A reality-check for all the Ron Paul supporters here

[journalist3072]

I've seen a lot of single-issue voters here on DU, going ra-ra for Ron Paul (mainly based on his stance on the Iraq war).

But listening to him on Meet The Press today, he holds some very disturbing positions in other areas.

He said he believes that the "forced integration" that came about as the result of the civil rights bill, actually caused tension between the races. He claims it's not about race, but it's a "property rights" issue as far as he's concerned (meaning, the government has no right to tell a business owner that they have to admit certain people, i.e. blacks) to their establishment). That's pretty much his position: forced integration was bad for property rights.

He's also for the abolishment of the Department of Education.

I think this goes to the heart of why it's dangerous to be a single issue voter.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't think anyone here is really a supporter. Just noting that he's

got some acceptable positions. He won't win, he's no threat at all.

[TwilightZone]

4. You'd be surprised.

There are more Ron Paul supporters on DU than you might expect. They have just gotten a lot less overt about it recently.

Then, there's this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3688155

[rAVES]

7. That poll is more that Hillary is Rubbish more than Paul being good.

[TwilightZone]

8. As assessment with which you agree?

[rAVES]

10. I wouldnt vote either of them...ever.

[TwilightZone]

12. You wouldn't vote for the "second best candidate"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3756160#3756221

Curious.

[rAVES]

14. like I said below. I think he's 100% right on some very important issues.

[TwilightZone]

15. That makes him better than all of the Democratic candidates except Kucinich?

You may want to revisit his record and his stances on the issues.

One stance on one issue does not a good candidate make.

[LostinVA]

25. He's 100% wrong

Being anti-war doesn't negate his other disgusting views.

And, any liberal should know that.

[LostinVA]

24. Oh yes there are

And, not all of them are noobs.

[Spinzonner]

2. To a Libertarian

Property Rights is akin to a religion

[journalist3072]

16. The scary thing is...Russert asked him IF the civil rights bill were just being written today

And it was written in the same language as it was back then....would he support it, and Ron Paul said no...not with the very same language

That's pretty scary.

[YOY]

76. "Git off m'LAND! Cityslicker!" Is the juxt of it

The crazy coots with shotguns guarding their precious front porch formed their own philosophy based off of Ayn Rand...

Or that's how I see it.

[abelenkpe]

93. my sister

who claims to be a libertarian has said as much. Which makes me laugh heartily. She doesn't own her house or her property. The bank does. She will pay a mortgage for the rest of her life. Unless you own the land and property outright you don't own shit. Too bad many so called libertarians don't understand that. Suckers.

[TwilightZone]

3. I simply do not understand why any anti-war Democrat would favor Ron Paul over Dennis Kucinich.

Can someone *please* explain that?

Ron Paul supporters seem willing to overlook all of the anti-progressive stances he takes on nearly every issue but Iraq, while a candidate who shares similar views on Iraq and is decidedly much more progressive is overlooked and/or ignored.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[GoneOffShore]

5. They'll be here soon, don't you worry.

Just remember what they look like -

[rAVES]

6. Um.. whom exactly are we talking about? "some people" again right?

[TwilightZone]

11. A bit defensive, are we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3801807#3802477

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3756160#3756221

Apparently, "some people" includes you.

[rAVES]

13. Yup, Kucinich or bust.

[Cerridwen]

9. Just the usual shades of gray involved.

Not all anti-war Democrats are anti-all-war just anti-this-war because some wars are justified.

Not all Democrats are progressive and support progressive and/or populist ideals. We've quite a few Democrats who support the status quo, they just think it should be Democrats in charge of administering it. Others bought into the 80s crap about "welfare queens" and the belief that homeless people deserve and/or want to be homeless. Others buy the "if only they'd worked hard enough and weren't so lazy or stupid, they wouldn't be" poor, unemployed, homeless, etc. Many are still asleep and dreaming of the "American Dream."

And many other variations and combinations thereof.

Our "big tent" seems bursting at the seams.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. What single issue are you referring to?

You just named 3.

I agree with him about the dept of education. I wish more candidates would speak up against the bloated bureaucracy it has become. It's not at all what Jimmy Carter envisioned when he established it.

[journalist3072]

19. I'm referring to the Iraq war.....My whole point is that some people here on DU

support Ron Paul based on a single issue (the Iraq war), without really examining him on other issues (i.e. his view of the civil rights bill and his misguided notion that it increased racial tensions, not eased it).

You are apparently the exception, being that you agree with him on other issues besides the Iraq war.

But my comments were geared towards the single issue voters here on DU.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I am not aware of anyone here on DU supporting Ron Paul

There have been a few trolls but I can't remember any supporters.

There are also many issues to agree with Ron Paul on:

The Patriot Act

Impeachment

The GWOT

Bombing Iran

The Iraq War

National Identity Cards

There might be more but there is lots more than ONE issue. Now if you look at the big picture with Ron Paul and see his positions on choice, civil rights, the environment, etc you can find lots more to disagree with. But we can definitely find common ground on more than just The Iraq War.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Ron Paul does not support impeaching Bush

but he did vote to impeach Clinton.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[MonkeyFunk]

28. In your first video

when asked if he supports impeaching Bush, he says No. He says he doesn't think there's enough evidence to prove constitutional violations.

He supports INVESTIGATING Bush, not impeaching him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. And in the second link, he assuses Bush of constitutional violations

In the third, he calls for impeachment.

You gotta read ALL the links.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. LOL

The first one's dated March 14th, the second one from July, and the third from March 30th.

Seems like Ron is no more consistent regarding impeachment than he is regarding term limits or earmarks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. He is consistent in his criticism of Bush

Ask any of his supporters if he wants impeachment. Unless of course you don't know any Ron Paul supporters.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. I never said he wasn't critical of Bush

Of course he is. My point is that it doesn't make him right. Freepers criticize Bush because he hasn't nuked Tehran - it doesn't mean we should align ourselves with them.

And no, I don't know any Ron Paul supporters, unless you count people I encounter here on DU.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. Yeah I am not surprised

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

74. Why is that surprising?

I'm not friends with any right-wing nutcases.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Like any bureaucracy it has its issues and could be better

That doesn't mean we should get rid of it completely

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. I am a teacher and I think it victimizes our kids

Yeah, I know it's an extreme opinion, but after 7 years of NCLB and 20+ years fighting back the voucher movement I want my federal govt out of the education business.

[abelenkpe]

94. don't like the department of education?

There are things that should be done to reform the department of education. It is imperfect. My uncle worked there under Carter and has seen it evolve into a partisan mess. However when Ron Paul speaks of getting rid of the department of education he is talking of dismantling not only the department, but all federal funding for public schools. He favors home schooling. That would leave millions of families in a real bind considering that most require two working parents. It would be better to fix public schools starting with the department of education and doing away with NCLB.

One thing I hear all the time from libertarians is : "I want the federal government out of......" It's such a popular slogan for libertarians and conservatives, but what are you really saying? Do you honestly think that our nation can live in this modern world without a central government? Would our country be a 'super power' or a world leader if it was not governed by a central government? What would happen to the military? Trade? Roads? Infrastructure? NASA space program? National currency? Unified Foreign policy? How would all that stuff be taken care of?

[Omphaloskepsis]

18. Ron Paul can fuck off.

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

A separate legal system for people of color. Fuck Ron Paul.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=dear_andrew_sullivan_and_glenn

[fenriswolf]

21. lets not forget

he wants to get rid of the irs to and relax even more restrictions on big busness.

[abelenkpe]

99. big business

yeah! That's what I don't get. My sister, who claims to be a libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, will bitch about corporations while simultaneously supporting policies that benefit big business. Once she was talking crap about an article about a school who banned soda and snack machines. She was saying it was 'government' interfering with business blah blah blah. And I responded: "But the parents and teachers of the school got together and requested that a law be written to ban the machines because 'business' was interfering with their ability to provide quality food and education for their children. What's worse? You want business to interfere with your parenting or to prey on your children? Why should business be free to do that? Of course her children are home schooled so maybe she just didn't think of it that way.
People who work for the government are educated and trained to serve and protect their citizens. People who work for corporations and big business are trained to focus on the bottom line. Who really has our best interests in mind?

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. I am surprised and appalled by how many RP signs, bumper stickers, wavers, etc...

are in my area. Only Republican with any visible support. Why oh why?

[NNN0LHI]

33. Makes it easier to spot the nuts here in in Illinois

They are the ones with the Ron Paul signs in their front yards.

Don

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Astroturf

The campaign is making campaign signs ubiquitous and getting people to spam Internet discussions to give the impression that "everybody" is supporting Ron Paul.

[timtom]

27. Well he's obviously speaking to SOMEONE

as he raised $7 million in the same day that Dennis Kucinich only raised $160,000.

All the Kucinich nay-sayers may have to live with Ron Paul for the next 4 years as he has a serious groundswell of support.

Dennis is the ONLY answer.

But of course, there are those who will come up with 100 different reasons why Dennis won't win.

Que lastima.

[superkia]

105. I admire the republican voters that have stepped out on the...

ledge and are organizing and supporting him so well. I think those republican voters are so sick of what the government has been doing that they are willing to support any candidate that is willing to stand up for the people at all and they have Ron Paul. I'm a little ashamed to say that those republican voters have woke up from the dumbing down and are trying to do something, while we have a Dennis Kucinich standing up and screaming for us and we sit on our asses and accept what the media gives us. Too many of us democrats are naive and cant see that most of our career politicians are corrupt and going along with the mess that Bushco and bilderberg has brought us.

Maybe one day the democratic voters will stand respectably and do the right thing showing that the democrats are actually better than the republicans in every way.

Looks like it wont be this election cycle, I hope we get another chance.

[baldguy]

31. Why are ANY posts supporting Ron Paul permitted here?

Hillary supporters bashing Obama are locked. Obama supporters bashing Hillary are locked. Biden, Edwards & Kucinich supporters bashing both are locked.

But posts supporting Ron Paul are allowed to stay. Why?

[scarletwoman]

36. What posts are you talking about? Do you have any examples? If not, can you paraphrase one of these?

I see posts discussing Ron Paul, but I've never seen a DUer post a "vote for Ron Paul" thread. Maybe once or twice a troll who's quickly tombstoned, but I've never seen any regular DUer advocating voting for Ron Paul.

I assume that if you HAVE seen such threads, you would have alerted on them immediately, since such posts would clearly violate DU rules.

sw

[MonkeyFunk]

38. There are many posts stating

admiration for the man and his positions, and many people have expressed the opinion that they would gladly vote for him over <insert Democratic candidate here>.

[scarletwoman]

40. I'm asking where. Where are these threads where DUers have said they would vote for Ron Paul.

I'm being very generous, even. I'm saying that if you don't have a link handy, to please simply paraphrase one of these "I will vote for Ron Paul" posts.

I think I'm being quite fair.

sw

[TwilightZone]

41. Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3688155

Edit: one more from today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3881461

[scarletwoman]

44. Oh come on! That 2nd thread was started by someone with 36 posts, who will no doubt

be tombstoned before long. Not to mention, the thread was locked.

And that first thread is proof of nothing. I was not the only person fed-up with false dichotomies and black/white tribalist thinking who voted for Ron Paul in that bullshit poll.

DU isn't the real world, in case you haven't noticed. In the real world there is no way that I would EVER vote for Ron Paul. But on a DU push poll started by a partisan with a desparate desire for a straw man to abuse? Hah!

sw

[TwilightZone]

45. Partisan? You mean a Democrat?

Interesting choice of words.

If you don't see that there are Ron Paul supporters on DU, some of them in this very thread, you're trying very hard *not* to see them.

[scarletwoman]

48. Then must I ask you to define precisely what you mean by "supporters".

I asked for proof that DUers were advocating voting for Ron Paul -- a clear, empirical, signal of "support".

There aren't any such (non-tombstoned) DUers, of course, so now we are in rather vague and subjective territory.

By what criteria are you determining that someone is a "Ron Paul supporter"?

sw

[LostinVA]

53. It's against DU rules to link to them

However, there have been quite a few 1000+, relatively long-time SUers who had advocated Paul... in that thread Monkeyfunk mentioned there was at least one who said they would vote for Paul over Clinton because Paul was right. It's been very scary. Nader was one thing, but Paul? UGH.

[scarletwoman]

59. What are you are talking about? Against DU rules to link to a DU post? That doesn't make sense.

So, one person declared that he/she would vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. That's one, the OP clearly implied a "a lot".

The reason I'm nitpicking so is that I think this hysteria over Ron Paul is ridiculous. Instead of demonizing the Ron Paul movement, we ought to be analyzing it, looking for possible vulnerabilites and openings for posing alternative solutions from the left.

If it doesn't work, well, at least we took a shot at it. I just think all the freaking out about even having a discussion about Ron Paul, and what his support means, is over the top.

I personally think Ron Paul is doing us a favor, he's opened up an entirely new frame in our collective political discourse among a new voting bloc. There's no good reason not to try to take advantage of that.

sw

[LostinVA]

63. No, it really is against DU rules to do that

It's considered calling out. You'll be, at the very least, deleted for doing it.

I'm not freaking out about it, I've just been shocked and disgusted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I couldn't agree with you more

I am in awe of what Ron Paul is doing. As a lifelong political junkie and a veteran of more campaigns than I care to count, what Ron Paul has accomplished is inspiring.

Now could I vote for him? No way. But I sure think we can learn a thing or two from examining his campaign.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Those posts aren't supportive of Ron Paul

One is a poll and the other is a discussion comparing him to Hillary.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. some examples

Subject: some examples
Message:
the OP, posts 10 and 14:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Ah, and in looking for more examples, I see you're one of the people who finds much to admire in him.

It's very disingenuous to have participated on those threads, and then pretend that nobody here expresses support for Ron Paul. But then, liberterians aren't known for their intellectual honesty.

[TwilightZone]

46. I do find that odd.

Ron Paul is an ongoing topic of conversation on DU and has been for months. There are dozens and probably hundreds of threads where people have defended him rather vociferously. The claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate and quite provably so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Well I sure would like to see those threads

I have been accused of supporting Ron Paul because I admire his campaign. It seems some DUers don't see the difference between supporting a candidate and respecting them and their campaign.

[scarletwoman]

47. I am expressing support for certain IDEAS. Either get over yourself, or just outright accuse me of

thoughtcrime. If you disagree with my arguments, then counter them.

Nowhere do I advocate voting for Ron Paul. I advocate engaging with some of his ideas from the left. I advocate taking a closer look at his supporters and seeing where we might find common ground and an opportunity to build a populist movement from the ground up.

Of course, I understand that such talk is distastefully radical to some people, but DU rightfully (imho) contains many differing levels of political analysis.

sw

[MonkeyFunk]

50. If you had presented it that way

in the first place, it would've been more productive. Pretending there's no support for Paul here, though, is disingenuous.

Now, to your point: I think it's a ridiculous waste of time to try to "convert" ANY Ron Paul supporters, because people who support him have a fundamental disagreement with liberalistm. They do not believe government can ever be a force for good. They believe taxation is theft. They believe corporations should be free to do what they will, and let the market decide. They believe the state level is the proper place for questions of basic human rights to be decided. Such people will NEVER vote for a Democrat, and thus we should just cut to the chase and scorn them now, rather than attempt a seduction which is bound to fail.

[scarletwoman]

51. You don't KNOW that. You are basing your argument on a generalization that you made up yourself.

As proud2Blib has pointed out, alot of them are simply politically naive. They've never gotten involved before, they're not partisan libertarians, they have no concept of a coherent political philosophy.

What they ARE is sick of the current state of things, for a variety of reasons. And SOME of those reasons are worth taking note of by those on the left who would like to swing people's support around to progressive ideas.

sw

[MonkeyFunk]

52. and such people

who look at the Dem candidates and the Repub candidates and decide on Ron Paul are just too dumb to want in our party.

If their ONLY issue is the war, why Paul over Kucinich?

No, they also like "abolishing the IRS". They BELIEVE government is the enemy. They're not on the fence between democrats and republicans - they're on the fence between far-right-wing and really-far-right-wing.

I just can't imagine how you swing people around from "abolish the IRS" to "single-payer nationalized healthcare". It's a pipe-dream.

[scarletwoman]

54. But some parts of the government ARE the enemy. Homeland Security, NSA, DEA,

for example.

We are ALL being abused by our government, especially in the area of civil rights -- that's common ground.

You seem to want a black and white world, a bright line between "us" and "them". I'm saying that when someone makes a valid point, it not only doesn't hurt to acknowledge it, it ought to be seen as an opportunity to open a dialogue.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

sw

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Again

you will never convince anyone who thinks government is the enemy that nationalized health-care is a good idea. Never. Not in a million years.

It's a waste of time.

[scarletwoman]

61. I suppose I must defer to your superior skills of prognostication, as I claim none for myself. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

66. You could try to explain

how one moves from one position to the other without enduring a near-fatal case of intellectual whiplash.

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. I sure would love to see them come join a Dem campaign in a few months

I hate to turn any potential voters away by calling them crazy or clueless or whatever the latest DU buzzword for Ron Paul supporters is.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. that's true of the supporters of ANY republican candidate

does that mean we should tiptoe around Fred Thompson supporters in the hope that they'll come around to us? Bullshit.

Ron Paul is treated better here than half the Dems in Congress - it's insane. If people here can't show basic decency towards our own candidates, then I'm sure as hell not gonna suck up to Ron Paul luddites.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of any Fred Thompson supporter voting for a Dem

There is however a very good chance that Ron Paul supporters will vote Dem.

And I strongly disagree that Ron Paul is treated better here than half the Dems in Congress. He is called crazy at least 10 times a day. Name one Dem in Congress that has received the same amount of mudslinging here as Ron Paul has. THAT is what is insane.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. I'll name three

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton.

To claim otherwise indicates you're just not paying attention.

And I disagree entirely that Ron Paul supporters are more likely to vote Democratic than Fred Thompson supporters. Paul is FAR to the right of Thompson.

[Progressive Radical]

79. Well said.

Where others see disgust, I see an opportunity. I'm sure that the base of RP supporters can't be converted, but I'll bet that single issue (i.e. Iraq) RP supporters can be swayed to a more progressive stance - and quite possibly support Kucinich as an alternative.

We shoudn't shun this opportunity to educate this obviously large (and potentially useful) grassroots movement and use it as a force for progress and change.

[abelenkpe]

103. Gee

I, uh, hate to be a pessimist here cause I do agree it is never a waste of time to attempt to engage in dialog. However, as someone with family members who are libertarian, I gotta say there is no way in hell you will ever see them vote for a democrat. Doesn't matter if they agreed with more policy issues that a democratic candidate had over a republican candidate. Never, No way. No how. They cannot see past the label.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Not found

[baldguy]

39. Because things like this disturb me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3507129

[scarletwoman]

43. I just finished reading that entire thread. The one guy who was posting completely overt Ron Paul

support was tombstoned.

There were two other people in that thread who offered some nuanced arguments as to why some people might find RP attractive.

As for the votes in the poll itself, I like to think that there are probably more than a few of us old monkeywrencher types on DU who might hypothetically find it difficult to resist voting for Ron Paul in bullshit Clinton/Paul match-up polls -- just for the sheer entertainment value of watching certain heads explode.

But, perhaps I am uniquely evil in this way and you really do have something to worry about.

:evilgrin:
sw

[LostinVA]

55. There were some non-noobs who supported Paul

You know me and know I'm a non-troll progressive... and, some of the support for Paul on here has startled me.

[cooolandrew]

32. We should be thankful least they aren't backing Nadar this time. Paul won't be candidate so no probs

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Right wing populists are still right wingers

[Vinca]

37. I'm glad you posted this thread because when I heard that I honestly

didn't believe my ears. I was a little preoccupied and thought maybe I heard it wrong. Guess not. Why on earth would anyone of color support this man? He's in favor of "property rights" and if you don't happen to like someone, you don't have to let them in. That takes us back to "whites only" establishments, segregated restrooms and the whole nightmare so many fought and died for.

[journalist3072]

49. Exactly right! I was floored when I heard him.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

62. Recommended

People need to know what a mental shit-tip Ron Paul really is.

[Progressive Radical]

80. Ron Paul is a mental shit-tip, I agree, but ...

... we could still explore the movement for those "single-issue" constituents that could be swayed to progressive causes.

Look, as a fellow anarchist and socialist, I can't stand Ron Paul though I can still agree with him on issues of the Iraq war, NSA, Patriot Act, etc. I can eschew his stances on choice and other rightwing issues and deliver a clear and progressive alternative to any supporter that might have bandwagoned onto his campaign because of the Iraq war.

It's just an issue of seeing it as an opportunity than to just outright dismiss a supporter as loony or insane. Ron Paul is the loon ... his supporters can still have their eyes opened.

Just my opinion.

[LostinVA]

88. Q: how can you be both an Anarchist & a Socialist

[Progressive Radical]

89. Simple

Original anarchist thought arose from socialism. There were two competing socialist theories: those of Mikail Bakunin (anarchist) and Karl Marx (required the use of the State for revolution). Bakunin and Marx disagreed on this fundamental issue resulting in the former being thrown out of the First International. Basically, anarchism is anti-authoritarian socialism. Or put another way, Libertarian Socialism.

Of course, many anarchists disagree among themselves, which is, I suppose inherent in the philosophy. ;)

[abelenkpe]

104. Libertarian Socialism

I sent my sister the wikipedia link to libertarian socialism a few weeks ago, with no commentary attached. It set off this insane series of emails. She refuses to speak to me anymore. Told our parents on Thanksgiving that she wasn't speaking to me because of my radical political views. The funny thing is that I don't consider myself a libertarian socialist. I had never heard of it before and stumbled across it while trying to figure out what was so hot about Ron Paul and libertarianism. My sister claims she is a libertarian so I just sent it to her to see what her reaction would be. She skimmed the first two paragraphs and sent it back to me with some derogatory statement and calling it communism. I was pretty disappointed that she couldn't be bothered with reading a single page description before dismissing the entire contents of the article. I believe her reaction was simply to the word 'socialism.' It was a word she absolutely could not see beyond. So as her big sister I responded by laughing at her and saying that I thought she was willfully ignorant. Which of course went over real well. I think there are some words that some react negatively to like: democrat, liberal, and socialism. Maybe we need new words? Anyway that's my personal introduction to the philosophy. So far it's been a one page kill joy. :o(

[Progressive Radical]

106. LOL ...

Don't let it get you down. The "S" word carries a stigma due to certain myths associated to it by both liberals and conservatives.

When I was asked how I could be both a socialist and an anarchist (upthread), I realize that a lot of people don't understand the history of the philosophies. To many of us, they're synonomous but have to describe ourselves as both because of the running confusion.

If you really want to give your sister fits, you should give her the essay by the Aufheben group describing the USSR as State Capitalist enterprise. It's pretty long and very in depth containing not only perspective but critiques from Trotskyists (regarding the USSR as a degenerated workers' state) to the various critiques of it as State Capitalist. From Trotsky himself to Tony Cliff and others.

The name of the essay:

What Was The USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism

(comes in IV parts)

[LostinVA]

108. I understand the histories of the philosophies as well or better than you

Better, I expect, as you seem to be mistaken about a few things.

I asked you to explain, because I know it's impossible to be both an Anarchist and either a pure Socialist or a Democratic Socialist in a STATE SETTING (not a Commune), which, btw, I am.

[Progressive Radical]

111. If you did, then you wouldn't have made that statement.

Socialism doesn't require a "state setting" and I'm not sure why you continue to harp with this.

Because some Marxists or Leninists decided to use the state to further their version of socialist revolution doesn't make the original idea one that requires the state as central to the revolution. Marx even had doubts during the Paris Commune when he saw how the workers were able to organize themselves and emancipate themselves without the state or some vanguard party.

Bakunin, who was Marx's contemporary, was a socialist and an anarchist. He was thrown out of the International Workingman's Association (The First International) because of the fundamental disagreement regarding the state being used as a tool for revolution.

So, if you don't wish to regard socialism as the same as anarchism, be my guest. You have that right. However, you would be incorrect attempting to posit that the two are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, I provided some links for you read through should you be interested (in another post). I would think it best to not further the sidetrack.

[LostinVA]

113. Oh God -- someone just finished a Political Thought 101 course

:eyes:

Come back when you take the second semester course, and you can do more than just quote wikipedia to me.

[Progressive Radical]

116. Wow ... you got snippy.

:eyes:

I've done more than quote Wikipedia. I've tried to explain yet you "think" socialism and anarchism can't be the same thing. You provide no evidence for your opinion whatsoever. After I finished trying to explain the various forms of socialism (including anarchism), I thought I would post some links to back up my assertions only to find you get downright patronizing.

How convenient for you.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

120. It's not impossible

Libertarian socialists aim for the eventual abolition of the nation state, not its immediate abolition. Libertarian socialists intend to weaken the authoritarian elements of state institutions and introduce elements of extreme democracy to avoid nepotism and bureaucratic elitism.

Whilst Marxist-Leninist states practice a command economy with central planning, libertarian socialists tend to emphasise workers' cooperatives operating in a welfare market socialist system with strong guarantees for workers rights.

Under a libertarian socialist system, the state would remain but would be radically altered. The state would be stripped of its nationalist chauvinist characteristics and become a guaranteer of freedoms. The eventual aim is the breaking down of transnational barriers until philosophy, education, technology and human will can advance to the extent that the state can be abolished because it is surplus to requirements.

Libertarian socialism has a long tradition and pre-dates Marxism. The first working class labour movement was of a libertarian socialist nature.

I am not sure what you mean by "pure Socialist" as no one recognises that name. Socialists utilise many socialisms and none would argue that they were not "purely" socialist.

[onehandle]

77. Looneytarian Dogma... mine. Mine! MINE!!! nt

[sendero]

78. He's pretty much a prototypical Libertarian isn't he..

...and as such a member of the most delusional naive and pernicious group of true believers since Communists.

Communists believe the state can run everything, libertarians believe the state can run nothing.

Both are simple abdications of the necessity of making hard decisions on which a critical mass of people can agree.


The Libertarians' views on isolationism, the war on drugs and other civil liberties issues is very attractive. Their insistence that business would somehow oversee itself successfully is ridiculous.

And the handful of true Libs I've conversed with over the years, well, they are one scary bunch of deludinoids.

[Progressive Radical]

81. It's that black/white thinking with no gray areas that hurt us.

Not all communist advocate state control (or central authority). Not all libertarians advocate no state control. There's a lot of gray and nuanced areas to explore here. Not every ideology is absolute.

Look at anti-statists such as the Left Communists/anarchists/socialists as compared with the Bolsheviks and State Communists.

Same could be said for Collectivists Libertarians as opposed to their Indiviualists counterparts.

To dismiss potential movements because of an inability to explore nuance is very dangerous, in my opinion.

[sendero]

83. Frankly..

... it is libertarian's inability to deal with nuance that formed my opinion. Is every lib in lockstep? probably not. But the principles libs stand for are very very very clear, and completely unworkable.

[Progressive Radical]

85. Really?

They are not a monolithic group anymore than the participants in DemocratUnderground are. We have much disagreement here. In other words, there are factions within the overall Libertarian political philosophy (as with many philosophies).

I consider myself a Left Libertarian (or socialist or anarchist depending on what terminology you want to use). Even though I'm a Left Libertarian, that doesn't translate into support for a Right Libertarian such as Ron Paul. I would never vote for him because of fundamental differences in our philosophies, though you could call us both Libertarians.

Do you really think that Left Libertarians and Right Libertarians advocate for the same causes?

[sendero]

86. There is no such thing..

... as a "left libertarian". That's like a "black white".

Think of another name to describe yourself. Nobody would call themselves a "sorta Nazi", why would anyone call themselves a "sorta libertarian".

Libertarians believe business should be unregulated and that the market will solve any problems that arise. Even though I agree with 95% of the REST of their platform, that one thing is a doozy. It's plain nuts.

Chances are that we are politically very close. I choose not to lend any credibility to a bankrupt belief system by using it to describe a portion of my own.

Merry Christmas to you!

[Progressive Radical]

87. Happy Holidays to you ...

However, there is such a thing as Left Libertarian (however, it can go by many names: anarchism, socialism, etc.) I usually simply just refer to myself as a socialist or anarchist but I was using the Left Libertarian term to make a point.

Anyway (from Wikipedia):

Left-libertarianism is a term in that has been adopted by several different movements and theorists.

In analytic philosophy, left-libertarianism is usually regarded as doctrine that has a strong commitment to personal liberty and has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.<1><2> Most left-libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.<3> Left-libertarianism is defended by contemporary theorists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka.<4> Geolibertarians are considered left-libertarians. The term is sometimes used as a synonym for libertarian socialism.<5>

Some members of the US libertarian movement, including Samuel Edward Konkin III<6> and Roderick T. Long,<7> employ a differing definition of left libertarianism. These individuals depart from other forms of libertarianism by opposing intellectual property<8>, by advocating strong alliances with the Left on issues such as the anti-war movement<9>, and by supporting labor unions<10><11>. Some wish to revive voluntary cooperative ideas such as mutualism (economic theory).<12>

Anyway, enjoy your holidays! :hi:

[Ikonoklast]

90. It's 'DemocraticUnderground'

There is no 'DemocratUnderground'.

So transparent, and so politically naive.

[LostinVA]

91. Just like you can't be both

A Democratic Socialist and and Anarchist... and "Libertarian Socialism"is just another name for Anarchism. Oh boy.

[Ikonoklast]

92. Anarchy!.....the battle cry of the naive that stand for nothing.

Let's list the all the major accomplishments of Anarchists.

1.Nothing
2.Nothing
3.Nothing
4.to Infinity.....Nothing.

[Progressive Radical]

97. Incorrect.

You don't know much of about the history of anarchism, I suppose. Instead, you constructed a knee-jerk reaction to something you may not have knowledge of.

Paris Commune would be a major accomplishment, perhaps not to you. Early 30s Spain, where much of the Republican areas were direct worker controlled. Just invest sometime in understanding the concept without simply admonishing it out of hand.

You don't think that Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Pierre Joseph-Prodhon, Eric Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Mikail Bakunin, Murray Bookchin, etc. contributed anything?

Insteresting.

[Ikonoklast]

98. The Black Hand

They helped start WWI. I guess that is an accomplishment.

Name any current viable political entity, state, or nation that is founded on the philosophy on Anarchism.

It is a philosophical construct doomed to failure as a political reality.

Thinking great thoughts, and achieving the solid reality of an economic system are two completely different things.

[Progressive Radical]

101. How can you have a viable state or nation based on anarchism?

You are asking me to produce something that is anathema to anarchism.

There have been examples of non-state actions such as the Paris Commune and Anarchist Spain, though short lived as they were, they were examples of the workers having a direct means of control over production without requiring the state to produce the revolutionary change. These were spontaneous grass roots movements and relied on direct democracy to achieve their aims, and I believe the aims were noble.

Action comes from ideas - no matter how much you want to reject my opinion out of hand.

[Progressive Radical]

121. Stand for nothing?

Wow, tell that to Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, Leo Tolstoy, Lucy Parsons, Paris Communards, Ericco Malatesta, Pierre Joseph-Prodhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Murray Bookchin, Eugene V. Debs, Voltairine De Cleyre, Joseph DeJacque, Rudolph Rocker, Buenaventura Durruti, Abbie Hoffman, International Workers' Association, Industrial Workers of the World, Peter Kropotkin, Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo, The Zapatista Movement, EarthFirst Movement and other anarchists that done "nothing."

Amazing. :eyes:

[Progressive Radical]

96. I just explained how one can be both. It's actually the samething.

As a matter of fact, the two according to us are synonymous. But because of the basterdization of both the terms 'socialist' and 'anarchist' it is sometimes necessary to put forth both terms to describe our philosophy. However, I'm happy with either term.

[LostinVA]

107. No, you can't -- and no, they aren't

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM is the same as Anarchy, but neither are the same as Democratic Socialism... or even pure Socialism. You cannot have State-supported or State-supplemented economy and social programs without a State.

It's no skin off of my nose if someone chooses to be an Anarchist, I just think it's logically impossible to be both an Anarchist and a Socialist, both by practicality and by definition.

[Progressive Radical]

109. I beg your pardon but what are you talking about "State-supported?"

Socialism doesn't require a State-supported or State-supplemented economy. That's a myth propogated by the rightwing in the US and the Leninist Bolshevik Communist Party.

Pure socialism is inherently democratic and is non-hierarchical as advocated by anarchists and left communists and socialists.

Not sure why you are adamant that socialism has to be "state-supported." You do realize that there are socialists that aren't Marxists? You do realize that even some Marxists didn't believe in the state being used for the revolution? You do realize that even Marx himself saw the potential for a real world application of socialism from the Paris Commune, basically seeing how it was organically formed and how the revolution existed at the grassroots level without the state being involved. That these workers emancipated themselves and created an anarchist style collective? Marx began to have second thoughts about the state being a tool for the revolution but Lenin definitely supported a vanguard party that could "educate" the workers and "lead" them to victory. Only, the Bolsheviks just replaced the Tsarists as the higher bureaucratic class. Mikhail Bakunin actually predicted that this would happen should the revolution rely upon the state.

If you'd like to inform yourself of the subject, please refer to the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[LostinVA]

112. Yeah, I do realize that there are socialists that aren't Marxists

I am a Democratic Socialist.

I think I know more about these political systems than you do. It's interesting that you're on here if you are indeed a true socialist OR anarchist. Since neither of those systems are compatible with the Democratic Party.

[Progressive Radical]

117. It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since you continue to harp on the same thing despite evidence to the contrary.

Socialism is inherently democratic! Why you continue to explain that you are a "Democratic Socialist" is beyond me. That is redundant. If it weren't democratic, then it wouldn't be socialism.

I'm curious as to how and why you continue to posit that you "know more than me." I have not once said that I know more than you regarding this subject though by your comments, I have to conclude that that may be the case.

I have studied this quite a bit. I know what I am and to have someone come in and tell me that I can't be that is somewhat irritating.

If you say you are a Democratic Socialist, fine by me. Please, have fun with it. But please don't get snippy with me when I express what my political affiliation is.

[LostinVA]

114. That makes no sense -- they're two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things

It has nothing to do with "bastardization" of terms; they're different things. Socialism isn't just pure communism. I think pure socialism is inhumane, as well as anarchism, because I think they both go against Democratic ideals.

[Progressive Radical]

118. Well, what you *think* and what is true are two different things.

You can "think" that they are inhumane all you want. That doesn't make it true.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

119. Yup -- you can say that again

Merry Christmas, Comrade!

[Progressive Radical]

95. It was a simple typo. My apologies.

What was transparant and politically niave?

[Ikonoklast]

100. Freudian Slip, eh?

Although, most of Freud has been discounted by modern psychiatric practice.



Sort of like Anarchy as a political philosophy.

[Progressive Radical]

102. I was at work when I typed that and I was in a rush.

I understand the sensitivity with such an issue but it really was an honest mistake. If I had meant it, I would have defended my position regardless of what you think. However, since I did mean to say DemocraticUnderground instead of DemocratUnderground, I give my apologies as a simple typo.

Now, I hope that you really don't wish to harp on this very benign mistake, do you? I was much more interested in your "critique" of anarchism. ;)

[LostinVA]

115. .

:spray:

[POAS]

82. Slaves used to be "property"!

I guess he thinks the abolition of slavery was also a matter of property rights! At least the question needs to be asked of him!

[AlienGirl]

122. I have actually heard that from some hard-core Rondroid types

Usually, it is expressed as "the Northern states should pay reparations to the descendants of families who lost their slaves when the South lost the war." That, and "the free market would have ended slavery anyway." There is some serious Crazy loose in the land, and a big chunk of it is flying under a Ron Paul banner these days.

Tucker

[mmonk]

84. He has more than one issue that is correct that he is willing to articulate.

The Iraq war which is the one his detractors name and the other is his anti-authoritarian or anti-fascist, restore the constitution position. While many of us know of his extremeness in regards to his libertarianism, millions of Americans are generally not up to speed on it, but are taken by his antiwar and constitutional stances. The rest of his support is the anti-tax, anti-regulation crowd. Isn't it a shame we can't get the ones that have latched onto him that are doing so for his restore the constitution pledge and anti-war position? Who's fault is that?

[and-justice-for-all]

110. I do not think we have to worry about Ron Paul..

he is great for a laugh, like all the other rethug cadidates, but Paul is not getting the nomination.