This is Leftist

[BainsBane]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. . . .

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. . . .


The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce, the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the material means of production, of the forces of production. The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind.

Capital also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois relation of production, a relation of production of bourgeois society. The means of subsistence, the instruments of labour, the raw materials, of which capital consists – have they not been produced and accumulated under given social conditions, within definite special relations? Are they not employed for new production, under given special conditions, within definite social relations? And does not just the definite social character stamp the products which serve for new production as capital?

Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labour, and raw materials, not only as material products; it consists just as much of exchange values. All products of which it consists are commodities. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships – the body of capital – have the same exchange value, the same price, as the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied. The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while capital does not suffer the least alteration.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm

This is leftist:

Tithi Bhattacharya

Social reproduction theory, then, is crucial to understanding certain key features of the system.
1.The unity of the socioeconomic whole: It is certainly true that in any capitalist society the majority exist through a combination of wage labor and unpaid domestic labor to maintain themselves and their households. It is critical to understand both kinds of labor as part of the same process. 2.The contradiction between capital accumulation and social reproduction: Capitalism’s sway over social reproduction is not absolute. Indeed social reproduction may create the essential ingredient of production, i.e., humans, but the actual practices of reproducing life develop and unfold in tension with production. Capitalists attempt to extract as much work as possible from the worker, but the worker in turn tries to extract as much in wages and benefits as possible as ingredients that will allow her to reproduce herself, individually and generationally, for another day.
3.Bosses have an interest in social reproduction: Social reproduction should not be understood solely as the lonely housewife cleaning and cooking such that her worker husband can get to work refreshed every morning. The employer is invested in the specifics of how and to what extent the worker has been socially reproduced. In this sense, it is not simply the food, clothing, and morning readiness at the gates of capital that matter, but everything from education, “language capacities . . . general health,” even “predispositions toward work” that determine the quality of labor power available.9 Each cultural capacity is again determined by historic specificity and is open to negotiation by both sides. Labor laws, policies about public health and education, and state support for unemployment are only some of the many outcomes and constitutive sites for such bargaining.

This is why we need to sharpen our understanding of social reproduction as being performed in three interlocking ways: (a) as unpaid labor in the family increasingly being performed by both men and women; (b) as services provided by the state in the form of a social wage to somewhat attenuate the unpaid labor in the home; and finally (c) as services sold for profit by the market.

Neoliberal policies scaffolded by the rhetoric of individual responsibility sought to dismantle state services and turn social reproduction entirely over to individual families or sell them on the market. It is important to note that capitalism as a system benefits from the unpaid labor of social reproduction within the family and the limited expenditure on the social wage outside of the home. The system cannot afford to fully dispense with social reproduction “without endangering the process of accumulation” since social reproduction ensures the continued existence of the one article that capitalism needs most of all: human labor.10 Understanding this contradictory dependence of production on social reproduction is key to understanding the political economy of gender relations, including gender violence. http://isreview.org/issue/91/explaining-gender-violence-neoliberal-era

THIS is right-wing:

America needs Adam Smith, not Robin Hood
What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous. What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations. He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.
Over the past 4 years the President has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.

He says he wants a balanced approach. What the country really needs is a balanced budget. Washington acts in a way that your family never could--they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Rand_Paul_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Cut corporate tax in half to create millions of jobs
With my five-year budget, millions of jobs would be created by cutting the corporate income tax in half, by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%, and by cutting the regulations that are strangling American businesses. The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it!
Source: Tea Party Response to 2013 State of the Union Address , Feb 12, 2013


Punishing the rich means the poor lose their jobs
Mr. President, you say the rich must pay their fair share. When you seek to punish the rich, the jobs that are lost are those of the poor and middle class.
When you seek to punish Mr. Exxon Mobil, you punish the secretary who owns Exxon Mobil stock.

When you block the Keystone Pipeline, you punish the welder who works on the pipeline.

Source: 2012 Republican National Convention speech , Aug 29, 2012

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Rand_Paul_Corporations.htm

Redefining marriage leads to economic and moral problems
Earlier today, for example, the senator appeared on Glenn Beck's show to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested the ruling could lead to polygamy: "If you change one variable--man and a woman to man and man--you can logically change another variable--one man, three women."
For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck: "If we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."

Source: Rachel Maddow blog on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on DOMA , Jun 26, 2013


Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector
In two broadcast interviews, Paul said that the federal government may have overstepped its role by making it illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector.

Asked if he thought a private business had the right to say it would not serve black people, he said: "I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilised behaviour because that's one of the things freedom requires."

Source: London Sunday Times, "US and the Americas" , May 21, 2010
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

Replace over-regulation with free market principles
As a doctor I have had first-hand experience with the vast problems facing health care in America. Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. As Senator, I would ensure that real free market principles are applied to fix this problem. . . .

Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market.
Paul signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care:

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling (the free market).

Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA07 on Jul 8, 2010
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Rand_Paul_Health_Care.htm

Coarsening of our culture led to 50 million unborn deaths
The coarsening of our culture towards violent death has more consequences than war. Tragically, this same culture has led to the death of 50 million unborn children in the last 40 years. I don't think a civilization can long endure that does not have respect for all human life, born and not yet born. I believe there will come a time when we are all judged on whether or not we took a stand in defense of all life from the moment of conception until our last natural breath.
Source: Speech at 2012 Values Voters Summit , Sep 14, 2012


My opponents call me libertarian but I'm pro-life
Sarah Palin's endorsement [in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary] gave us a boost that energized supporters, brought in new ones, and, of course, annoyed my opponent and his Republican bosses to no end.
In talking to Palin, one of the primary things I wanted to do was allay her fears about social issues, telling her, "My opponents call me a libertarian but I want to assure you that I am pro-life." Palin responded, "Oh, we all have a little libertarian in us."

I do not apologize for believing there is too much government involvement in the private lives of Americans. Trying to portray me or my father as not pro-life--or saying I want to legalize heroin, or prostitution, or making other outlandish claims-- are smears Republican establishment types have always attempted. This race would be no different. One could make the argument that if sincerity is measured by proposed legislation, my dad is arguably the most pro-life member of the House.

Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p. 78 , Feb 22, 2011

Life begins at conception

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Rand_Paul_Abortion.htm

If you claim Rand Paul pulls the Democratic Party to the left, you have one seriously fucked up notion of what left means.

[stevenleser]

1. People saying this will sell everything else out because he claims to be anti-war.

They will sell out workers

They will sell out LGBT

They will sell out women

They will sell out African Americans

They will sell out Latinos

They will sell out the Dreamers and other Undocumented Immigrants

They will sell out the poor and middle class

and that is just for starters, just because this person CLAIMS to be anti-war.

Whatta deal.

[BainsBane]

6. They support the ones they care about

That just happens to exclude most Americans. Then it's always possible such exclusion is not inadvertent.

[Scuba]

10. Regardless of whether some traditionally Dem voters will fall for Paul's crap ....

... why aren't the Democratic Party leaders seen as being anti-war?

[Half-Century Man]

34. On a few topics, he is further left than HRC.

On the majority of issues he is fairly deep right.

[AgingAmerican]

35. He calls for domestic use of drones

He is full of shit, don't believe a word that comes out of his lying mouth.

[wyldwolf]

64. Love the John Birch Society site you linked to.

Not.

[BainsBane]

67. You link to the racist John 'Birch society

to claim Rand Paul is to the left of Clinton? Are you fucking serious?

[Zorra]

2. K&R nt

[joshcryer]

3. The irony is that so called socialists, progressives, support the Rand CT.

[leftstreet]

4. What's the 'Rand CT?'

[joshcryer]

14. See post 12.

[BainsBane]

5. No they don't

He is supported by right-wingers and those who share his worldview. No real socialist would support Rand in a million years.

[freshwest]

11. There is another element in this debate that I have not formulated a reply to. I agree with the OP

as it is excellent. What I have to say would not go over well. But Marxist theory has always been correct, IMO.

[joshcryer]

13. I know that.

I don't think the people who support the conspiracy are leftists.

[BainsBane]

16. Oh, I see

Yes, I agree completely. I didn't know what you meant by CT. Gotcha now.

[joshcryer]

17. Sorry, on phone so type short.

[betterdemsonly]

7. Pretty hard to picture a Marxist supporting either of them

Nobody claimed he was leftist or communists, so the thread seems kind of pointless. His politics are feudalist, and hers are Capitalist.

[BainsBane]

8. Actually you are wrong

There is a poll in GD right now which posits a question of whether Paul pushes the Democratic Party to the left. No small number of people voted yes. There was not even an option to select the view that he pushes the party to the right.

The thread is only pointless is you don't want people to know what Paul's positions actually are. I expect that is the case for many of his proponents. The depend on ignorance. Then again, there is the possibility that people simply prefer those ultra-reactionary views to the Democratic Party.

[betterdemsonly]

9. He pushes it left on those issues where he can draw left leaning voters

He draws them on his antiwar stance. He doesn't draw them on social security privatization, so they are kind of right, but you don't like it, and truth is a sin here.

[BainsBane]

15. Yes, I see you voted for that option

after insisting no one held such a belief. Ayn Rand isn't to the left. Perhaps you ought to follow the links and read some Marx? This country club version of leftism is nauseating and spits in the face of leftist values. Of course, I do know some here insist left is synonymous with the rights of white men of means. Concern about class exploitation, people of color, women, LGBT, and anyone but men of means is defined as Third Way by those determined to fortify their own privilege and write the majority of the human race out of popular discourse.

The truth is that isolationism is neither left nor right. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that. Hitler's supporters in the UK and US were isolationists. That didn't make them leftist. The Communist Party cooperated with capitalist states in order to defeat fascism. There is no rational view of the political spectrum that puts Nazi collaborators and apologists to the left of the CP. Hitler's supporters were right-wingers, just as Paul's ratfuckers are.

[betterdemsonly]

21. Imperialism isn't leftwing either

and neither is Hillary's support for Wall Street. The world is complicated. Sadly the American political system does not accommodate any social democratic party, so people choose between different brands of the center-right.

[rhett o rick]

28. Good post. nm

[BainsBane]

31. Look what Paul says about the economy and taxes

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Clinton isn't the issue here. I get you all have some bizarre fixation on her, but we don't have a general election with Rand and Clinton as your two options. You are the one who has decided to posit them against each other. But since you have, Rand is far to the right of Clinton on support for corporations and the elite, which you would know if you had bothered to read the OP. This OP isn't about Hillary Clinton. Is your conception of politics so top down and so focused on contests among political elites that you really can think of nothing else?

This thread is about what left really means, and isn't the right wing dribble that Rand Paul and his defenders promote.

[BainsBane]

32. Social Democrats are near the center of the political spectrum in much of the world

They are not Marxists.

[joshcryer]

12. Not him, the Rand conspiracy that the left would vote for him.

[rhett o rick]

50. Now why would you make that up? Are you trying to disparage socialists and

progressives? Sure looks like that. Socialists and progressives don't support Rand Paul, so again, why would you make that up? I think you are trying to split the Democratic Party. Trying to alienate the left. Now why would you want to do that? It would certainly help the Republicans. Is that your objective? And with the elections right around the corner.

[joshcryer]

53. I didn't say that.

I am talking about the Rand conspiracy that he will take votes away. It's absurd. Just like it was absurd when they claimed the same thing about Ron Paul.

[BainsBane]

62. What people actually write is entirely irrelevant

You say the same shit in every thread. I didn't understand his post right away either because I didn't know what he was referring to by CT, but by the time you responded he had explained it. Yet that doesn't stop you from going off on the same rant you must make every single day. It makes zero sense, especially in the contest of this discussion.

For someone who claims to oppose attacks on the left, you spend a lot of time attacking leftists. Your response to this OP is a clear case. You really have no idea what leftism is, do you? Even when it's spelled out for you, you don't get it. You can't imagine it can be about anything other than one political elite vs. another.

[Doctor_J]

18. And yet the BOGers and DINOs at DU insist that they're the same

and that we will vote for this idiot.

And why are there 20 threads on the first page about Paul, most of them started by the "centrists"?

[BainsBane]

25. Who are the same?

Who are you talking about?

I am so tired of the centrist claim. Are you now going to call Marx and Tithi Bhattacharya centrists? This charade is getting old. Just because you support a view doesn't make it leftist. When it serves the interests of the few over the many, it is by nature right-wing.

I am no longer going to sit back and watch people advance right-wing positions while claiming they are leftist and others centrist. Leftist has an actual meaning, and it's origin relates to socialism, to Marx. The closer to that side of the spectrum, the more leftist. The closer to promoting the interests of laissez-fair capitalism and the privileged few, the further right. Promoting capital over human rights is not leftist. Supporting the interests of the privileged over the majority is not leftist. It is right-wing. That some openly seek to restore America to a period before most Americans had rights, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, further points to the reactionary nature of that worldview. It is only natural that right-wingers support right-wing candidates who promote the interests of capital, the gun lobby, and white men of means over the rest of the humanity.

This notion of leftist as defined by level of anger about what appears on the cable televisions is at best inane. That has far more to do with temperament and approach to politics than ideology. The fact there is no ideological fulcrum around which they define their "leftism" is demonstrative. Then of course there are a few ratfuckers who take advantage of the frustration many feel to promote the interests of the GOP and further promote the interests of capital.

[Doctor_J]

27. Why are the PUMAs convinced that liberals are going to vote for Rand Paul?

And what should describe someone who supports HRC's positions on Israel, health care ("No single payer!!!&quot , TPP, XL, banksters, and Wall Street? Of you support these things why do object to being called centrists? You use liberal as an insult, but don't like being called centrist? What's else is there?

rat fuck rat fuck rat fuck

See? I can do it too!

[rhett o rick]

29. It's a straw man argument. No one on the left I know will give the Paul's a second

thought. The centrists are frustrated because they find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of trying to defend H. Clinton-Sachs when they know she is a Corporatist.

[Marr]

48. +1, Well said.

[BainsBane]

68. All straw, like the poster at the top of the thread

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

who links to the John Birch society website to claim Paul is to the left of Clinton.

Or this alert message from a jury I just served on.

Over the top drama. Rand is bad, but he at least wants to end the war on drugs and shut down the American Military Industrialization Complex --- he's to the left of many darling Democrats on these issues, even if he is a piece of crap overall.

Funny how the OPs that you all object to are the ones critical of Paul and not the ones praising him. That really says everything there is to know and shows your arguments about straw are complete bullshit.

[Marr]

71. "Funny how the OPs that you all objet to are the ones critical of Paul, not the ones praising him".

I don't see any posts here praising Rand Paul. I've seen some that acknowledge the simple fact that he's taken a few positions on specific issues that would be considered to the left of Hillary Clinton. And I see our authoritarian wing doing it's usual nuance-blind, paranoid foot stomping-- apparently constitutionally incapable of understanding that agreeing with a politician on one issue does not mean you click your heels and march in formation for them.

[BainsBane]

74. The mindless fixation on Hillary Clinton ais yours

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't post about Clinton. That is you. I don't spend my days obsessing about which elite gains political spoils. That is you and your friends who think about nothing else. This is an OP about leftist ideology, something you know noting about and don't care bout. So play your bourgeois games elsewhere. Clearly the discussion in this OP is too much for you so you turn it into the only level you can deal with: personalities. I have no interest in your endless fixation on nothing. It's clear you are incapable of any real discussion so go play fantasy presidential league with someone who cares.

Here's clue genius. When a post mentions MARX it's not about the women who happen to despise in life. There is one discussion of women in the OP and its about social relations of production, something you clearly have no interest in. That if your choice, but don't defile this thread to your level because you are incapable of intellectual engagement. Since Clinton is not actually mentioned in this thread, I can only assume you are unyielding in your determination to make her THE presidential candidate. There is no other logical reason for someone who actually opposes a candidate to spend every waking moment promoting them.

[BainsBane]

60. This thread is not about Clinton

To pretend I have invented this controversy is complete bullshit. There is the fucking game changer thread with people singing Paul's virtues. I couldn't invent this level of insanity if I tired, so don't you dare put this bullshit on me. It is blatantly dishonest.

This thread is not about Clinton. I don't give a shit about your obsession with fantasy presidential politics, and I resent the fact that you insist what I post is about the inane level of political discourse that you are fixated on. You cannot possibly have made even a minimal attempt to read this OP if you claim I am supporting "corporatists." This thread provides a critique of capital, social relations of production of labor, and neoliberlasim. There is no universe in which that equates to support for corporatists and to claim otherwise is simply foolish.

I don't give a shit about Clinton or which political elite you have your fortunes tied to. My view of politics is not limited to contests between political elites. I don't think you have any idea how supremely bourgeois that top-down view of politics and society is.

The ONLY election I care about now is 2014--the ONLY one that matters. I wait until there are actual candidates to decide for whom I will vote. I have no idea who will actually be running in 2016, and there is no rational reason to waste any time worrying about it now.

Don't you ever get tired of writing the same thing over and over again? You hate Hillary Clinton. Point taken. That doesn't justify your making everything about her. It certainly doesn't excuse your refusal to as much as read my thread and insist I am promoting corporate interests. That is not the point of this or any other thread of mine and I resent your debasing everything to the most inane level. If that is all you are ever going to say, do it in one of the dozens of threads devoted to that topic that I regularly trash.

[rhett o rick]

86. I've never said I hate Ms. Clinton, but I think the 2016 election will make or break this country.

It's been well established that we now live in an oligarchy, not moving toward, but actually living in an oligarchy. If we don't get someone that can put us back on track to a Constitutionally controlled democratic republic, I think we will go beyond the point of no return. IMO Hillary Clinton represents the oligarchy, the aristocracy, and hasn't the least inclination to help the 99%.

I can't believe there are DU members, supposedly political liberals that don't recognize the danger of electing H. Clinton that gave her integrity to George W. Bush.

[BainsBane]

106. I can't believe you focus entirely on the fortunes of oligarchs

This is a thread about Marxism and the ideology of left vs. right. Get it? Not Hillary Clinton. If you actually cared about CAPITAL and exploitation of labor you would discuss those issues. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't imagine a single president could make or unmake an oligarchy. You would focus on actual issues related to the propagation of that oligarchy. Instead you discuss only political elites. I mention Marx and social reproduction, You say, oh you're a centrist supporting Hillary Clinton. Either you are capable of or interested in nothing else. Whichever it is ultimately doesn't matter. There is only so much inanity a person can take.

I have no idea what makes you think you are entitled to insult people because they have the nerve to care about something that matters, something besides your Freudian obsession with Hillary Clinton. What happens if she becomes ill and doesn't run? You will have four years of devoting yourself to nothing because you care about nothing but a single political elite. You insist you are to the left of Marx and Marxists because for you leftism is based on you and your social circle. Leftism has a real political fulcrum and that is Marx, not your social set.

You have insulted me time and time again. You chose to make me an enemy. Congratulations. You succeeded. There is no conception of the political spectrum in which you are on the left of Marx, Tithi, or me. I am done reading your inane insults calling Marxist analysis "centrist." You wanted an enemy; you got one. Take your politicking for your favorite oligarch to the bourgeois set who share your singular obsession. You have bored me for the last time.

[BainsBane]

66. This is the second time you have referred to Marxist analysis as centrist

How is it possible to be that out of it? Do tell us how Marx is to the right of those on the "left" that you know?

[BainsBane]

58. Did you see the game changer OP?

There are tons of OPs in GD right now. I sure as hell didn't post one positive thing about that racist POS Paul. There are, however, some here arguing he is better than the Democratic candidate, when we have no fucking Democratic candidate.

I am not the rat fucker. Claiming I am is blatantly dishonest. Go tell that to some of the people speaking favorably about him.

[BainsBane]

61. Yeah, because a thread about capital, social relations of production, and neoliberalism

is all about promoting Wall Street. You couldn't miss the point any more if you tried.

Go talk to the people in the "Game changer" thread and the poll about Rand Paul moving the Democratic Party to the right about rat fucking. You obviously are way out of your depth here.

[BainsBane]

65. I just served on a jury where this was the alert message

The person who sent the alert wrote: Over the top drama. Rand is bad, but he at least wants to end the war on drugs and shut down the American Military Industrialization Complex --- he's to the left of many darling Democrats on these issues, even if he is a piece of crap overall.

You were saying? This view has been posted repeatedly over the past day or two. That you accuse me of rat fucking like I invented this shit is a blatant fabrication. Some have even insisted Paul is well to the left of the Democrats, not just on some issues but overall.

I would like to know why is it you are so hostile to the left and instead insist on defending the right against attack? That is precisely what you are doing here. You are pissed off anyone dare question Paul. To pretend I invented this shit, like I have nothing better to do that give racist shit bags like Rand attention, is obviously a distraction. Clearly you're pissed off at this thread. You take exception to my OP which posits Marxism in favorable terms and Paul as the right-wing POS he is. That you resent such a view is evident in your posts that attack me with one nonsequitur after another. I find it interesting that you and your pals attack the actual left--Marx and Marxists--while insisting that I invented the Paul admiration story. That you ignore the actual threads praising Paul and attack the one critical of him says a great deal about your own views.

[BKH70041]

19. The RP conversation on this site is vain and fruitless.

This is a site for Democratic Party discussions. No Democrats are going to have any say about who the Republicans nominate. Might as well be talking about what the Republican platform is going to be, too, since no Democrats are going to have anything to do with that either.

Who they nominate is who they nominate. There's always crossover voters in every election. Whether Democrats cross over will depend on who they nominate and their appeal to the voters, and that's the only thing the Democratic Party can control. Worrying about who the Republican nominee is going to be and how many crossovers they get is like chasing after the breeze.

[BainsBane]

22. That isn't what they are doing

They are extolling the virtues of Rand Paul ABOVE the Democratic party.

[BKH70041]

24. It's in vain.

They're discussing things over which they have no control. I might as well talk about what pajamas you're going to sleep in tonight as if I get to fucking decide anything.

I don't expect the Democratic nominee to be to the left of the Republican nominee on every issue anymore than I expect the Republican nominee to be to the right of the Democratic nominee on every issue. Most people are a mixed bag; I know I am. I'm liberal on some things, conservative on some, libertarian on some, socialist on some, etc... that's just the nature of the beast. Someone tells me they're completely one ideology on every issue and I just found someone who's a robot.

I understand your concern but what you're seeing others do has no foundation. It'll wither and die.

Have a nice evening.

[redqueen]

20. K&R

Third party candidates can only pull parties right because of the way the system is set up, and the lack of education here.

[The Magistrate]

23. And He Does Not Even Get 'Wealth Of Nations' Right, Ma'am

Mr. Smith is adamant that taxation should bear more heavily on the wealthy than the poor, and gives particular prominence to taxes on inheritance of estates, viewing this as the only time a tax can be brought directly on wealth. He endorses government regulation of currency and credit, and laws requiring owners take measures for safety that benefit the public at their own cost, whether they wish to or no, as well as substantial interference with market mechanisms in the interests of a strong national defense or other national good.

Mr. Smith's objections to government interference in economic matters are objections to businessmen duping legislators into passing regulations which benefit their particular businesses, generally relaxations of taxes on them, or subsidies for their products, or increased taxes on, or withdrawl of subsidies from, their competitors. In short, he does not so much object to government as he does to successful lobbying and regulatory capture.

Mr. Smith is also at some pains to argue that wages paid to workmen ought not to be pitched at subsistence level, which was a common view at his time, but ought instead be sufficient to procure not only necessities of life, but some conveniences and comforts as well, and his definition of necessities was much more expansive than was usual for his time, extending far beyond merely sufficient rough food and clothing and shelter sufficient to keep breath in a body. His view of the 'necessities' of life amounted to what is required for a man not just to live but to live with a sense of well-being and self-respect.

"The laboring classes are of necessity the largest portion of society, and it is nonesense to argue that what benefits the greatest number injures the whole."

[3rdwaydem]

30. I dislike both models

[Adam051188]

36. this is america.

[BainsBane]

37. What is your point?

[Adam051188]

73. left wing politics is viewed as a national security threat here.

our owners don't like it.

[BainsBane]

76. So you thought you'd' reaffirm that in this thead?

[Adam051188]

92. it's highly relevant

there will be no successful left wing political agenda in the u.s.

the closest we've ever come is FDR and he would have been overthrown in a coup....by the parents and grandparents of the same people who run the country today....if not for the loyalty of a high ranking military official and said groups misjudgment of the general's character.

you have to understand that in the u.s. the government isn't really relevant. you have owners. they own you.

[BainsBane]

97. I saw your post extolling the virtues of Ron Paul

There certainly won't be a viable left was long as people continue to promote the right and even the far right as acceptable alteratives.

If you had read Marx, you would know that the vast majority of what he focused on was the historical development and nature of capitalism. An understanding of that is crucial to what it means to be on the left. Without that ideological foundation, people flounder from one right-wing distraction to another, as the talk about the Pauls demonstrates.

I am the one who posted Marxist analysis. Don't tell me what I need to understand.

[Adam051188]

102. i saw your post extolling the virtues of SATAN!!!

lol

the historical development of practiced economics closely mirrors the historical development of government. monarchy is easy and convenient.

i'm not sure of rand yet. he's still new. i'm not sure he's as principled as his father, or if he's more of an opportunist.

but i love telling people what they need to understand, it distracts me from understanding myself

[socialist_n_TN]

38. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.........

I don't think that ANY socialist, even ones of the social democrat model, would support an anarcho-capitalist like Rand Paul for dogcatcher, much less for POTUS. Now could some folks vote for Paul because of a couple of issues? Sure why not? A lot of people vote for candidates over single issues. Abortion for one. Gun rights for another. But no matter their self-identification, I wouldn't consider those single issue voters to be socialist or even leftist.

Maybe I've missed something, but the Paul posts that I've seen since I've been on this evening seem mostly to be about people considering the idea that a Ron Paul candidacy could beat HRC. I'd say that was unlikely, but it IS possible, IMO. Her being pro-war and a corporatist, Third Way Dem type doesn't contrast very well with much of the Republican field, including Rand Paul. There are places where Paul COULD contrast HRC and possibly cause her problems, notably war and personal liberation issues, i.e., smoking dope. Those are the issues that might cut into any natural edge a Dem might have with youthful and less experienced voters.

The problem with Hillary is that she's not very different from what we've had for the last 25 to 30 years and I personally think that people are looking for different. Mostly because what we've had for the last 25 to 30 years (HRC) has been crap for the average person.

[TBF]

39. ^ This -

the only way socialists are going to vote for HRC is if there is no other option further left on the ballot. For example, down here in a red county of south Texas I get the choice of dem, repug, or FRP (last time the FRP candidate was Gary Johnson). They won't even put a 3rd party socialist on the ballot unless you are right inside a major city like Dallas, Houston or Austin. We simply don't get the option so I vote for the person likely to do the least amount of damage to working people. Sometimes that's a crap shoot but in Texas we are in a serious position with women's issues and loss of rights. You bet I'll vote HRC over FRP given what poor women in Texas are dealing with right now. Of course I also see that vote as a temporary fix and not nearly as important as other forms of advocacy.

[lovemydog]

40. We need more anti-war anti-corporatist populist

leftists like me and you! We have very few in Congress. We should definitely start there. Sadly I don't think there's much chance we'll get one in the Presidency for a while. Personally, while I do vote I'm much more interested in my local stuff. Being a decent person, avoiding warlike & corporatist behaviors, things of that sort. I'm in favor of nationalizing health care, nationalizing banking, taxing the rich and government creating good paying jobs. In Europe that makes me moderate. In the current USA I'm far left. It's nice knowing there's others like us out there all around. Many of the younger people I talk with feel the same. But it's like pulling teeth trying to convince them to even voting at all, because they do see the well-known democratic candidates as being far too pro-corporate and pro-military-industrial for their tastes. I tell them to vote to stop republicans. Some of them agree. But I feel like, especially for midterms, they just tell me that and that they are too cynical and / or lazy to vote in them.

[joshcryer]

41. Clinton isn't "pro-war."

She will come out for marijuana since its over the 50% polling level.

So all you've said that's true is she is a corporatist, but so is Paul...

[socialist_n_TN]

44. Of course she's pro-war.........

She's a backer of US imperialism AND capitalism through and through. The only time she's not for a war is if there's no material advantage for the capitalists in a particular war.

[joshcryer]

46. In that vein, sure.

But so is any corporatist. But you're muddling the picture a bit. Rand Paul would happily support a milita mercenary state in any country that is subject to globalization. He is not in fact anti-war. It's preposterous in that vein.

[BainsBane]

63. Who isn't?

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Capitalism does not and will not produce a President who doesn't promote capital. That is the function of the capitalist state.

War is not central to the capitalist state, but it is the nature of military empires.

[BainsBane]

56. There are people arguing that Rand Paul would move the Democratic party to the left

There is a poll to that effect, with no option that he would move the party to the right, which is where he actually sits on the political spectrum.

I agree no socialist would support him. Paul will draw support from the right, even if those right-wingers believe they are leftist.

I seek to correct the record as to what actually constitutes the left. I'm sick to death of people who clearly have no familiarity or association with leftist politics claiming that mantle and actually responding to Marxist analysis by calling in "centrist." There is a level of obtuseness that has gone unchecked far too long. The arguments about Paul are the last straw as far as I'm concerned. I've had enough of this faux leftism.

I'm not getting into the issue of Clinton. We aren't in a presidential election, and we have no candidates. I won't choose a candidate to vote for until that time. I will point out that I disagree with you completely that Paul doesn't contrast with the Democrats. The positions above show that quite clearly. He is very far to the right, as are his supporters and defenders. They engage in an exclusively top down view of politics and care only about contests among political elites. They insist the concerns of the vast majority of Americans, those who are not privileged in terms of class, race, and gender--are "Third Way." I've had enough of the bullshit. That is why I posted this OP. People need to know what left really is. It isn't the country club view of politics that is so common these days.

[ErikJ]

42. Libertarianism was invented to sucker impressionable youth into corporate Conservatives.

Looky kids we want No drug laws, no war. Ignore the rest. Vote Libertarian!

[BainsBane]

43. Yep, and now they are suckering in

older impressionable pro-capitalist "leftists" (excuse me as I choke while I describe the Paul apologists as "leftists&quot .

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. Rand Paul doesn't understand Adam Smith, and has possibly never read him:

Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their "conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices".[81] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers".[82] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#The_Wealth_of_Nations

[BainsBane]

47. Smith's concerns were about mercantilism

and royal monopolies, not the excesses of capitalism. That quote provides no sense of the historical context in which he wrote so that it comes off as some trust busting Progressive a la Teddy Roosevelt. The problem with people plucking out bits of text like that is that people interpret them as thought he were writing about the present, which he is did not.

[Marr]

49. Please cite a post from a liberal on this site who is advocating for a Rand Paul presidency.

[BainsBane]

51. Look at the poll about Rand Paul

"pushing the Democratic Party to the left." Note there is no option for pushing the party to the right, which is in fact where he sits ideologically. The point of this is not to indict people who support Paul. They are irredeemable. It is to point out what left actually is, and it bears no relation to that racist, misogynist, homophobic, pro-capitalist piece of shit. There is more than one OP supporting Rand's position on certain issues as "leftist." He's as leftist as the Aryan fucking Nation is leftist. Is that clear enough for you?

Of course, you could have just read the OP to start with rather than asking me to provide proof for something in your own head. But then that would require actually engaging in something besides fantasy presidential politics. There are dozens of other threads in GD where you play that inane game. This is not one of them.

[Purveyor]

52. Well then start another goddamned poll that includes "pushing the party to

the right" for christ sakes if you think that option is so important.

[BainsBane]

55. I posted the poll I wanted, thanks

That Tea Bagging POS has far more attention than he deserves.

[Marr]

54. Oh, I read most of it.

I ended up sighing and just cutting right to the chase because it was just... well, juvenile. Sorry.

You seem to believe that it's impossible to be to Hillary Clinton's left on any issue. That's not the case, and I expect she'd be the first to say so. Adolph Hitler could be to her left on something-- that wouldn't make the people who acknowledge it Nazis. And, if a right-wing candidate takes a position to the left of their left wing opponent on any given issue, that puts pressure on the left wing candidate to move leftward on that issue.

That's not a claim that Rand Paul is to Hillary Clinton's left broadly speaking, and it's not an advocacy for a Paul presidency.

I'm sorry, but this really shouldn't be hard for an adult to understand.

[BainsBane]

57. "You seem to believe it's impossible to be to Hillary Clinton's left on any issue."

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 04:01 AM - Edit history (3)

Riiight. That's why I posted Marx and Tithi Bhattacarya. I can conceive of no political spectrum in which Clinton is not it's furthest left.

If you mean for Rand is to the left of Clinton, you are factually wrong. US libertarianism is a right-wing ideology, not a leftist one. It is focused on the individual over the common good. That is well to the right of the Democratic Party and much of the GOP. As for his anti-interventionist views: Isolationism is not an inherently leftist position. Either the left or the right can be isolationist. The Nazi sympathizers in the UK and US were isolationist, while the Communist Party set aside it's opposition to capitalist states for the purposes of defeating fascism. There is no rational analysis in which the Hitler apologists can be conceived of as to the left of the CP simply because they opposed US or British involvement in the war. The same goes for Paul on Iraq. It's a position, not an ideological orientation. One can oppose foreign intervention from either left-wing or right-wing perspective. One can oppose the security state from a left or right-wing perspective. Rand does it from the right. That really shouldn't be very hard for an adult to understand.

What I have to wonder is why people feel compelled to invoke a racist shit bag like Paul to advance an anti-interventionist position? Why can't a person simply say I oppose foreign intervention in Iraq and NSA surveillance? What compels them to invoke an ultra reactionary to support that position? There is no logical reason to do so. If anything it undermines their argument rather than advances it. They must have other reasons for promoting him.

I suspect it is not simply his anti-interventionist views that they support. Anyone who could favorably write his name without becoming physically ill, I suspect, shares more than an issue or two in common with him. In fact, I suspect his opposition to civil rights, women's rights, and LGBT rights is a plus for some. The reactionary dribble that is passed off as "leftist" around here is bad enough. Now this crap about Rand is the fucking limit. Some people who run around claiming to be leftist are anything but. I have had enough of the bullshit. I am no longer sitting back while they advance one right-wing, pro-capitalist position after another and accuse those of us who think anyone but the privileged few matter are "centrist." They have gone too far with this Paul shit and revealed too much of who they really are.

The problem is those focused entirely on self have no ideological rudder. They don't read Marx or much of any political economy or theory. They see themselves as embodying the left and anyone who disagrees with them is something other than leftist, That is not an ideology, or at least not a leftist one. It could be seen as a right-wing Ayn Randian individualist ideology, but they don't claim it as such. Their views are based entirely on ego over knowledge, over history and political economy. It is empty nonsense. That has led to all manner of distortion so that right-wing views are proclaimed as "leftist." Just because someone who posts on DU likes guns doesn't make that view leftist. Just because someone thinks white men are oppressed doesn't make white male supremacy leftist. They are fundamentally reactionary ideas that promote capital and the interests of the few over the common good. That is by definition right-wing. The political spectrum is not relativist. Marxism represents the left. That is the rudder by which proximity to leftism is gaged. One need not use labels of left and right, but if one does, they must have meaning.

To call this OP juvenile is ridiculous. You obviously didn't bother to read it, and clearly you aren't interested in any of the ideas about capital, social reproduction, or neoliberalism. That is leftism, and it doesn't interest you. There is some sophisticated analysis is Tithi's piece in particular, yet you engage only on the level of fantasy presidential politics and call me juvenile? Get a grip. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[socialist_n_TN]

69. OK, I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from..........

and you're right is some aspects. Paul's positions that appear to be "left" definitely CAN also be RW positions depending on the ideological foundations he's basing them on. And you're DEFINITELY right about people thinking that they're "left" when they're really not. I've complained about that myself. I don't care how much you support some "leftish" positions (LGBT rights and Pro Choice rights come to mind), if you support a neo-liberal or neo-conservative economic position, you are most definitely NOT left in any real sense. Of course, that standard applies to HRC too.

And no, Rand Paul is NOT left. Some of his positions though are compatible to some true left positions, even if he comes to those positions by way of a totally different ideological basis.

[BainsBane]

77. And those positions don't in any way make up for the fact that he is a right wing piece of shit

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

As for neoliberalism, it is those most hostile to the rights of the majority of Americans that most actively promote neoliberalism, through the sex trade, for example, or their insistence that "choice" justifies labor exploitation.

There cannot be a socialist view that writes the majority out of the body politic. That is by nature antithetical to Marx's intent. Marx wrote in a fairly homogeneous society. America is not. Marxists today do not exclude non-white men from their analysis. Rather they incorporate different axes of exploitation into Marxist analysis, as Tithi's piece in the OP does. There can be no Marxist white male supremacist position. They are fundamentally incompatible.

[Marr]

72. Actually, I'm very interested in those subjects.

I'm just not very interested in shallow political sales pitches that use those topics as a means of defending and promoting some Third Way politician.

See, here again you're asserting that I've claimed Paul is to the left of Hillary Clinton, when I just told you that's not the case. Everyone already knows that the American Libertarianism is extremely right-wing. You aren't educating anyone here. When you just repeatedly bleat out the same noises regardless of response, people will naturally stop reading it.

[BainsBane]

75. "You've told me that isn't the case"

So fucking what? I can think of not a single reason why what you "tell me" makes any difference. You don't even provide analysis let alone evidence.

This is an OP about leftism, about Marxism, something you have admitted to never reading. Clearly there is a lot here that could educate you, if you decided to at some point care about something other than your obsession with promoting Hillary Clinton.

You aren't a mind-reader. Don't tell me what this OP is actually about, particularly when you make a point of refusing to read it. You don't read the posts or engage in anything approaching analysis. You don't as much as bother to site a position or quote by Paul. You don't deal with any of the historical analogies I pointed out. But let's follow your logic using the example you ignored in my post. Paul is to the left of the Democratic Party as Hitler is to the left of the Communist Party. And you wonder why I don't care what you "tell me." I don't know who you think you are, but you ain't all that. What you "tell me" means nothing when it isn't supported by anything approaching thought, analysis, or evidence. It's more of nothing.

How can you claim to know who is left and right when you don't know what left is or even try to establish a basis for what defines left?

[Marr]

80. Why does what I tell you make any difference?

Because what I told you was that your characterization of my position was inaccurate, and explained why. My description of my position is the only one that matters.

I'll assume you aren't asserting your right to dishonestly misrepresent the positions of others, and you just misread the sentence. I suspect that's too generous, given the whole thrust of this thread.

[BainsBane]

83. "I told you your characterization of my position was inaccurate"

As you time and time again accuse me of promoting Hillary Clinton? I told you that was not the point of this OP and that I in fact was supporting no Presidential candidate because we are not engaged in a Presidential election. You insisted what I wrote was irrelevant and instead projected onto me a bizarre rant that exists only in your mind. You clearly are not interested in honest debate. You have willfully and repeatedly accused me of positions I do not take, and that you now accuse me of dishonesty is the limit. Just cut the crap. You have repeatedly falsified my position, and you somehow think you deserve respect after treating me with derision? You have been dishonest throughout this thread, ignored my actual points in favor of some Freudian issue you have with a fantasy presidential candidate. Keep me out whatever issue that compels you to reduce everything to an inane mantra about a woman you despise. I am not interested in dealing with your angst. That shit goes way beyond politics.

[Marr]

96. "...time and time again accuse me of promoting Hillary Clinton".

This took literally 5 seconds to find.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519661

You're one of the most vocal Hillary Clinton supporters on this site. And that's fine! But when you make a post like this one, while simultaneously making all sorts of offensive accusations in other threads (and this one) on the topic of Rand Paul/Hillary Clinton that liberals here are supporting Rand Paul... the context is very clear. The message is very clear.

I'm finding it very difficult to take you seriously.

[sibelian]

107. She's not here to discuss, Marr.

She's here for the sound of her own voice. She can't maintain her position without simply ignoring what everyone says to her and replacing their words with things she wants to argue with instead.

I'm beginning to think her pathological propensity to treat everyone's posts as cryptic crossword puzzles is incurable.

She's not interested in what other people think. She's not interested in other people.

[woo me with science]

78. Great posts throughout this thread.

Way to cut through the squid ink. Thank you.

[Marr]

79. Thanks :D

[BainsBane]

81. Ah yes

I saw you speak affectionately of Ayn Rand Paul in the other thread. Why stop at Third Way when you can have Third Reich?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Not everything can be put into neat little boxes.

Most of Rand Paul's views are not just right wing but extremely far right-wing.

A few of them are not.

[NCTraveler]

70. Rand Paul is tailoring some of his rhetoric to the simpletons on the left.

In the end he will garner support from very few.

[BainsBane]

84. Simpletons is right

Holy shit the stupid burns.

[tammywammy]

98. Alert results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Aug 26, 2014, 06:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Simpletons is right
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5446836

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 26, 2014, 06:26 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not fully clear if the insult is directed at a specific DUer.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: 0-7?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "No comments were provided by the alerter". No justification on why this should be hidden, I don't see any reason to hide this. People that believe anything that comes out of Paul's mouth is a simpleton and stupid. Vote to leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yawn, every 4 years the same...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

99. That's not even a real effort

Thanks for posting.

[tammywammy]

100. It was so ridiculous, I'm glad it was 7-0. n/t

[hifiguy]

82. I am a democratic socialist

and the day i would support or vote for a shitheel like Rand Paul is the day hell freezes over and pigs fly. He has two or three good ideas buried in an avalanche of horseshit. Blind squirrel, nut, etc, etc.

It's the same old Reichwing crap with a surface veneer of anti-militarism that will vanish the first time Big Money is threatened. No one would ever be able to afford the legal weed he promises if he and the small dead animal he wears on his head were ever elected.

Unfortunately the Turd Way is a lo-cal version of the same basic philosophy wearing a Ronald McDonald happy-face mask.

Might a real, old-fashioned non-corporatist, liberal DEMOCRAT stand up, pretty please?

[BainsBane]

85. You have a picture of Marx on your avatar

and talk about "old-fashioned non-corporatist . . Democrat." How does that track? When has there every been a President who hasn't promoted capital?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see you're not on the Rand Paul bandwagon, but I find the juxtaposition of your avatar and your rhetoric perplexing.

[hifiguy]

87. I believe Marx's descriptions of the inevitability of capitalism's systemic failure

are absolutely correct and a needed tonic in these times. His prescriptions I am less sold on. Ergo - democratic socialism to deal with the smoking ruins of "free-market" capitalism, which KM correctly predicted.

I have been debating whether to change my avatar to my ponysona, though.

[BainsBane]

88. I dont disagree with that

What puzzles me is that you don't seem to understand the role of the state under capitalism. The idea that a "non-corporatist" presidential candidate could emerge and prevail within the party structure of a state build around the promotion of capital doesn't make sense. We are talking about degrees at best, not anti-capital.

[hifiguy]

89. I know, but I am not ready to renounce non-violence.

at least not yet anyway. Though seeing something like an actual democratic republic in this country once again is on my bucket list.

[BainsBane]

91. That has noting to do with it

I'm talking about how you view society and politics. I'm not talking about revolution. I'm asking how you think it's possible for a "non-corporatist"--what I would call someone not aligned with capital-- to emerge as a viable presidential candidate in a political system that is built around the protection and promotion of capital? You can find someone better, someone less naked in their support for neoliberal capitalism, but the capitalist state requires that capital be its first priority. That has been the case since the founding of the Republic. Why would it change now?

[hifiguy]

93. You are correct, especially in terms of the way US politics have been

restructured over the last 25-35 years. I don't, really, I just try to live with a little bit of hope.

[BainsBane]

94. I'm all for working to get more progressive Democrats

and not falling for Ayn Rand Paul nonsense. On that we're on the same page.

[hifiguy]

95. I am definitely with you on that!

[panader0]

90. "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.

Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."---Abraham Lincoln
They don't make Republicans like that anymore.....

[YoungDemCA]

101. Rand Paul is criticizing both parties FROM THE RIGHT, people!

That's his whole shtick, in a nutshell. He doesn't think the current political, economic, and social systems of the United States are going far enough in their cruel, exploitative, inhumane treatment of (most) people and their families. He thinks corporations should have more power, and that the federal government (notice how he never says anything about the state governments!) ) not only should withdraw from the international community (which would be a disaster for not just America, but the rest of the world as well), but also, ought to end any and all of its social welfare programs-he literally wants to go back to the Gilded Age, if not earlier.

Just because he wants to decriminalize weed or he criticizes Obama on metadata doesn't make him a progressive. It just makes him a cynical politician, marketing himself as a "hip" Republican while actually promoting extreme right-wing policies.

Great OP, as usual. K&R.

[BainsBane]

103. Exactly

He criticizes society from the right and seeks to propel it more in that direction. That a few bright lights think he is a leftist alternative to Clinton's corporatism is incredible. I find it impossible to take seriously.

[YoungDemCA]

104. Those who sincerely wish to see a leftist alternative to the Democratic Party *as is*

Should get together and work seriously to elect left-wing Democrats at all levels of government-and of the national, state, and local Democratic Party committees, clubs, precinct committees and civil society organizations that the Democratic Party is affiliated with, along with grassroots activism in any progressive left-wing fashion, etc.

And before I get the "but the Democratic Party Establishment/DLC/etc. is sabotaging any efforts by backing 'corporatist' candidates in the Democratic Party!" complaints, so? Ordinary people-voters, volunteers, precinct walkers, grassroots activists, local leaders in civil society, etc.-have the potential to be more important than politicians, candidates, or donors (no matter how obscenely wealthy they may be). Why is there more focus and time spent on the latter, and not the former? That's by no means inevitable.

Change doesn't come from the top down-it comes from the bottom up. But only if there is a bottom; one that actively and aggressively demands and pushes for that change.

[BainsBane]

105. Work for change?

Surely you jest. The self-entitled expect everything to be handed to them. NOTHING pisses them off more than suggesting they work at the local level to bring about change. I wrote a post to that effect in another thread a couple of weeks ago and you should have seek them freak out. Work is for the little people. They expect everything to be handed to them, as it always has been.