the national-security and foreign-policy establishments. Edward Snowden, a Ron Paul supporter, received passionate support from both libertarians and a broad array of leftists for revealing, at the risk of imprisonment, the NSAís dragnet surveillance of American citizens. Snowdenís disclosures were publicized by the journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is a regular speaker at the International Socialist Organizationís annual Socialism Conference, a recipient of the Nation Instituteís I.F. Stone Award, and according to Rachel Maddow "the American leftís most fearless political commentator." But Greenwald is also, like Scahill, an eager collaborator with libertarians. He authored a study for the Cato Institute on Portugalís decriminalization of drugs and frequently praised Ron Paul for being "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party."

(snip)

One might think all this would be cause for celebration among those who share Nader's objectives, but many find it more a cause for grave concern. Since last summer, liberal media outlets have streamed out warnings to their readers to "Beware of Libertarians Bearing Gifts," as the Center for American Progress put it. Any alliance with libertarians, even for a cause as worthy as reining in the NSA, "could kill the New Deal." Salon has frequently trafficked in hysteria over the libertarian "threat" to progressivism. "Donít Ally With Libertarians," admonished one of many headlines about the "fatally compromised" coalition that produced "The Day We Fight Back." At The New Republic, Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz explained to the "liberal establishment" that had fallen in with Snowden, Greenwald, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that these purveyors of "paranoid libertarianism" were outside the bounds of respectable politics. They occupy "a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right, often but not always under the rubric of libertarianism." Where unwitting liberals have "portrayed the leakers as truth-telling comrades intent on protecting the state and the Constitution from authoritarian malefactors, thatís hardly their goal," Wilentz warned. "In fact, the leakers despise the modern liberal state, and they want to wound it."

Some left-wing observers have offered more constructive evaluations of the alliance. Ralph Nader continues to lead the way, with a new book on the "Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" and a lengthy interview promoting it on Reason TV. Perhaps the most notable among the left-wing sympathizers to Naderís cause is Peter Frase, an editor at the socialist Jacobin, who questioned "this obsession with people like Greenwald and Snowden as vectors for noxious libertarianism rather than people who are doing courageous and useful work even if their politics arenít socialist." Frase identified "an instinct among some on the Left to suppose that defending the possibility of government requires rejecting any alliance with libertarians who might criticize particularly noxious aspects of the existing state." For those on the left who share Naderís optimism about libertarians, Fraseís conclusion should serve as a manifesto:

One should not have any illusions that critics of the national security state all share socialist politics. But we should judge these critics by what they say and do and what their political impact is. An endless inquisition into hidden beliefs and motives, and the attempt to unmask a devious libertarian hidden agenda, makes for a satisfying purity politics for those who want to justify their own inaction. But it does nothing to contest the predatory fusion of state and capital that confronts us today, which must be confronted in the government, the workplace, and many other places besides.

Hear, hear. So let us say to leftists and libertarians: Unite! You have nothing to lose but your ideological chains.


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

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists (Original 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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:31 AM

6. Anybody making common cause with corporations is no Democrat.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:53 AM

13. our small family business is a corporation as most small family businesses.

 

So your post is ridiculously vague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:56 AM

16. You know I ain't talking about small family businesses. pffft

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:41 PM

22. Yes, you were.

 

You used the word corporation. Every small family business is a coprporation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:12 PM

29. Been calling Miss Cleo for info on what I think?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:18 PM

32. Doesn't matter what you "think"

 

If that's what you "thought", it certainly wasn't what you SAID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:31 PM

42. Yea I should have made it more clear since some tend to strive to take shit how they want to.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:14 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:00 PM

17. +100000


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:43 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:07 PM

19. Even when the outcomes ARE liberal? ARE progressive?

Or is working across the party line just TOO MUCH TO STOMACH?

What bull shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:40 PM

21. The outcomes in such situation will NEVER be liberal or progressive. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:26 PM

36. How? "by definition?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:56 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:17 PM

53. How would opposing corporate bailouts NOT be liberal or Progressive? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to conservaphobe (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to conservaphobe (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:20 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:25 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:28 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:30 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:31 AM

7. In the light of this information I intend to remain a loyal Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:36 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:04 PM

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.

Choose allies based on issues, not party labels.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:39 PM

38. +1000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:47 PM

35. Yet the people have free will to choose sides.

 

And Libertarians specifically side with the oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:07 PM

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:08 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #44)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:38 PM

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #46)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:26 PM

48. Are "idological chains" what they sell at Home Depot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:04 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #50)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:07 PM

51. You are cute as a bug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:00 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:43 AM

10. gross out.

unholy alliance is right.

the fucking devil you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:47 AM

11. Divide, divide, divide.

Provoke visceral reactions rather than thought.

It's easier than actually working on solutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:24 PM

33. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:31 PM

20. Excellent question, PTTP. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:05 PM

25. Everything you say here is true, REC *10000. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:07 PM

27. Funny how that works isn't it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 11:17 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:32 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #57)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 07:59 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #62)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:41 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #63)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 06:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:18 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:10 PM

28. posted to for later.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:28 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agbdf (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:33 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #49)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:08 PM

59. Leftists are "ratfuckers"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:23 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread