There are NO "Fringe Leftists" posting at DU.

[bvar22]

I have been here daily since February 2001,
and have NEVER read a serious post from a DUer advocating for
the confiscation of all Personal Property,
and having the citizens formed into Collectives to work for the government.
THAT is a "Fringe Left" position.

There ARE some "Fringe leftists" in the USA, but they are a very small minority,
and you won't see them here at DU, or with a voice in the National Media.

Our Media & The Large Corporations who fund it would be happy to have America believe that mainstream FDR/LBJ values
are "The Fringe Left", and are equally "balanced" by the Far Right Tea Party,
because THAT would move the mythological "Center" FAR to the Right.
You will even see that myth propagated at DU.

What you see at DU are the Mainstream-Center Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ Democrats
advocating FOR traditional Democratic Values.

Attempts to marginalize FDR/LBJ Democrats as the "Fringe Left" only helps move this country further to The RIGHT.
Attempts to draw a False Equivalency between FDR/LBJ Democrats and the Tea Party only helps move this country to The RIGHT.


The following are Traditional Mainstream Democratic Party Values:

"Asked about the platform of the American Liberty League, a pressure group of rich conservative Democrats such as the Du Pont family that declared itself the protector of property rights and free enterprise, Roosevelt remarked that their principles seemed to be that "you shall love God and then forget your neighbor."

Government, he (FDR) countered, involved itself with "people who want to keep themselves free from starvation, keep a roof over their heads, lead decent lives, have proper educational standards" ... and who needed protection from those determined to "enrich and advance themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/19/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110619

and THIS:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
---FDR, 1944

THOSE are NOT "Fringe Left" positions,
and if these values are no longer welcome in the New Democrat Party,
then neither am I.


---bvar22
a Mainstream, Center FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT
for 45 years

[piratefish08]

1. bravo!

k+r

[DocMac]

78. Why can't we link a post like this to facebook?

This should be read. Sorry....just had to get this in the top...lol.

[sce56]

135. Just copy the URL for it and link it on your facebook page! It's easy I allways do it

[phantom power]

2. recommend

[Dappleganger]

3. Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post.

:hug:

[sudopod]

4. Yup. n t

[nc4bo]

5. Outstanding OP. K&R

[Renew Deal]

6. I've been here since 2003 and have seen people advocate for the confiscation of personal property

But I haven't seen people advocate for "the citizens formed into Collectives to work for the government."

I have seen people defend that sort of thing in NK.

[Xithras]

11. Yep, there have been a couple of communists here over the years.

They generally don't last long because the audience here isn't receptive to that line of thinking.

We even had a self-proclaimed Stalinist here for a couple of months at one point (an authoritarian communist who believed in re-education camps and foced collectivism). He was here for quite a while, but I think he finally got banned.

I've been here since 2001, and I think that I can probably count the number of outright communists I've seen on DU, in all that time, on one hand.

[socialist_n_TN]

64. I disagree. I can think of five or more

right off the top of my head.

[bvar22]

181. I think you missed the point.

Democratic Socialism, and even pure Socialism is FAR from the "Left Fringe."
You have to go WAY farther out to The Left to find the ideological counter balance to the Tea Baggers.
You would have to go ALL the way to Single Party Authoritarian Communism to reach the "Fringe Left",
and THOSE people will indeed take your X-BOX,
and put you into a Labor Camp for having one.

THAT is the "Fringe Left".
Democratic Socialism is Weak Tea compared to the Fringe Left.

[Jackpine Radical]

200. Fringe Left? Maybe Pol Pot.

I'm a middle-of-the-road democratic socialist with syndicalist leanings, myself.

[joshcryer]

243. I find it amusing that you conflate "fringe left" with authoritarianism.

As I consider authoritarian leftism to be more prevalent and mainstream in reality.

[rhett o rick]

284. Please go on. Give us some examples. nm

[joshcryer]

344. Let's see...

...Latin America is undergoing a "left Renaissance" which is almost replete with authoritarian leftists, those who pass laws that ban free speech and whose redistribution methods are so corrupted that they pale in comparison to the center moderate social democracies that exist there. Chile and Brazil reduce crime and poverty by leaps and bounds and are bashed because they're allied with the USA, Venezeula increases crime, doubles the prison population, while moderately reducing poverty with windfall income from oil, while the President rules by decree and laws to stifle dissent were implemented.

Meanwhile the UK is a police state by every concept of the word, Mugabe was once praised here on DU, hell, you can even go back to posts praising his expropriating of farmland to give to his cronies. The Cuban government is regularly praised here, and if you start a post being even remotely critical of the Cuban regime you will get hundreds of posts and be slandered as a right winger. Fortunately, some people actually got banned for making light of the North Korean regime here, because any sane person knows that's simply taking this "left regime defense" too far. Syria's totalitarian government gets defended, Libya's government gets defended pretty much daily, with Gaddafi portrayed as a one who is loved by many. The list can go on and on and on.

Ban smoking, tax unhealthy foods, clamp down on media speech rights, these are very common themes even here on these very forums. I typically stay out of 99% of left-authoritarian discussions, but I think as far as who is mainstream or not it is the authoritarian leftists.

I completely disagree with FDR's "workerist mentality" that he enumerates, myself.

[socialist_n_TN]

312. Thank you for the clarification

and as a BTW, I rarely disagree with your posts on issues, bvar.

However, I feel like I should clarify what I'm getting at. As a Marxist, I'm not in favor of private property, RE: the means of economic production and inheritance. And no, I'm NOT a Stalinist. I'm not enamored of Stalin or Pol Pot, Mao or even Fidel or any other "strong man" type of authoritarian leader. The way to keep this from happening is through a VIGEROUS democratic interparty debate and CONTROL over the forces that might want to bureaucraticize the vanguard, either for personal gain or just because they like hard and fast dogma. I don't believe in the "top down" model of vanguard party organization. But I'm a Bolshevik-Leninist, so I DO believe in the "vanguard party" idea of working class control over the economy through the dictatorship of the proletariat under a vanguard party, at least until socialism is WELL entrenched and large scale capitalism is destroyed. If that makes me "fringe", sobeit.

The "fringe" is what keeps the center..., well, CENTERED. That's why the Tbaggers have been able to yank the discussion so far to the right and why what passes for the left in this country hasn't been able to stop it. BECAUSE THERE IS NO NOTICIBLE "FRINGE" LEFT. That's one reason I've tried to advocate on here for Marxism, but failing that, at least lib dem/Dem SUPPORT for MARXISTS. At this stage of the class struggle, it's in ANY liberal's interest to support as much of the Marxist programme as they're comfortable supporting. Just to provide a counterbalance to the proto-fascist Tbaggers. If not, the discussion will be dragged further and further rightwards until ACTUAL fascism IS the center position.

[defendandprotect]

147. Let's see ... were Native Americans "communist" or was Columbus a fascist ... ????

[blackspade]

339. What do Native Americans or Columbus have to do with this discussion?

Incidentally, Native Americans had/have huge variations in their concepts of ownership, just like everyone else in the world.

And Columbus was not a fascist, but a religious/cultural totalitarian. Kind of like most folks in power during the Spanish Inquisition.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. There is a difference between personal

and private property.

[leftstreet]

94. ENDING CAPITALISM DOES NOT MEAN CONFISCATING PERSONAL PROPERTY

FFS!

Why do people keep repeating this bullshit?

[TBF]

101. Thank you -

I tried to explain in post #34 ... but folks like their propaganda

[Renew Deal]

108. For you

Not for others.

[white_wolf]

121. If by others you mean Marxists then you are wrong.

Since communists are usually what is meant by fringe left and what springs to mind when people talk about ending capitalism. Marx never advocated the end of personal property, private property i.e. the means of production would end. However, you'd still keep you house, computer, etc. I've never heard a leftist advocated ending personal property.

[Renew Deal]

125. I'm not talking about communists or marxists

or even about ending capitalism. I'm talking about a few people on DU in the last nearly 8 years.

[white_wolf]

127. Then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I've never seen that on DU before, though apparently though used to be a Stalinist and I missed him.

[kestrel91316]

233. Somehow I missed the Stalinist, too. He would have been fun to kick around.

[joshcryer]

242. Eh, for me, Stalinism is the end result of Trotskyism regardless.

[eridani]

273. I take the Grateful Dead approach to private property

Let it be known
There is a fountain
That was not made by the handa of men

I advocate the ownership of private property for anything made by the hands of men. It isn't enough to say you favor private property--you then have to decide what kinds of entities are allowed to BE property. Recall that not all that long ago human beings were on that list. I see no moral justification for private ownership of anything not made by the hands of men. That would include land, water, air and natural resources.

I don't see land as being de-commodified anytime soon--people are too used to that legal formality for achieving the security of having a place they can't (easily) be evicted from. Lifetime leases would accomplish the same thing, but that will be a pretty hard sell. These days, we should at least shoot for air and water not being further commodified.

[Odin2005]

208. Because people are fed anti-Socialist propaganda their whole lives.

People are brainwashed into conflating personal possessions with private property. Something is only private property if it is used to exploit others. A home owned by the family that lives in it is a personal possession. If that family rents out the home to somebody else for a profit THEN it becomes private property.

[joshcryer]

240. I agree there's an indoctrination there, but it's self-consistent.

Private property sums up to "property that is based on contract through the rule of law." There's no need to distinguish between private and personal property because it's contractual property, at its roots. If people would only read the contracts they sign each and every day then they might actually realize the distinction (ie, I have a contract I must sign when renting a house, but when I buy a TV from the store I don't have to sign anything!).

[joshcryer]

237. Capitalists do not distinguish between private property and personal property.

All capitalists believe all property is private property.

Socialists believe that all property is personal and private and that private (see: capitalist) property should be collectivized.

[Odin2005]

206. Bullcrap. Even the most extreme Commumists are not for confiscating personal possesions.

Which are an entirely different thing from private property.

[joshcryer]

236. I think the term "personal property" was used intentionally to deflect from "private property."

I think you fell for it, unfortunately. What's important to understand is that capitalists do not distinguish between personal and private property, that is, "all property is private property." So when they see that socialists want to expropriate private property, they extend it to "all property." And it is true.

Most people in fact do not have very much personal property, they are either renting or paying a mortgage on their home, so that's private property that is owned by the capitalists or investors. People are leasing or making payments on their cars, likewise, do not have it as their personal property, and so on. I advocate everyone have access to unfettered personal property.

[Taverner]

7. Yep. What you said. 100%

I am a Socialist, but even I don't advocate the confiscation of private property

Even though, this is done daily in the war on drugs

[aquart]

199. And yet I favor seizing Koch and Murdoch property under RICO.

And I would be happy to leave them without a change of underwear.

[defendandprotect]

221. I'd go with that -- the oil companies as well -- !!

[Enthusiast]

280. I'm with you!.......nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. I favor the nationalization of the oil industry, and that is about as far

fringe as it seems to get here.

And I only do that because I think the government should run the oil industry instead of the other way around.

[bvar22]

38. Strict Government Regulation or Public Ownership of:

*Utilities

*International Trade

*Energy

*Communications

*Transportation

*Insurance

*The Social Safety Net

..were once mainstream American values, not just Democratic Party values.

Fair Competition Regulation that allowed Mom & Pop Businesses to compete with the Big Boxes
was once an American Value, not just a Democratic Party Value.
In the 50s & 60s, Big Boxes were NOT allowed to move into small towns and undercut the local merchants.
THAT was an American value.

[defendandprotect]

222. +1 ---

[defendandprotect]

148. Natural resources are part of the commonwealth -- should not be in private hands -- !!

[inna]

245. +1,000,000

[Zookeeper]

343. On C-Span: Rep. Session said during the budget hearings....

that we should be looking at selling off some of our government held assets. No one responded to his comment, but it was clear to me that he was planting the seed of a future push to sell our national and natural resources to Rethug cronies.

The a$$hat Rethuglicans are pushing their corporatist ideology on all fronts.

[coalition_unwilling]

263. I favor confiscatory inheritance taxes and I know that is fairly

fringe for DU (at least I think it is).

FWIW, the largest source of wealth in the US is that which is inherited, i.e., passed along from one generation to the next. While I cannot provide a current citation for this, I believe inheritance surpasses all other sources of wealth by several orders of magnitude, based on several articles I've read over the years.

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. k&r

[woo me with science]

10. Beautiful post.

Thank you.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Hear hear

:toast:

[polichick]

13. Thanks! I noticed that the latest smear is "emo" - k&r

[MineralMan]

14. Interesting. However, I have heard many call for the end

of capitalism, which would require the confiscation of property, to wit, the shares held by individuals in corporations, along with the property owned by the corporation. That, in my opinion, is a fringe view.

Sorry, but I think you've generalized a little too much about DUers and what they advocate.

[Armstead]

26. Maybe -- But often those are talking about a specific form of deregulated pirate capitalism

[LWolf]

36. True. nt

[freshwest]

150. +1

[Maru Kitteh]

29. +1 Agreed.

[rhett o rick]

285. You agree that if someone says they want to end capitalism, they are fringe left? Where in the

spectrum do you stand? You favor unregulated capitalism?? Most that say they want to "end capitalism" mean as we see it today. Regulate it like we did for 50 years and built the best middle class and strongest democracy. Tell us where you stand, please.

[TBF]

34. Thank you - you have a good memory.

Yes there are leftists on this board, but not very many from what I've seen. Even Marx didn't advocate "confiscation of personal property" - when he talks about abolition of private property he means the means of production. No more market, no more private ownership of companies, etc...

There does seem to be a majority of progressives who like to talk about FDR, LBJ, and JFK, but certainly not all of us fall in that category.

[sabrina 1]

57. No, what you have heard and will continue to hear is an

end to unregulated Capitalism. The kind that toppled the Global Economy, and for which so far, not one of them has been held accountable. Because the foxes are in the henhouse.

Ayn Rand is not a Democratic hero, and never was. Nor is Greenspan. THOSE are the fringe elements that took over this country and were allowed to influence the Dem Party, first by Clinton, and now their followers, by Obama. And the fact that their policies have been a spectacular and historic failure means they need to be removed from holding any kind of power over the economy of this country.

[freshwest]

152. +1,000

[defendandprotect]

154. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- thank you!

[woo me with science]

196. Thank you. nt

[Odin2005]

211. I don't think Marx was anti-Market per-se, IMO.

More like he was against what he called "commodity fetishism". The Austrian and Chicago Schools are both good examples of the kind of fetishism Marx derided.

[eridani]

275. Indeed. How else would you allocate discretionary income?

Marx certainly thought of communism as something that would result in shared prosperity, and that would require that once basic needs are met for everyone, there must be a way of deciding what to do with income over and above that.

[Shining Jack]

220. +1 n/t

[mike_c]

58. all that requires is the end of corporate personhood...

...which, frankly, I find rather a moderate leftist position, not at all "far left." The worst offenses of modern capitalism could be wiped out at a stroke by limiting the rights of corporations. One need not "confiscate" private property at all, beyond limiting the ownership rights of business entities that are NOT individual citizens. Those rights have been strictly regulated in the past-- there is no reason to believe they are inalienable-- and commerce and business tool along quiet well.

I'm a socialist-- I do consider myself left of the FDR/LBJ democratic party-- but there is no need to limit private ownership in a fully socialist economy.

[certainot]

226. the supremes- and why obama has to win 2012

[harun]

72. Eliminating usary, or greatly restricting it is considered ending capitalism

and you wouldn't confiscate a thing by doing that.

[defendandprotect]

155. At one time in America, usary was limited to 6% --

now credit card companies are charging 26% and 29% interest on balances!!

7.5% by American Express charged on the company from which he purchase is being made --

whether grocery store, or gas station, restaurant!

[harun]

207. The debate has been pushed so far to the right

that doing ANYTHING but all out worshiping the top 1% and aiding them to increase their wealth is labeled Socialism or Communism.

Just as you state, if anyone in Congress considered capping usury at even a high 15% they would be ridiculed and destroyed.

[defendandprotect]

212. You're right of course ...

but I don't see much of the "debate" except here at DU --

Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Thom Hartmann -- BBC -- and internet articles --

and it is the very odd and rare post here that would support the top 1% --


Also, how often do we see discussed the miniscule returns on $1,000 invested in a

bank or a CD vs what banks will charge to borrow that same $1,000 --


Since I'm also not watching C-span any longer on a regular basis I can only say

that over the last years I was watching, I've seen no debate on that issue!!


What we're dealing with is organized crime -- and all the cops are off duty!



:hi:

[defendandprotect]

153. Ending capitalism does NOT mean confiscation of anyone's property ....

It would be replaced by another economic system -- democratic socialism would do it ---

Only if we uninvented the dollar bill -- which needless to say has not always existed --

would we come near dissolving property rights --


Certainly the Native American wasn't "communist" -- they were responsible, social communities,

based on commonwealth ownership --


Otoh, Columbus, however, was a murderous fascist -- enslaver --

Which would we prefer to see thrive?

[joshcryer]

232. D&P, ending capitalism certainly means the expropriation of capitalist property.

Otherwise known as "private property." ie, if you are a capitalist who owns a factory you can end capitalism by buying the factory from the capitalist (Venezuela is going about it that way, and the 5th amendment would require the United States to go about it that way), simply taking it from the capitalist and giving it to The Party (Cuba did it this way), or having the workers take it over and just reject the owners from the premises (the anarchists would go about it this way).

That's where it gets iffy because "personal property" can mean something to someone else. A capitalist might consider his "factory" his "personal property." So it's necessary to make this distinction.

[rhett o rick]

286. So where do you stand re. capitalism? You support unregulated capitalism? Not very Democratic. nm

[hunter]

15. Excellent.

:kick:

[hfojvt]

16. FDR was a long time ago

and socialism still is the fringe left, and there are plenty of self-described socialists at DU. They claim the mantle of socialism more than they claim the mantle of LBJ or FDR, neither of whome claimed the mantle of socialism.

[defendandprotect]

159. FDR was not long ago enough for the right wing!! They're still fighting the New Deal ..!!

Every nation has the right to set their own economic system --

Socialism is simply -- however the nation wishes to structure and define it --

socially responsible organization --


The original NAZI party worked for labor rights -- unions -- women's rights --

abortion -- medical care -- socially responsible programs.

It was AFTER Hitler took it over that it was turned upside down to represent fascist goals.


If you're talking about USSR and communism there -- you have to recall it was "TOTALIARIAN"

communism -- as always made clear by J. Edgar Hoover.


It would help if you defined what specifically you're referring to -

And, again, every nation is free to make their own economic decisions --



I'd also just add that obviously JFK was feared as the new FDR -- and was taken out --

The rightwing can only rise via violence --

well, violence and stolen elections and lies --

and the money they need to pay for it all and the coverups --

[Armstead]

17. Eggs Ackley.....You have hit on the crux of it

In the late 1960's, I felt totally comfortable identifying myself as a basic liberal Democrat in terms of economic and civil rights issues. (Although I was among those pissed off by Vietnam and the military industrial complex).

My basic political views and values have not changed all that much in the decades since then. But those same beliefs and values are now considered "fringe left" by the New Democrats.

Heck, even Bernie Sanders would have been considered an ordinary liberal Democrat before the party's rightward shift in the 1980's.

[Recursion]

41. The country has changed

We face different problems than you did. People my age grew up watching large centrally-imposed solutions collapse under their own weight and we're generally more skeptical about them (this runs the gamut from the Iron Curtain to Cabrini-Green). We aren't "abandoning" liberalism any more than you did when you added civil rights to it.

[Armstead]

45. The more things change......

Yes the problems are different today -- but the basic dynamics are the same -- just as they were 100 years ago and all the way back to the founding of the country. Situations and current conditions are always changing. However, the basic forces and backdrop are consistent.

The liberal struggles of the early 20th Century were in response to the same concentrations of power and wealth that we are seeing today.

Also, don't confuse decentralization with ideology. There are many liberal and progressive movements today that advocate for a return to local and regional solutions -- just as that is also a tenant of many conservatives (the honest ones)....That has more to do with "process" and "structure" than basic political goals and values.

In fact, the progressive call to control Corporate Power is largely in opposition to the same as what you call "large centrally-imposed solutions." The real issue is who is controlling and imposing those solutions. What we have now is that problem being driven by the centralized power of huge mega corporations and a small elite instead of serving the broader public through representative democracy and economic diversity.

One of the newer problems since the 1970's has been a fading away of a political representation for liberal and progressive values. If the democratic party had been stronger in actually defending liberal values over the last 35 years, we would not have many of the problems we are now experiencing.

[Recursion]

50. Some agreement, some disagreement

The liberal struggles of the early 20th Century were in response to the same concentrations of power and wealth that we are seeing today.

I disagree; I think they were in response to very different concentrations of power and wealth -- coming from different causes and requiring different responses.

Also, don't confuse decentralization with ideology.

And I would say don't confuse it with a method -- it's the goal itself. (Well, happiness is the goal itself, but decentralization is the proximate goal.)

In fact, the progressive call to control Corporate Power is largely in opposition to the same as what you call "large centrally-imposed solutions."

Yes and no. Yes in that (like the far end of the right -- listen to Ron Paul on corporatism some time) our end of the left worries about the undue power of large businesses. No in that I and some others on the left don't think that the best answer to that power is in the form of centralized federal governance and regulation in every case -- particularly when regulation was all too often how these behemoths and leviathans came about (behemothim? I'm not sure how you pluralize that).

If the democratic party had been stronger in actually defending liberal values over the last 35 years, we would not have many of the problems we are now experiencing.

I'm curious about that too -- I still am not sure the problem was that nobody was making the case; to a large extent I think there was not a case to be made. Our postwar shared prosperity model relied on a lot of assumptions about the world and its resources that aren't valid anymore.

[Armstead]

52. Reply

---"I disagree; I think they were in response to very different concentrations of power and wealth -- coming from different causes and requiring different responses."

The names and the specifics were different, but the underlying cause was the same -- the unchecked ability of a few to build enormous economic monopolistic empires and screw the majority of the population.

-- And I would say don't confuse it with a method -- it's the goal itself. (Well, happiness is the goal itself, but decentralization is the proximate goal.)

We're basically saying the same thing, sort of. However, that becomes impossible when the larger economy is dominated by large outside corporations. (i.e. Wal Mart using their power and wealth to decimate local retail economies.)

---Yes and no. Yes in that...etc.

When you have massive corporations, you need a big government to balance their power. The problem in that respect is crony capitalism -- when those corporations buy influence and distort the basic role of government. That's the problem today. Shrinking government is not the answer. rathert, the answer is cleaning up government and getting the crony cvapiotaliosm out of it (as much as possible anyway.) That is what progressives are referring to.

---...I still am not sure the problem was that nobody was making the case; to a large extent I think there was not a case to be made....etc.

There is definitely a case to be made. You are correct in saying that the level of growth (material consumption) was not sustainable. However, that is a totally separate issue than who controls power and wealth in our economy. Our monopolistic corporate system has not succeeded in reducing wasteful consumption. Excessive consumption is, in fact, a byproduct of the monopolistic corporate system. People still buy a lot of stuff -- it's just cheap stuff that is made by slave labor overseas. The current corporate system has merely redistributed the pie upward from average people to a small elite -- WITHOUT actually correction the more fundamental system of sustainability.

(PS, whether or not we agree, I appreciate your thoughtful response.)

[Recursion]

291. Thanks, you too

When you have massive corporations, you need a big government to balance their power.

See, but we only got massive corporations in the first place because we had government power putting them there (including, among other things, the New Deal -- the basic model of that was that a relatively few very large corporations would survive and "manage" the economy along with the government), and it is my opinion that unwinding one will inevitably unwind the other (I offer the 2008 crash as an example) -- at the risk of Hegelianism, the two exist in a dialectic.

[JDPriestly]

93. Excellent statement, Armstead

[Odin2005]

216. You are falsely equating Socialism with Centralized Economic Planning

Ever since the limitations of centralized economic planning became obvious starting in the 60s (like the sociological disaster that was soulless and impersonal mass public housing blocks in the US and Europe) there have been folks on the left that have been criticizing it.

I actually fully accept the argument against centralized planning made by the Granddaddy of Austrian School Libertarianism Frederich Hayek, but he was wrong in conflating "Socialism" with "Centralized Planning". A market economy based on co-ops is both socialist and un-centralized.

[Recursion]

279. And you see tons of the younger type participating a socialist market economy

Heck, I'd say a good 50% of my consumption is through co-operatives (more when I finally can move into a co-op house, hopefully this fall), and maybe half of the places I've worked were at least minority employee-owned (fairly common in .com's) What we don't have that our predecessors seem to have is a particularly strong belief that social democracy scales up well to the national level.

[Odin2005]

309. The Upper Midwest has a very strong co-op tradition.

even one of our regional gas station companies is a co-op: Cenex.

[defendandprotect]

165. But do you not see that is simple rw propaganda ... ? The New Dems are part of the RIGHT .. !!!

[myrna minx]

18. Hear hear.

:applause:

[nashville_brook]

19. f 'n a -- they know it's dishonest smearing when they do.

but it's a whole lot easier than actually answering criticism directly.

[newspeak]

21. thank you bvar

I've been here since 2001, and I consider myself a FDR, Wellstone democrat. Pro-labor, as my family before me, rather than deregulating pro-corporate.

[disillusioned73]

20. k&r..

right there with ya - the theoretical political pendulum has been tilted for years. Corporate propaganda has serioulsy done a number on this country.

[reformist2]

22. K&R. It is so inspiring to know that American leaders 60+ years ago had such high aspirations.

We can get back to that - the progressive movement is part of our heritage.

[defendandprotect]

166. Not spoken about often enough -- !!

Love to read anything by FDR when I get the chance!!

[suffragette]

23. Well said!

K&R

[ItNerd4life]

24. And the Democrat party has failed miserably in actually trying to achieve any of these.

Minimum wage laws don't provide for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
Democrats have ignored unions, which could have helped people achieve many of these 'rights'.

Education in schools hasn't changed in 40 years, we still don't produce highly educated people.

The only 'right' they've actually succeeded at is the right large business to fair trade, of course they screw over the little businesses.

[reformist2]

31. Perhaps, but getting people to believe they have a right to these things is half the battle.

Unfortunately, we're still fighting that part of the battle.

[defendandprotect]

146. Agree -- Koch Bros. DLC infiltrating the party for 20 years certainly wasn't pushing that agenda!!

[Ikonoklast]

192. What party is the 'Democrat' party?

Please.

Your slip is showing.

Members of the Republic party use that phrase.

[cui bono]

307. I think you mean the Democratic Party.

Yet another example of right wing rhetoric permeating our brains.

[PA Democrat]

25. K & R

[blindpig]

27. The means of production should be expropriated.....

for the use and benefit of the working class.

That ain't 'fringe', that is simply 'left'. What passes for 'left' in this country is centrists near anywhere else. Which explains how the supposed 'left' party can vie for the friendship of bankers with their traditional toadies.

[Horse with no Name]

28. K&R.

The count went from 49 to 55 when I clicked so I know that others agree.

The attempts to marginalize the people who are trying to keep our party to it's core beliefs are disgusting and trollish.

[EFerrari]

30. It's pretty funny, watching people who claim to be mainstream Democrats

denouncing their own platform as "far left fringe".

LOL

[LWolf]

37. Funny is one word for it.

:(

[EFerrari]

44. Monday is too early in the week for an accurrate description.

[TBF]

61. That was my reaction as well. nt

[polichick]

40. Probably don't even know what's in the platform - for them it seems to be a popularity contest.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

167. While applauding more corporate money into Obama's pockets ... !!!

[Gin Blossom]

267. I'll jump on this sub-thread too.

I think of Chris Hedges' point that the "far-left" is used as a straw man argument by both parties for their own advantage when in fact the "far-left" doesn't exist anymore in this country.

Great OP and discussion - this is what keeps me coming back to DU. Actual discussion, rather than the "Polls show 90% of liberal democrats love our president!" and "Fuck Jane Hamsher!" (or whoever it is this week) rotating load.

[EFerrari]

276. Yes, I come to DU to learn stuff. And the handful of people here

who are constantly putting down the left don't seem to have much to share that interests me.

[Gin Blossom]

304. That's putting it diplomatically. Yes they don't have much to share

that interests me either, beyond spurring me to think how I react to their POV. I'm guessing they would label most of the discussion in this thread as "whining", or "bashing". To your point - working with the local Dem's website, I recently came across their "What We Stand For", and "Our Platform" pages again. Conditioned by lurking at DU, I immediately thought "Wow - this is just a wish list for ponies! I agree with all of this. How purist! How quaint! How far left fringey!" Of course, by definition ideals are hard to live up to, but I think there is value to express what those ideals are (see Declaration of Independence). Rather than the strategic "opposite land" advocated by the President and some here - "We have to agree with the Republicans as much as we can - that's the only way we can win!"

BTW, thanks for responding. I post here so rarely, it's a minor thrill.

[EFerrari]

341. I haven't seen one of your posts in a long time.

:hi:

[rhett o rick]

287. They dont support the Democratic platform. They are New-Democrats or Old-Repukes. nm

[Agony]

32. Nice! I'd be happy with, one person one vote, instead of, one dollar one vote...

thx for caring enough to write that down.

[defendandprotect]

170. Thank you -- Great point -- !!!

And, sad to say, the dollar bill is simply another way of moving power

illegitmately from the many to the few --


No one should be permitted to amass such great wealth that they beocme a

challenge or threat to the people's government --


Nor to the people themselves -- and equality for all, freedom, democracy.


Further, I'd say the same of secret Swiss Bank accounts --



:hi:

[mmonk]

33. Amen

[dmallind]

35. divergent standards

if only pure communism can count as far left, then the counterpart should be pure fascism on the right. Koresh knows the baggers running the GOP house are a bunch of wackjobs, but I haven't seen them advocating a single party system, eugenics and paramilitary groups to kill the opposition either.

There are plenty of DUers with EXACTLY analogous approaches to the baggers: Ideological purity, zero compromise, theoretical rather than practical aims, assumption that no intelligent disagreement is possible, caricaturish impressions of those who disagree. And exactly analogous policy suggestions too - unrealistically punitive taxes on the better off rather than unrealistically regressive ones; completely unaffordable social programs rather than completely unacceptable lack of them; complete pacifism rather than unchecked militarism abroad. There are even areas of ideological agreement held with equal fervor. Asking questions on tarriffs and trade gets very similar isolastionist responses from many on the far right and left.

There is a simple demonstration to show where DU resides on the political scale, and that it is way to the left of anything considered moderate in both the party and the nation as a whole. Compare support for a more left-wing challenge to Obama here to support for such a candidate amongst any group of either Democrats or Americans.

[TBF]

59. Your "middle" doesn't exist -

well there may have been an attempt at it for 40 years or so (between FDR and Reagan, but for all practical purposes they've even given up that pretense now).

there is labor and there is capital. there is no moderation there - you either support the ruling class (if not by words than by action - your compliance) or you don't.

[dmallind]

81. Great example of what I mean..... nt

[coalition_unwilling]

265. Do you support the interests of the working class, i.e., those who must provide

their wage or salaried labor in order to survive? Or do you support the interests of the rentier and bourgeois class, i.e., those who can survive based on receipt of "rents" (interest, dividends, rental income) and those who own businesses? Or do you not accept the idea of a class struggle that pits the interests of the working class against the interests of the rentier\bourgeoisie?

[Recursion]

295. I support ending the lie that one can do without the other (nt)

[socialist_n_TN]

314. I'm sorry, but the working class CAN do without the owner

class, but the reverse is NOT true. The owners MUST have the workers labor.

[defendandprotect]

203. Well, "totalitarian" communism was the far right -- not the left --

Actually, re the Koch Bros. T-baggers, I do think they are a threat to peace as we've seen

from their appearances at Town Hall Meetings -- and the arms they have carried at times!

We might wonder if Koch has sent them to create a more aggressive and violent

political arena which would serve RW interests.


If Rush isn't a T-bagger, I don't know who is -- and isn't he advocating the killing of

liberals and progressives!


And Pat Buchanan ... calling for a SODOM-like destruction in revenge for Gay Marriage in NYC!


Corporations have essentially given us a one party system as they have bought out both parties --

and "eugenics" and "paramilitary groups" have long been traditions on the right.

T-baggers are primarily demonstrating their racism at the moment, but that doesn't mean

other goals of the far right have been dropped.

There is not now -- nor has there ever been -- any equivalent on the left

to the violence and murderous behavior of the right ---

Your example would be like saying that the Native American Commonwealth was the left to

Columbus' murderous rampage of "discovery" -- which embraced slavery -- torture -- genocide.

Like the Crusades, it was about as far as anyone could go in cruelty, brutality, violence.


Or maybe you think the Native American Commonwealth is the left to the Founders'/Elites

enslaving of African Americans here --


The most extreme rightwing positions humanity has ever known have been those delivered by

the Vatican/Christianity in partnering with Columbus in issuing its Papal Bulls vs the Native

American and the African here -- to enslave or kill them was the command!

And like the Crusades they delivered precedent setting violence --


Again, there is no equivalent on the left to the violence of the right --


This recent attack on Norway also raises the question of how well the right wing

is connected all over the world -- something we should be thinking about --

There seems to be a strong connection of one of the Koch Bros. organizations

to the "lone nut" killer in Norway. Perhaps further across Europe to the rise of the

right there over decades.


And isn't this the same LIST of complaints we've seen offered for three years now in

an attempt to stall or deflect criticism of Obama -- ?

Ideological purity, zero compromise, theoretical rather than practical aims, assumption that no intelligent disagreement is possible, caricaturish impressions of those who disagree.

Since when has "compromise" been good for the nation -- ?


The Founders gave us a schizophrenic Constitution -- "equality for all" --

except it provided only equality for white males of property!

Founders compromised with slave holding states which set the stage for the Civil War from

which we've not yet recovered!


Neither is PROGRESSIVE TAXATION on the wealthy and corporations "punitive taxes" --


And, it would be sad to think that you still don't realize that Social Security is one of our most

successful programs -- with a $2.7 TRILLION dollar fund --

and a yearly surplus for decades now exceeding $250 BILLION -- which has been used for decades

as a slush fund for wars and tax cuts for the rich.


Medicare is limited to the aged -- it would be equally successful if we opened it to ALL citizens --

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- and based it on preventive medicine. It would also create 2.3 million jobs.


Nor have I ever seen a liberal arguing for "pacificism" -- unless you think that DIPLOMACY is

pacificism?


Trade agreements have not only destroyed employment here in US -- they has destroyed unions --

which gave us the middle class. And Obama has not only failed to overturn NAFTA -- he has

given us three new trade agreements -- Korea, Colombia, Panama - which will destroy more jobs.


Re this --

There is a simple demonstration to show where DU resides on the political scale, and that it is way to the left of anything considered moderate in both the party and the nation as a whole. Compare support for a more left-wing challenge to Obama here to support for such a candidate amongst any group of either Democrats or Americans.


First, it is misleading to suggest that any liberals are looking for a "more liberal" or

"more left-wing" challenger to Obama because Obama is not liberal -- he's a corportist.

Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the calls from outside DU to primary Obama --

Jeff Cohen being a recent one -- and Sen. Bernie Sanders being another.

These calls, btw, should have come immediately after Obama eloped into the White House

with Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- and the setting up of his elite team which created

the meltdown which led to this depression.


And what Democratic Party are you talking about -- ?

The Democrtic Party that Koch Bros. DLC infiltrated and influenced for 20 years

and the rotting corpse of the Dem Party they have left us with?


Obviously you're distressed that DU wants a liberal challenger to Obama --

This is a liberal nation --

80% of the public want an end to the wars --

And they wanted an end to the wars in '06 -- as Pelosi confirmed the morning after the

election saying -- on video -- "Democrats were elected to end the war!" --


76% of Americans and more -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care --

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- which Catholics also want to include all reproductive options,

including abortion based on simply "choice."


The fact that the right wing has had to engage in 50 plus years of overt political violence

to get where they are now -- and to BUY government and elected officials -- use computers to

steal elections -- and buy movements -- does not argue for anything else but a liberal nation.

Needless to say, nor does their Goebbels' style corporate press argue for anything but the

reality of a liberal America.

[cui bono]

310. They don't need a single party system by name when they have one already

for all intents and purposes. The Democratic Party in DC is mostly corporate now. And yes, the extreme right does advocate killing the opposition. Not just the keyboard warriors either, the public figures like Beck and Palin purposely use rhetoric that they absolutely know is going to get their mentally unbalanced followers to go out and do something violent. How many right wing leaders have been assassinated? Where do the leaders who have been assassinated fall on the left/right spectrum? Look what Bush did to our Bill of Rights. Look at what the current crop in DC is saying these days that they wouldn't have dared utter under Clinton. We are moving farther and farther to that extreme right wing ideal and pretty soon you just might actually hear the demands you have mentioned above.

I completely disagree with your statement about DUers. I come here and mostly see center to right of center posts and replies. I am happy that as time goes the Obama apologists are starting to open their eyes and give up defending him so lately I have seen more progressive voices, but in no way are they any where near "fringe left". Advocating for your party's own platform can hardly be called "fringe left".

As to you last sentence... are you saying that any one left of Obama wouldn't be very popular? If so, does that mean you think Obama is already far enough left? That he is left of center? Because there is no way that is true. He is right of center, serving up Republican policies in "negotiations" as often as he possibly can while he so desperately tries to get them to like him while chastising his own base.

And that is exactly the problem. People, such as yourself it seems, buy into the message that Obama is a liberal when he is actually right of center. We really do need a president that is a real Democrat soon. Nothing at all "fringe left" about that sentiment.

[Bryn]

39. K&R

Dear so called "New Democrats" ... take your "Professional Left" & "Fucking Retarded" and shove it! We are the real democrats here and we reject your corporate loving "DLC" stuff.

[Flubadubya]

42. Hear, hear bvarr22

Just this weekend I was accused of being "fringe left" here on DU... and this was from a self-proclaimed "moderate" who vowed and sweared that she was definitely the saner of us. LOL!

She said I was "fringe, deranged, mentally ill, and live in a fantasy world" and that I was suffering "from unrealistic, self-destructive stupidity of my own behavior and expectations".

I told this person I was not interested in communicating with her anymore after that little diatribe, but I did offer this final statement:

"I'm pretty sure you believe that it is I who do not think and behave according to Democratic principles. Let me tell you something. I don't know how old you are, but I can remember when Democrats thought and behaved EXACTLY as I still do. Then they were Democrats, now... not so much. Why is it then that those who share my philosophies and views are so egregiously attacked by the likes of you for not being "realistic" and not really understanding what it is to be a "Democrat"? If this is where the Democratic ideology really stands today, then you are all FUCKING WRONG and you need to read up on your history.

What I tend to find most interesting (and disturbing) is how this person and many other so-called "moderates" are so ready and eager to pull out the axes and start swinging with the nastiest attacks and real hatefulness.

Just as you say, bvarr, if this is where the "New Democrat Party" is at, I don't want to be there either.

Thanks for posting such a sensible and truthful commentary bvarr!

[bananas]

116. Yup - they act just like conservative assholes. nt

[defendandprotect]

209. Actually, I think it's the Dem Party that 20 years of Koch Bros DLC infiltration ....

and influence has left us with -- i.e., a rotting corpse of the Dem Party!



Basically, I think you simply have to add "fringe left" to the other inane comments

we've had from those trying to deflect and stall criticism of Obama for three years

now. I'm sure you remember . . . how liberals wanted "pink ponies" and didn't

appreciate the "chess game" -- how liberals believed Obama had a "magic wand" --

and that liberals were "ideological purists" -- :rofl:


It's all the same nonsense --- and its intended still to distract from a lack of

ability to debate the issues.

Name calling is one of the first signs of that -- !!

[FredStembottom]

43. Thanks, bvar!

I've seen that "fringe leftist" thing tossed around DU by too many who are supposed Democrats.
It comes out every time the Obama admin. caves in.

[Shagbark Hickory]

46. Apparently you haven't read too many of my messages.

They're pretty fringe.

[TBF]

60. There are like a handful of us - I could do it by name if forced.

Most of DU is FDR/LBJ/JFK land - old traditional democrats.
And then there are the DLC bots...

[socialist_n_TN]

68. Yep. See my post above.......

This IS a left centrist board after all which probably means that most of this board SHOULD be FDR Dems. But there are a few REAL leftists on here, NOT the relativistic kind. You know the kind that actually PUSHED FDR into some reforms of the capitalist system.

That's actually the problem today. There's no REAL left (or not many) to PUSH these RW Dems into leftish positions by showing them what a REAL left position is.

[noiretextatique]

+1

totally agree.

[noiretextatique]

139. +1

totally agree.

[coalition_unwilling]

268. It really comes down to whether one supports the interests of the

working class or whether one still believes there is some purpose to be served by preserving the status of the ruling class. I'm sure that, immediately prior to the convening of the Estates General in France in 1789, there were some in France who felt that the First Estate (the landholding nobility) still served some legitimate and relevant social purpose.

[TBF]

317. "still served some legitimate and relevant social purpose"

as far as I'm concerned our ruling class serves no purpose. But I believe most of DU disagrees with me. They do believe in the ruling class and capitalism - but want to "regulate" the beast. As the blinders continue to come off that may change. Mr. Obama and his supporters (not to mention their right wing colleagues) should be happy that right now they are dealing primarily with status quo folks and not actual leftists.

[coalition_unwilling]

322. I'm with you. The hereditary class of wealth-holders in this country are, imho,

little better than blood-sucking parasites upon the working class, the true creators of wealth. When 1% of the population controls some 40% of the working assets of the country, it is an entirely appropriate political question to inquire whether that 1% actually serve any useful societal purpose any longer (witness my comments about the ancien regime and the First Estate).

[cui bono]

311. And those that want to PUSH Obama to do the right thing are told to just sit back

and wait for him to implement his brilliant plan that will get us what we want. Anyone woh says that has no idea how democracy and grass roots organizing works. In fact, they are simply stating Britney Spears' philosophy of just trusting the president to do the right thing. And there are A LOT more "Britney Spears" on this board than there are "fringe leftists". How sad is that?

[truedelphi]

85. If only us

FDR/LBJ/JFK land - 'old timey' traditional democrats were paid the six to twenty cents per post that some of the DLC bots are getting.

[TBF]

99. There are many more of you -

and y'all don't like the Koch Bros. so I don't think they'll be paying you ;-)

[Shagbark Hickory]

114. PRobably. Then again if you name your website "Underground", you're bound to attract some

rogue, fringe, non-establishment, element

[Lyric]

47. HELL FUCKING YES.

God it felt good to read that. Thank you so much, and let me say right out that I'm 100% behind you on this.

:kick:

[frustrated_lefty]

48. K&R, well said.

[snagglepuss]

49. Hear. Hear. Outstanding.

:applause:

[Sportsguy]

51. K & R. Wish I Had Your Way With Words

:thumbsup: :hi: :yourock: :headbang:

[Forkboy]

53. Every time I see someone say that I have to wonder if they get out much.

I always want to take them to meet some people I know for future reference. :)

K&R for an excellent post.

[sabrina 1]

54. Well said bvar22.

Sad too that it is other 'democrats' who are attempting to spread this garbage about anyone who wants to protect the very foundation of what made this party the 'party of the people'.

Like you though, if the party HAS moved so far to the right that traditional democrats are now 'fringe', a lot of us no longer belong to it.

[SaveAmerica]

55. Checking in; 1 Mainstream-Center Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ Democrat advocating FOR traditional Demo

Democratic Values

[damntexdem]

62. Darn, what do I have to do to be a fringe leftist? Nothing seems to please you.

But then, which fringe of leftism? Its left fringe or right fringe?

;-)

[Solly Mack]

65. K&R

[swilton]

66. Three Cheers!

[Exultant Democracy]

67. k&r

[pam4water]

69. R&K!

[Uncle Joe]

70. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bvar.:thumbsup:

[Zorra]

71. Thanks, bvar! nt

[Blue_Tires]

73. top

[G_j]

74. excellent post!

:applause:
THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID!!

[Hotler]

75. k&r n/t

[TheKentuckian]

76. It amazes and disgusts me that some frame the "center" of the party as Reagan or so

to paint mainstream FDR Democrats as the "fringe left" in order to prop up and excuse the positions of the corporate captured bunch that is supposed be the representation of the people.

[tavalon]

77. I'm a socialist but I only practice it with personal stipends in our house

We have three adults with disparate income but the moment we walk through the door, it goes into the family account and we each receive identical stipends. Now, you might say that's great for the wage earner who earns the least but how about the one who earns the most? I'm the one who earns the most and I'm completely happy with our arrangement.

[coalition_unwilling]

269. Your family exemplifies the old Socialist aphorism: "From each

according to his ability, to each according to his need."

It sounds more like a Robert Owens utopian Socialist thing you've got going, more than a dictatorship of the proletariat Marxist thing.

[tavalon]

277. You are wholly correct

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[eridani]

79. If you live on the Left Coast, you may possibly have actually met fringe leftists

--unlike all too many on DU who blather about "far left" without knowing anything about it.

Here on the Left Coast, Kucinich is a right wing reactionary who is plotting to subvert revolutionary activity by diverting it into the Democratic Party. As you can see from the quote below (scanned from a handout that was passed out at a Seattle antiwar rally), even fecking ANSWER isn't "far left" enough for some people, just because that time they paid attention to prospective attendees who preferred a focused antiwar event to a "Help Stamp Out Everything That Needs Stamping Out" event.

In a prime example of how not to build an inclusive, effective movement, this radical perspective was squelched. In the organizing for today's march and rally in Seattle, even though socialists played a main role in the coalition. the Church Council of Greater Seattle and the Fellowship of Reconciliation made their participation contingent on excluding speakers who might advocate the right of Iraqis or Palestinians to resist their occupations. The ANSWER-led majority voted to exclude anti-capitalist, multi-issue coalition members as speakers, even from the socalled "open mic." This is a blatant restriction of free speech that holds back the movement.

[socialist_n_TN]

313. And the reason FOR that attitude my dear eri

is that Kucinich IS trying to subvert revolutionary activity by diverting it into the Democratic Party and neutering it. Dennis, no matter how much I agree with him on individual issues affecting the working class, IS A PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. Or part of the system as I prefer to term it. Dennis doesn't want to OVERTHROW the system, he wants to "reform" it. A system that cannot EVER BE REFORMED. At least not for any significient length of time.

And as to the "focused anti war event" part of it, once again, the wars ALL COME BACK TO THE SYSTEM. These wars are part of the end stage of the capitalist SYSTEM otherwise known as imperialism. It's like modern day medicine which treats the symptom, rather than the CAUSE of the symptom. If we get rid of the system, we get rid of imperialistic wars.

That's why a left centrist group is STILL part of the system. It's just a left manifestation of the bourgeosie or their supporters.

[eridani]

328. I'd call the 50 years from the start of the New Deal to 1980 a reasonably good run for regulation

Up until 2003, if I did anything political it mainly consisted in going to events where I could hang out with people who already mostly agreed with me. In 2003, Kucinich asked be to join my local party organization and talk to my neighbors. A lot of doorbelling quickly disabused me of the notion that the general population is interested in policy wonkery.

Since then I've learned a lot about listening as well as lecturing. I started to take on a lot of local causes--one woman living just a few blocks from me has been confined to her house because of poor air quality that others notice, but can mostly ignore. One of the big issues now is whether my unincorporated area will annex to Seattle or Burien. Three people have told me that their biggest concern is that both cities regulate fireworks, and they like not having fireworks regulations. Another issue is that the county library system wants to close two libraries that are well situated to serve our lower income populations and build a consolidated library at a less accessible site.

My most important issue is the 44,000 who die every year because they can't pay for health care. But if I want to talk to people about that, I have to start where they are right now.

There was a revolutionary candidate running against Patty Murray in 2010. He sent out emails to his supporters list chatting about Antonio Gramsci. The big problem with that is that, while I find Gramsci interesting and would enjoy hanging out and discussing him, there is only one other person in my precinct who feels likewise, and I'm married to him.

[socialist_n_TN]

331. Compared to?.........

Fifty years of regulation compared to the length of the dictatorship of capital in toto is nothing really. And there were (as is obvious now) extenuating factors that LED to that period of regulation.

I'll try to nutshell it. For most of the reign of the dictatorship of capital, it has been like it is now, unregulated, cutthroat, greedy, monopolistic, and wealth concentrating. The ONLY thing it was good for was the actual accumulation of wealth, albeit concentrated wealth. Because of what the system IS, along came Marx and Engels with something different that relied on the working class to TAKE over that system that was good for CREATING and concentrating wealth and CHANGE it into something that DISTRIBUTED that wealth (ill gotten wealth) more equally so that ALL benefit and not just a few. Marx and Engels' ideas caught on with a large enough part of the working class to threaten the system with a total overthrow. So the system allowed itself to be "regulated" rather than be destroyed. BUT FROM THE VERY FIRST IT BEGAN TRYING TO THROW OFF THOSE REGULATIONS. With Reagan and enough money and propaganda, it has succeeded or mostly succeeded. That's the problem with "regulated" capitalism. It will not STAY regulated. In addition, capitalism is now bumping up against the limits of resources that it needs to continue to expand (which is also part of capitalism, it must expand continously), so it's beginning to cannalibize itself. But that's another discussion.

I guess what I'm saying is that regulation sounds good and maybe even IS good for the working class as far as living conditions go in the short term. But unless you think that we have to have a regulatory crisis every second or third generation or so, along with all the misery that entails, you won't HAVE "regulated" capitalism. IF we win this round, I DEFINITELY don't want my grandchildren or great grandchildren to have to go through this again.

[socialist_n_TN]

332. And BTW, relating back to the OP,

AND as you pointed out, yes, this IS a "fringe" left position. A REAL one and there's not a lot of people who do support it. Yet. But just remember that capitalism without pretense is the absolute BEST recruiter that Marxism has. The longer this goes on, the more we'll grow.

[eridani]

345. If we don't regulate it, it will go down, one way or another

That "other" way would be populist fascism. And I don't think that blowing off electoral politics is going to help us there. Calling elections "bourgeois" sounds a lot like jargon slinging, which I have gotten very impatient with in my old age.

http://home.naxs.com/melaniet/piercy.htm#In The Men's Room(s)

In The Men's Room(s)

When I was young I believed in intellectual conversation:
I thought the patterns we wove on stale smoke
floated off to the heaven of ideas.
To be certified worthy of high masculine discourse
like a potato on a grater I would rub on contempt,
suck snubs, wade proudly through the brown stuff on the floor.
They were talking of integrity and existential ennui
while the women ran out for six-packs and had abortions
in the kitchen and fed the children and were auctioned off.

Eventually of course I learned how their eyes perceived me:
when I bore to them cupped in my hands a new poem to nibble,
when I brought my aerial maps of Sartre or Marx,
they said, she is trying to attract our attention,
she is offering up her breasts and thighs.
I walked on eggs, their tremulous equal:
they saw a fish peddler hawking in the street.

Now I get coarse when the abstract nouns start flashing.
I go out to the kitchen to talk cabbages and habits.
I try hard to remember to watch what people do.
Yes, keep your eyes on the hands, let the voice go buzzing.
Economy is the bone, politics is the flesh,
watch who they beat and who they eat,
watch who they relieve themselves on, watch who they own.
The rest is decoration.

Marge Piercy

[socialist_n_TN]

349. I use the words that are meaningful to a group

that I believe in. Since I'm a Marxist, that means bourgeoisie and bourgeois mean something to me. I could be like some other people and use "middle class" when I mean working class or "corporatist" when I mean capitalist, but I'm not too chickenshit to use the MARXIST words for what is.


And I've NEVER said to blow off electoral politics and I don't do that. There are a couple of reasons that I say participate in bourgeois politics even thought I sincerely don't believe it does any good. #1) On a personal basis, I like to bitch about the current political situation and I've always been a believer that if you don't vote, you don't have any right to bitch. But mostly because #2) I don't want people who still DO believe in the electoral system to be able to say, "We would have won if you and people like you would have just voted." I want to be able to say, when we wind up with a crisis of capitalism involving the electoral system, "We tried it your way and it didn't work. Do you want to try it mine now?"

Capitalism will go down and it's true, it could go down to fascism. Or Bonapartism. Or just MAYBE socialism. But it WILL go down, simply it won't LET itself be regulated again.

[eridani]

350. Even if you don't blow off electoral politics, far too many on the left did and do

Naturally, I am ignoring OFA right at the moment. My energies are going into 3 city council races in cities south of Seattle. One of my candidates is a very impressive 20 year old Somali man, with a resume looking like it could belong to someone of 35. Very many immigrants from Africa and the Middle east have told me that they only vote for president. Abshir has registered 250 new voters whose first language is Somali, and convinced them that voting in odd numbered years is something worth doing.

There is an extremely crucial election for hospital commissioner, in which if the wrong candidate wins, a public hospital will be privatized. Massive outreach is necessary because so many voters totally ignore downticket races.

This stuff is critically important to people's lives. And from today's office holders, we will (or will not) get people worthy of holding higher offices.

[blkmusclmachine]

80. Professional Left here.

Proud of it. :patriot:

[liberal4war]

82. There might not being anyone here advocating the confiscation of private property, but it happens

all the time and in some very liberal areas. Here are some recent eminent domain cases in MA, the state that confiscation our family business a couple decades ago.
http://www.flynnlawoffice.com/eminentdomaincases.nxg

LBJ values? You mean waging a false flag operation in order to escalate an inane war started by his predecessor who tried to prop up corrupt governments with American lives and money by fighting an endless wars that drains our resources and well-being? Are these the values that you speak of? In the end, LBJ had to wage taxes and sacrifice his New Deal program.

More guns, and less America. The same values that Obama promises. I love those values too.

[dissidentboomer]

84. LBJ made mistakes and Vietnam was one of them - a big one, just like Iraq.

HOWEVER - he always championed human beings and always fought for the middle class, labor, and the poor. Always. He wasn't innocent. In fact, he was corrupt, at times, but he fought like a tiger for the middle and working classes. THAT is the difference between LBJ and Obama. LBJ had heart. LBJ believed.

[dissidentboomer]

86. I'll just add that the more they move to the right and confiscate the people's money,

the FURTHER to the left they push many of us. For me, the term "class war" is beginning to have a very positive ring.

[liberal4war]

91. You say that, but I don't buy it. Just look at the Obama administration

His movement conservative policies have undermined the progressive movement. At least with a McCain Presidency, there would still be a loud, strong, and cohesive liberal left. Under Obama, it has been lulled, weakened, and fractured.

"Class War" was initiated by Republicans, then they used it against the Dems. For the past three decade Republican policies have help to create a plutocracy which is being further pursued under an Obama administration. However, Dems never initiated this class war, the GOP did and then turned around on liberals. They do this shit with spending too.

[dissidentboomer]

95. Very true. I was only speaking for myself and a few other folks I know

and we're not wacko radicals. Therefore, I'm fairly sure that there are others who are more convicted every day that some radical action and policies could be needed to correct our course in a peaceful manner.

[newspeak]

324. Well, I believe when Little Boots was governor of Texas

they did confiscate property for a corporate enterprise, the stadium. And, I believe the property confiscated was the curtis mathis family's property. There have been more cases since Little boots became the big cheese -where private property has been confiscated not for public use, but for corporate use. There was a battle a few years back in Las Vegas, private property taken to build a parking garage uptown. When I mean taken, I mean the owners really didn't want to sell it.

[The Green Manalishi]

100. They only call it 'class war' when we fight back

[joshcryer]

234. That's perfectly valid expropriation under the 5th amendment.

[truedelphi]

83. Proud to be K & R 152. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

87. Leftists don't advocate for confiscation of personal property.

Private property=means of production owned by big business, not your front yard and your X-box, which is personal property.

Most of the "left" positions in the Democratic Party were adopted when they felt threatened by the Socialist Party, back in the day. Now that they aren't feeling the pressure, they are going back to their *real* roots--Tammany style politicking for capitalism.

[nc4bo]

90. Since corporations want to consider themselves people.......

I'd be more than happy to disrupt their lifestyles in order to redistribute some wealth.

I'm just sick and tired of being accused of being left fringe. There's nothing left fringe about being a Dem as described in OP unless of course what's considered to be the middle has been "adjusted" to the right to incorporate the neocon agenda.

[Starry Messenger]

140. "what's considered to be the middle has been "adjusted" to the right"

Bingo. I think this is correct. It comes from the lack of any counterbalance from the left.

[bvar22]

168. "Leftist" may not,

but "Fringe Leftists" do,
as in Pure Authoritarian Communism, which IS the Far Left,
and the point of my post.

[Starry Messenger]

182. Personal property? No.

I've never seen that. Maybe terrorist groups like the SLA. The rest of your post was good, though. I recced it.

[bvar22]

191. Under Pure Single Party Authoritarian Communism,

not only would they take your X-Box,
but they would throw you into a Labor Camp for owning one.

Think Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc.
THAT is the "Fringe Left",
not run of the mill Socialists,
and ]they don't post at DU.

[joshcryer]

251. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Pol Pot did not confiscate personal property.

Kim Jong Il does not "confiscate personal property." You have an apartment or house in N. Korea and you have your possessions.

[blindpig]

296. What nonsense

I have no idea who you might be talking about.

For a mainline communist party with a solid program I strongly suggest the Greek KKE. The nonsense which you speak is pure capitalist propaganda, unfortunately adopted by anarchists, Trotskites and others for sectarian purposes. Many of the truisms often repeated when dissing the Soviet Union were lifted whole from the Nazis.

[Starry Messenger]

329. I think you are chasing a mirage.

There ain't no sitch animal. I applaud your adherence to populist economic justice, I really do. But none of that would have come about in the Democratic party if it hadn't been for the hard old left. It's no coincidence that the erosion of the safety net in this country came in 1993, the same year as the fall of the USSR. Once this country no longer had competition from those "Authoritarian" states, it let go of the illusion that they gave a shit about us. That is why you will no longer see any politicians who stand for what FDR "stood for" (which was really what Upton Sinclair stood for...much of the New Deal was taken from his Socialist platform for CA Governor).

[bvar22]

338. And THAT is precisely my point.

Run of the mill Socialists are not the Left Fringe.
They are pretty mainstream in Europe.
Even traditional Communists are not "The Left Fringe".
"The Left Fringe" is way, way out there... next to the Mirage.

[joshcryer]

250. Eh, authoritarians are not leftists, they're right wing. Read the Liberal FAQ by Kangas.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm

[JDPriestly]

88. Yes. Most DUers are trying to think of ways to make capitalism work

better and for everyone.

[BOG PERSON]

89. so there aren't any real socialists posting here?

if that's true, it's everybody's loss.

[leftstreet]

97. There are several 'fringies,' but traditional Dems are the majority

I think that was part of the OP's point anyway

[white_wolf]

105. Well there is me and a few other Marxists.

The only other one I know of who is an admitted Marxist is socialist-n-tn. Though hifiguy is a structural Marxist.

[coalition_unwilling]

270. I'm a Marxist in principle, although I'm not sure there is a single

monolithic "Marxism," e.g., there's the Marx of 1848, the Marx of Das Kapital, Marx as mediated by Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, ad infinitum.

Let's leave it at this: I will always support the class interests of the working class over the class interests of the parasites. I think Marx would probably approve of that message :)

[bvar22]

119. Socialists aren't "Far Left".

Pure Authoritarian Single State Party Communists would be the Far Left.
Socialists aren't anywhere near them.

Private Property, reasonable accumulation of individual wealth,
Privacy Protections, and the US Constitution are all perfectly acceptable to Socialists.

[white_wolf]

122. For sake of accurcay I should reply to this,

This really depends upon your definition of socialism. Some consider democratic socialists of the Bernie Sanders type to be socialists (for the record I agree with him on a lot of issues)even the more radical democratic socialists such as Eugene Debbs, Norman Thomas, and Einstein eventually sought to end all private property, they just were more patient than the more revolutionary movements though they have the same goal.

[BOG PERSON]

190. X

n/m

[bvar22]

130. Delete

wrong place

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. Thank you! K&R!

We're Center, they're Conservative.

[The Green Manalishi]

96. To some here, FDR or LBJ would be considered "far left"

And there is a name for such people.

"Republicans"

[dissidentboomer]

102. That, I think, is a fact and continues to just freak me out. FDR and LBJ would, I think,

actually be considered dangerous socialist revolutionaries in present day 'merika.

[TBF]

104. Which is quite a joke - since it was socialist pressure (particularly in the unions

but also the socialist party) that resulted in FDR's new deal.

And then they purged the "commies".

So, with very few socialists/communists in the country (and very little organization of those groups), we are looking not only at no new deal - but the possibility that they'll tear apart the old one too.

[dissidentboomer]

115. I do think that PART of the reason that FDR pushed the slate

of programs known as "the new deal" is to avert wide spread violence and what looked as though it could be the beginnings of a socialist revolution. I also think that he had some very bright young men working feverishly to implement something before most of the crowds across the country started to get violent. If wide spread violence had started and troops had shot people in numerous cities, I think we might have had revolution.

However, after world war II, the new deal social programs, mainstream support for labor, and several other views that are now considered "crazy leftist" views were common among liberals, democrats, and some moderate republicans.... Absolutely amazing, isn't it?

[TBF]

120. It is -

it was the norm - so much so that you saw President Eisenhower (a republican) increasing the folks eligible for Social Security, and presiding over tax rates as high as 90%.

And then with Reagan the tide turned ...

[LooseWilly]

98. Erhhm, actually I think I *am* a 'Fringe Leftist'... so there is at least one.

FDR's second bill of rights is essentially the same as the goals of socialism.

Given the behavior that we have seen from the capitalists in the country since FDR managed to get the New Deal through—it is impossible to mistake their aims and determination.

The only sensible reaction to the banksters, oil tycoons and assorted members of the CEO-class, assuming that one believes in the tenets of the Second Bill of Rights, is to take their shit away from them, by any means necessary.

Yes—I just advocated to the confiscation of 'personal property' (well, 'private property' technically... since I don't care if the rich assholes keep all their shoes). The mechanism of said confiscation bears discussion, but as long as these rich assholes have more money than Allah then the war will never end.

Everyone in the country needs to face this fact and fight back, or continue with their self-delusion and find comfortably rationalizable ruts of capitulation... or try to fuck or fellate their way into joining the rich asshole club.


I do realize that most people are hopelessly addicted to the notion of the inviolate holiness of private property as well as some permutation or other of a calvinist notion of hard work=virtue & will be rewarded with shiny loot... so I am willing to join people from time to time in a variety of self-deluded fantasies—including the notion that a politician's leadership can lead to significant changes.

It always becomes apparent, however, that this is just a fantasy. Barack Obama is a fine example.

[TBF]

107. Excellent post

:applause:

[LooseWilly]

138. Heh... does that make 2 "fringe leftists"?

Personally, I'm happy to take the dismissive epithet and re-purpose/re-brand it for my own uses.

Anyone is welcome to join me in the ride... ;)

[joshcryer]

246. FDR signed into law labor killing laws which ultimately led to labors demise.

So I take your fringe and raise it. :hi:

"Norris – La Guardia Act" made it illegal for companies to forbid workers from forming a union, and said that the government would not dispute union issues. This sounds like a good idea, but the workers would simply boycott companies that would make them sign something out of it, ultimately it means "The government won't support the workers."

"National Labor Relations Act" codified how unions were supposed to look. In those days the union members didn't have leaders or hierarchies, they simply protested and they worked together through direct democracy. It sounded like a good idea because it gave unions protections (ironically seemingly violating the spirit of the Norris - La Guardia act, because the government said it wouldn't take a position), but because it created a hierarchy in the unions it created a method to squash union power.

Truman then, in the ensuing years, was unable to veto Taft–Hartley Act, all which was only made possible by FDRs previous laws, particularly the NLRA (as Taft–Hartley Act was an amendment to NLRA).

[LooseWilly]

281. Well cheers on the raise :)

I'm not familiar with the minutiae of details you enumerate... but I've been part of a shop that was judged by NLRB to be employees ... only to have the boss refuse to negotiate with our union while appealing to the US Supreme Court... and there was no agency or official who showed any inclination to try to force any sort of obedience to the law pending a change of decision by a higher court.

The NLRB, from where I have sat, seems to be largely toothless and uninterested in actually enforcing it's own sphere of laws... a system that doesn't enforce anything on the wealthy/powerful/connected while they appeal—but always enforces against the individuals who are "none-of-the-above" individually... is my de facto experience of the current "regulatory" behavior of government agencies.

Needless to say... I am not impressed. Amused, perhaps... like I'm amused at the prospect of Obama starting wars and then declaring that they don't involve "hostilities".... if you can see the humor in the one, you can see it in the other...

The FDR-ites at least are disciples of a mother fucker who actually enforced his regulations... I'll give him/them that.

[socialist_n_TN]

315. Plus about a million Willy

:) Good job laying it on the line.

[naaman fletcher]

103. Have you seen the Latin America forum?

There people advocate taking personal property as well as jailing people who criticize certain politicians.

[sabrina 1]

227. No, actually, they don't. What they are talking about and what

maybe you don't understand is the perfectly legitimate policy of land reform, something that becomes necessary after a country has been under oppressive rule for so long and the land and every other resource, has been stolen by a minority. It is a historical method of ending the poverty that is always the result of such draconian policies and getting a country back on its feet. And it works.

And they are talking about jailing people who advocate the overthrow of a democratically elected government, something that would happen, has happened here much faster than it has ever happened in any Latin American country.

[naaman fletcher]

229. Actually,

I am not talking about either situation. I have noticed you don't post in the LA forum.

[democrank]

106. Wise person, that bvar22.....

New Democrats apparently have decided that the "center" in our party includes those who favor waterboarding, union bashing, outsourcing and civilian-killing drones because anything to the left of that....like school breakfasts for poor kids or extensions to unemployment benefits or bringing the troops home now is just so...so....extreme.

I`d like to see what Paul Wellstone would write about some of these new "Democratic Party" positions.

Powerful message, bvar22.

[Dr Fate]

109. Only Emo Leftists.

And Emo Liberals.

And Emo Progressives.

And Emo Democrats.

And in some cases, I'm told, Emo Racists.

[MessiahRp]

123. Every time I hear that term, "Emo Leftists"...

I know for a fact we have a right wing infiltrator on the board. I don't care how many Obama icons they have or how many thousands of posts they have tricked the mods into not banning them Leftist is a term derisively used by Right Wingers to lump liberals and progressives in with their concept of Communists and Nazi Socialists (which to them is what any liberal believes in... they have no ability to understand nuance oncesoever).

Rp

[Dr Fate]

174. originally it was Emo progressives or emogressives

Then I started saying "Emo Liberals" just to show how absurd the whole thing was.

It was Funny b/c a few posters tried to correct me: "No it's 'Emo progressives' stop saying it wrong!"

Just like I wast tying to do here. I thought I was over the top enough where I did not need a sarcasm icon....Most people seem to know I'm being ironic, but I guess I'm still playing it too close to the real thing here...LOL!

[white_wolf]

126. Emo? Are we in high school again?

Seriously I know a lot of emo kids in high school, hell I used to be friends with a lot of them in high school and hell some people considered me one. Still though I don't know how that term relates to politics at all. Either in the modern term used by teenagers or the old music scene.

[Dr Fate]

171. it's a joke.

I thought I was over the top enough without having tho use a sarcasm icon.

[white_wolf]

178. My bad. In my defenese you never know what new smears conservatives will make up,

It's hard to keep up.

[Dr Fate]

180. Not your bad, I should have left this thread alone.

my apologies to the OP...

[gordianot]

110. A truly excellent description of a Centrist Democrat of the FDR tradition.

I remember the 1960's and have met only a very few of what I consider extreme leftist and right wingers. An acquaintance in College espoused Marxism on the extreme left and a friends Uncle Thunderbolt come to mind. Among those walking I have not encountered an extreme leftist since about 1975. Today Uncle Thunderbolt would feel at home with his authoritarian fascist John Birch rant; which prevails in what was once the centrist right wing Republican Party.

[mochajava666]

111. K & R

[rbnyc]

112. Net recommendation: +179 votes (Your vote: +1)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[McCamy Taylor]

113. Remember, the League of Women Voters and the UAW are "fringe leftists" to the right.

[bananas]

117. Great post! nt

[canoeist52]

118. Old-Timey Classic Democrat checking in here! A fine post, bvar22.

[hulka38]

124. Fantastic post.

I'm a fan.

[Cyrano]

128. This is one of the best and truest posts I've ever read on DU. Thank you bvar22.

[raouldukelives]

129. Big K&R

[tnlurker]

131. I agree

[Steepler0t]

132. Proud Lefty here

Personally I don't see a bit of radicalization as unhealthy, we literally are staring down into the belly of the raging class warfare beast. Look where being DLC Democrats got the Left. -exactly where the corporations want us. Now the Democratic Party of the USA has shifted where it is almost unrecognizable as to being reasonable lawmakers with their hands literally tied.

The debate is poisoned, and in my view talk radio has worked for this end for ages. This is no call for State Capitalism (communism) or Stalin or something silly like that as people like to broad brush Socialists, but the left is amazingly weak at framing the message to tiptoe around the emboldened reactionaries showmanship and web of deceit and plain bullshit. The right wants no part of facts and has created a stunningly large echo chamber of bullshit, time to fight the good fight on our terms and ignore the reactionaries. (easier said then done with mass media though)

[Eyerish]

133. K&R!

[Rex]

134. A lot of the trolls that try and start wars between liberals and moderates

on DU have been TSd over the years. Anyone that harps on liberals is not a Dem.

[annabanana]

136. Thank you bvar22!. .This is not saild often enough...

or LOUD enough!

[Bozita]

137. K&R for FDR/LBJ Dems everywhere!

Great post.

[kentuck]

141. "Whatch you talking about Willis!?"

:-)

[Nye Bevan]

142. Wanting to primary Obama is pretty fringe in my book.

And people here have advocated for that.

[EFerrari]

143. DU is not fringe. Sometimes, because it pays close attention,

it is ahead of the curve. That's different.

[JoePhilly]

151. You have to understand that no one thinks that THEY are the fringe.

In the 3rd Indiana Jones movie, the young Indiana Jones emerges from a cave, his friends have all left. He is alone.

And his response .... "Everyone is lost but me!!!"

The fringe rarely sees itself as fringe. They see themselves as the only ones who are not lost.

The Tea Party does it, parts of DU do it. "Everyone is lost but me!!"

[HankyDubs]

156. You are on the fringe

The fact that it's a corporatist fringe...a sellout, backstabbing fringe that doesn't share the values that made the New Deal and the Great Society possible isn't really all that relevant. The numbers of actual left wingers far outnumbers your backstabbing fringe.

Nice job with the false equivalency, marginalize everyone else crap. No reason it can't be used against you.

I saw a movie too. Here's a stupid little story about it.



:spank:

[JoePhilly]

169. Bwahahaha ... yea ... I hate the values of the new deal and great society!!!

The problem of the fringe is that they can't actually get anything done because nothing is good enough.

Small steps are attacked as useless, and any compromise, at any time, is total and complete betrayal.

But look, you can win this argument ... simply mount an actual primary challenge for Obama.

Should be easy, given the fact that actual left wingers far out number us in "the fringe" as you claim.

Well ... where is that challenge?

[HankyDubs]

175. if you share these values

then you should stop marginalizing those of us who actually do. Unless you're just a phony, then you should continue.

If you say "compromise" but what you actually mean is "dismantle the new deal" then yeah, you're definitely the fringe. Where's that picture of Maddow standing in front of the polling results again?

As for bringing a primary challenge, you just wait until he betrays us on Social security. You might well get what you hope for.

[JoePhilly]

179. I did not marginalize anyone.

What I marginalize, is all of the knee-jerk screaming about how Obama is about to kill granny.

Its not happening.

If you are concerned, write the white house, write your representatives ...

But, your primary ... not happening.

[rhett o rick]

290. What are "fringe" issues that you dont agree with? nm

[white_wolf]

160. So is Bernie Sanders fringe to you now?

[Nye Bevan]

193. No, unless he runs in a Democratic primary against Obama, as some DUers seem to want (nt)

[Marrah_G]

214. So it really is all about the brand and not about the issues for you.

[rhett o rick]

289. LOL. So your definition of "fringe" depends on whether he runs or not, not his

stands on issues. Bernie is to the left of Pres Obama, so is he fringe or not.

[Lyric]

201. Thank god you aren't the arbiter of all that's true and good in the world

because wanting to primary Obama after his failures to uphold longstanding Democratic values seems perfectly understandable and rational to me.

[rhett o rick]

288. You are making the OP's point. You equate everyone to the left of Pres Obama

as fringe. That's absurd. Do you see wanting to end the Patriot Act, MCA and the wars as "fringe".

I dare you to tell me what we want that you dont want, re. issues and policies.

[ProSense]

144. Almost everyone on DU agrees that neither of these statements are not facts:

1) Obama is a Trojan Horse selected by the corporate elite to kill Grandma and poor Americans.

2) Obama is a Kenyan socialist who wants to destroy America.

We all agree that these are false!

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

162. OK, but

who the hell are you and why should I care?

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[Electric Monk]

321. Classy. nt

[ProSense]

173. Oops,

on edit: "Almost everyone on DU agrees that neither of these statements are not facts:"

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[Odin2005]

218. Red Herring.

[rhett o rick]

292. Your double negitive threw me off. But I will say your statements are absurd.

What's your point?

Some here like to speculate what the president's intentions are but it really doesnt matter. The results are what matter.

[TBF]

319. Finally something we almost agree on -

although I might argue a bit on number one. I do think he was "approved" so to speak by the corporate elite (evidenced by that trip he talks about in "the Audacity of Hope" to visit Mr. Buffett ...). I don't think the elite specifically want to kill elderly and poor Americans, that just happens as a result of policies all corporatists favor (left and right).

I do believe the ruling class in this country is very small (as evidenced by census data), but wield an enormous amount of power via politics. It is not Mr. Obama or any other single politician who is the problem - it is the system of capitalism that encourages the behavior.

[defendandprotect]

145. Thank you -- wonderful reminder -- !!

We should also remember United Nations' Human Manifesto

is everyone on the planet entitled to food, shelter, clothing, medical care --

at the minimum!

[NNN0LHI]

149. You saying we never had any LaRouchies posting here?

:rofl:

[coalition_unwilling]

272. OT, but are LaRouchies 'leftists' of any kind whatsoever? The ones

I've bumped into manning tables at UCLA and the Post Office strike me as advocating a sort of American version of National Socialism (with the anti-semitism and racism muted). If my assessment is correct, that would make LaRouchies fringe rightists, not leftists. But maybe I'm missing something.

[rbnyc]

158. This post deserves long life. nt

[NorthCarolina]

161. Fantastic Post...Bravo! Bookmarking this for future reference.

:applause:

[Raksha]

163. K & R

[Modern_Matthew]

172. I must be fringe then. I advocate for complete public ownership of all modes of production. nt

[HankyDubs]

177. the fringe I'm worried about

is the Koch brothers financed DLC fringe, the fringe that has no principles whatsoever, that would support any betrayal so long as it has the letter D stamped on it.

[MannyGoldstein]

183. This may be the single best post I've ever seen on DU

Big K&R.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

184. from what I have seen this place runs the gamut

from rabid, trolling republicans to the most extreme leftist and as long as they all abide by the rules, I see no problem with that.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

186. K&R. Brilliant.

:kick:

[The Wizard]

187. There is a fringe in this country

the Republican Party

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[chill_wind]

189. Bravo bvar22

Thanks for the reminders now then and a little sane perspective.
You bring fresh air and sunlight with you always.

:-) :applause:

[scarletwoman]

194. Excellent! Thank you! Rec'd. (nt)

[Overseas]

195. K&R -- Definitely agree. When foks talk about Far Left

I;m thinking of how successful propaganda has been if pre-Reagan policies have been labeled as Far Left.

I don't see "Property is Theft!" on here.

[Capn Sunshine]

197. You're right about the fringe leftists

It just depends where you start the fringe. Many frays in our fabric are mistaken for fringe. As a here since 9/2001 DUer I have to say I know a right wing disruptor sock when I see one. There are many here pretending to be leftists. Some of the gullible members do not realize this.

Oh, and just for grins--- it's DemocratIC Party.
"Democrat Party" is a term in use by right wingers and used as a veiled insult.

[bvar22]

210. If you are referring to this:

"and if these values are no longer welcome in the New Democrat Party,"
then my use of "democrat" was intentional.

The New Democrat Centrist Party,
has no connection to the Democratic Party I joined 45 years ago.

In the Democratic Party,
Social Security and Medicare were cornerstones,
not Bargaining Chips.

[baldguy]

198. The RW MSM labels the "fringe left" as people who want corporations to follow the law & pay taxes.

[rhett o rick]

301. Apparently so do the New-Democrats. nm

[baldguy]

334. There's nothing new about "New Democrats"

50 yrs ago, they're the people Nixon would have characterized as "cloth-coated Republicans".

[larwdem]

202. Agree 100%

[bertman]

204. Hear!! Hear!!! A HUGE REC for a great post. nt

[Odin2005]

205. K&R for a fellow Minnesotan Progressive!

:hi:

[Marrah_G]

213. Thank you for being a voice of reason. n/t

[defendandprotect]

215. Hi bvar 22 -- saved this OP -- and think that we can now file away ....

"fringe left" with the other attempts to stall and distract from criticism

of Obama --

"pink pony"

"idealogical purist"

"chess game"

"magic wand"

"you've always hated Obama"

etal --



:rofl:

[Shining Jack]

224. +1 n/t

[Mimosa]

259. How about 'Emo Progressives' ?

That was a recent attempt to label liberals who object to the rightward direction of democratic policy makers.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

219. I'm fringe left, I do not believe in private property, and I support Obama.

Interesting, no?

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

231. Yes, there are many people to the right of me who don't support Obama.

Yet they would call themselves left of Obama.

[TBF]

225. Just curious as to why you support him,

I believe you've said before that you're anarchist. I'm ambivalent on Mr. Obama personally, he's just another player in this game that needs to end imo.

[joshcryer]

230. It's because he's slowing the collapse of the country faster than any realistic alternatives.

If we had a Republican in charge the country would collapse much faster than it is, and that would screw things up for me and my family. It is effectively a lesser of two evils argument.

And Obama makes it easy to pick him because the evil on the other side of the coin is beyond the pale, just incomprehensible.

[inna]

247. no such thing as pro-war, pro-imperialist left, sorry to burst your bubble

[joshcryer]

249. I'm not pro-war or pro-imperialism, sorry to dispute this dishonesty.

I am pro-revolutionary, however, and I find myself followed into other threads by counter-revolutionaries all the time, I dunno why.

[alarimer]

228. I am an FDR leftist and always have been.

It's the Democratic Party that has moved right. It only makes us SEEM like leftists for advocating what even some mainstream Republicans used to favor but certainly all Democrats once did.

It is why I am no longer a Democrat.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

235. Thanks for providing context and clarity!

:kick:

:thumbsup:

[Electric Monk]

238. K&R

K&R

[AnnieBW]

239. Well, I'm a Leftist, and I like Fringe

Especially Crazy Walter!

http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/54092-fringe-on-the-fringe

Oh, wait...

[mod mom]

241. I was so naive when i came to DU. It's folks like bvar who have opned my eyes.

Another excellent post bvar! Rec'd

[Mimosa]

264. Bvar ever leaves DU I'm leaving!

I've learned a lot from BVar, Defend and Protect, Straight Story, Hugh Beaumont, JDPreistly, Jakes Progress, Octafish, KPete and more people than I can name. Splendid Dems with lots of integrity who make riveting posts.

[StevesRedLens]

244. Calling them "Fringe" only plays into the Repub dialogue

There are many on DU who probably qualify as this "Fringe" Left that you think of. I'm sure the majority are not but some are.

As far as Full Disclosure: I consider myself a Democrat; however almost radically left-winged and pretty much socialist, although I don't "toe the party line" on everything.

Just saying there are very left-winged who enjoy DU as well.

[inna]

248. woo-hoo! happy to be net rec +350!

[LeftPole]

252. and on the other side, it didn't say nothin...

BTW your analysis matches that at political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ironically, the t-party may be showing the way for "fringe" elements like traditional Democrats to be politically effective in this system. And a primary goal of the left, as Jerry Brown once explained, should be to make political reform. The "Far Left" needs to start making an appearance.



And for some real fun, try some Zizek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw

[JackDragna]

253. A million times this.

Proud to rec.

[padruig]

254. appreciate the sentiment ...

I appreciate the sentiment but quite honestly I have never ever met a "fringe" leftist.

I am a leftist and quite proud of it ... family full of Union folk and FDR style Democrats.

I've met black leftists, red leftists, a lot of pink leftists. Met some gay leftists and lesbian too. Met environmental leftists and catholic leftists and even capitalist leftists.

But I've never ever met a "fringe" leftists.

Now could be that some of those "fringe" leftists were actually imitation leftists. I hear them all the time on Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Steph Miller and even Thom Hartmann.

These 'imitation' leftists, well they are Paul-tards and Ayn Rand-ites and libertarian whatchamacallits.

Have no use for them ... they just want to secede from the country and not bother leaving. They think they are entitled to everything and pay nothing for it.

Waste of earth, if you ask me that is ...

[white_wolf]

258. How would Ayn Rand's followers be considered even imitation leftists?

They are hard-core capitalists and they don't bother to hide it. Just curious to hear your answer.

[cui bono]

340. What I got from that post was someone trying to discredit progressive radio shows. n/t

[yurbud]

255. I would prefer collectives or co-ops to corporations: one person one vote beats one dollar

one vote any day.

One dollar one vote will always lead to the tyranny of the minority.

[joshcryer]

257. Same here, if they don't come with The Party.

As The Party is nothing but the Corporation in disguise.

[lonestarnot]

256. Beautius! K & R!

[Mimosa]

260. DU has gone rightward over the past 2 years.

There were several socialists. Hannah Bell was a person whose research was very informative and enlightening. But for some reason I've never learned (we weren't that close) she got tombstoned. I've noticed the DUers I had supposed were socialists have all been 'disappeared.'

[whatchamacallit]

261. Thanks man K&R n/t

[krispos42]

262. Yeah.all that fringe-y stuff

[RoccoRyg]

266. I've been saying this forever.

I've nevver met a fringe-left-winger, but I've met plenty fringe-right-wingers.

[Major Hogwash]

271. Not even one?

That's a pretty broad brush you used there to whitewash what is going on at DU.

[coalition_unwilling]

274. Awesome post for the debate and conversation it has stimulated. K n R - n/t

[Enthusiast]

278. K&R!

Thank you, bvar22! We can always rely on you to keep us informed.

[RedCloud]

282. Let us give them a fifth of November that shall not be forgot.

[robcon]

283. I disagree. Supporters of Grayson, Kucinich and Feingold, e.g., are way out of the mainstream.

Obama is a centrist Democrat - representing the heart of the Democratic Party.

DUers overwhelmingly supported Dennis Kucinich in the '08 primaries, while Kucinich got only "fringe" voter support (under 4% among Democrats) in those primaries. There are a lot of "fringe" Democrats on DU, IMO.

[rbnyc]

297. What someone is and how someone is characterized are two different things.

When I was working for Dennis Kucinich, most people said that he most closely represented their values but they were afraid to give him their primary vote because of the perception that he is fringe.

[donf]

303. I agree . . .

This was exactly my experience as well. When I worked for Kucinich in 2004, polls were conducted on issues only, with no candidate's name attached – and by a large majority the candidate who's platform was most aligned with the wishes of those being polled was Kucinich. If anyone still has the poll results handy, I would love to see them re-posted.

Someday I would like to see the vast majority of citizens of this country approach politics from a policy-centered viewpoint – really seeking out politicians whose vision will create the most sensible, humane, and sustainable future. Whoever those candidates may be. We are far too easily led by the media, and by our own short-sightedness and insecurities.

[rbnyc]

325. Indeed. nt

[laundry_queen]

342. Exactly! I've told this story before and I'll do it again

every time someone brings up Kucinich as being unable to win because he is too far left. I was on a large a-political website during the primaries and someone posted a poll that was titled something like, "what candidate most reflects your beliefs and values" I'd say close to 90% of the Democrats and 50% of republicans ended up with Kucinich. Some of them didn't even know who Kucinich WAS and when they found out he was supposedly 'far left' they freaked out. Americans are FAR further to the left than you think - it's just years of propaganda and brainwashing via the media has tricked people into thinking their best interests are served by the right. People no longer vote with their brains - it's all based on emotion and the media plays on that - and they use it to get their choice candidate in.

[Agony]

346. The Century of Self documentary describes that pretty well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM

3 hours long

To many in both business and government, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power is truly moved into the hands of the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis tells the untold and controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society. How is the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interest?

[bvar22]

300. Nobody "representing the heart of the Democratic Party" would EVER

put Social Security & Medicare on the Bargaining Table.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Raster]

305. Thank you, bvar22! Well said!

:applause:

[rhett o rick]

302. The New-Democrats and Republicans agree with you. But I challenge you to tell

us what issues Grayson, Kucinich and Feingold support that you consider "fringe".

I have made this challenge dozens of times but never one have I gotten an answer.

[jsamuel]

308. wrong, DUers overwhelmingly supported John Edwards in those primaries

I remember it well. He beat Clinton in Iowa with 30% of the vote. The guy turned out to be bad news, but the ideas his campaign proposed is what attracted people here. He dropped some 10 points in Iowa (and Obama came up about 10 points) when the Hunter affair story first broke in September, right before the SEIU was to vote to endorse him.

[bvar22]

330. No, Sir.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[jsamuel]

333. dueling polls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2567862

Edwards 49%
Kucinich 20%


It depends on the date of the poll. I would concede that the "overwhelming" portion of my statement is incorrect. My memory was more about comparing the top candidates (Edwards, Obama, Clinton). Among just those three, Edwards was the top. When one of those was eliminated, Edwards won against Kucinich.

[bvar22]

335. You are correct there.

When Kucinich dropped out,
most of us moved to Edwards,
the next most Liberal candidate.

The day Edwards was forced out was the last day "The Poor" were mentioned
in the Democratic Primary.


”Unlike the other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[Zorra]

323. If Obama represents the heart of the Democratic Party

We're dead.

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

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

[bread_and_roses]

293. K & R (n/t)

[greiner3]

294. The only thing I would add is;

That I am also an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat/Liberal/Humanitarian.

[rbnyc]

298. + 1 (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

299. And I keep saying that the political middle in regards to the population

is further to the left then the damn pundits say it is.

[bvar22]

327. ...and you would be correct.

*The popular solution to the "debt crisis" is WAY further Left than the position of BOTH political parties,
with over 80% on America supporting Raising Taxes on the RICH, and leaving Social Security & medicare ALONE.

I wonder WHY Obama refused to mention this last night?

*Over 70% of America was AGAINST The MANDATE with NO Public Option.

*92% of America (Democrats & republicans) support Transparent, Verifiable elections.
But ALL we get from the political Ruling Class of BOTH Parties is MORE unverifiable Black Box Voting,
owned by :private" corporations.



Here are some good ones from 2005!

"In recent polls 2005! by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of self described "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

Poll after Poll continues to show that the American Public is much more "Liberal" that BOTH dominant political parties.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[EFerrari]

351. Yes. Against these useless wars. for same sex marriage,

for the public option, against cutting our social programs. They certainly are!

[rhett o rick]

306. I challenge you New-Democrats to tell us what issues you think are "fringe". nm

[woo me with science]

316. [phone] I long ago discovered that

you can tell them by their refusal to articulate what they actually stand for and against.

[rhett o rick]

326. They refuse to reveal that their goals match those of the Republicans. nm

[Kennah]

318. One should generally eschew always, never, all, or none

That said, I don't see that there's even what one might consider a represented minority, vocal or otherwise, of "Fringe Leftists" on DU.

The Flat Earth Society probably has a couple of Round Earthers in their midst, but again they aren't a strong, vocal presence.

Anything along the lines of hunting down and murdering conservatives, elected or otherwise, would quickly get deleted by the Mods here on DU. Even in jest, it usually won't stay. I can't say that the same thing about any number of online hangouts of the other side.

[bvar22]

337. I agree with you,

I never use global terms in polite conversation.
well,
almost always never,
but maybe sometimes,
but not really too often,
I think maybe last year once,
I could have,
but probably, almost surely, not.

[Kennah]

352. +10 for making me laugh

If this were the Gungeon, you'd earn 6 points.

[Riverman]

320. Rec. I fully associate myself with these comments

[me b zola]

347. You would have had another recommendation

If my puter had not blown up. Just seeing your OP now and would have gladly recommended. :thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

353. kr

[No Elephants]

348. Yep, the fringe left or far left is Communist, contrary to what the RW pretends.

Too many on the right pretend that what would have been a garden variety, almost conservative Democrat 1930-1970 or so is some kind of far left fringe.

Wish I had had time to read this thread before I posted, but I didn't, so I bookmarked it I will get back to it and read it another time.

Thanks, bvar.

[steve2470]

354. k & r nt

[Agony]

355. I propose the immediate confiscation of ALL your personal vegetables

to be distributed equally to me... I know you have lots, cough 'em up!