There has been no shortage of people "opposed" to this or that - the war, for example. Chlamor and I have been wrestling with a bunch of these "against the neo-con" and "against the PTB" and "for freedom" folks who are now ready to support Ron Paul. It is very hard to tell who is and who isn't an ally. As Leftists, PI should have been a friendly home for us, but clearly was not. Communication has been so difficult and people are so confused - and yet so strident and self-assured in their confusion. Most of the things that people talk about and call "politics" are not politics at all - they are regurgitated talking points, personal prejudices, and pseudo-intellectual claptrap. You can't talk about politics without talking about power and about class, and you can't communicate about politics to people if politics is something you merely observe and analyze that has little if any connection to everyday life.

Here and there a few people have been trying to break through the fog - whatver that fog that people are in is. One I have been watching is the poster at DU "nadinbrzezinski." She has been posting warnings about police state tyranny - "fascism" she calls it - not as a hypothetical, not as an opinion, but as an observation, and putting it into historic context, including the story of her own family in Europe. She has been talking about state power, talking about how that impacts every day life in plain talk, pounding and pounding on it and plowing through all of the "on the other hands" and all of the pseudo-intellectual rebuttals.

Finally tonight she posts this -


Next election when you go to the voting booth here is how you should look at the election.

No this is not about party, but social class.

For example, if you are a worker, a member of a union, voting for any of the current crop of Republicans is
suicidal since they are against your interests and your social class.

In the primaries voting for some of the Democrats is also against your interest.

Now if you are a member of the Investor class, having seen what the GOP has done with the economy, voting for Republicans is also suicidal. (Look at the Statistics, the economy does better under Dem Rule)... that said... the Dems that will protect your interests best are not the ones who that working class person should vote for.

In other words, stop thinking of party and start thinking of class.

They do... regularly... the one percenters that is. And they have been doing all they can to convince you that they have
your interests in mind... they don't.

So it is time to start thinking in terms that most Americans have not thought off in twenty plus years... and that is class consciousness... and realize that you vote for your interets... not those of the folks who would love to exploit you.

Oh and since I have used a certain language... FUCK HOOVER... the last thing they want, the powers that be... is the rise of real class consciousness once again... since certain things follow, such as the strengthening of the Union Movement and Single Payer, NOT for profit heath care, as well as protection of American jobs, aka your job and my job.

Oh and as to the DLC... just as much as the RNC... they hate this thinking too... and they distrust the rabble, the unwashed masses, aka you and me, fellow WORKERS..

Next election when you go to the voting booth (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2256978)

If you can break people out of their hypotheticals and intellectual masturbation and talking points, class will inevitably emerge as the defining element in politics. There is a difference between "being" a "sociailist" and mouthing thatvwords that you "support the working class" and actually experiencing that you are fucking working class and that politics are going on all of the time in your life, not just when you are engaged in a freindly round of political discussions sharing your "beliefs" and "ideas."

Where's John Reed when we need him....

Ahh he just walked in.

"There are only two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And whoever isn’t on one side is on the other."

Ten Days That Shook the World (http://www.bartleby.com/79/7.html)
VII. The Revolutionary Front
John Reed (1887–1920)

Along similar lines, here is a post from DU that I posted at the Dean site with some commentary.

Is the tail still trying to wag the dog?
TahitiNut

Funny thing about the tail ... it's not on the fighting end of the dog. (It's most common function is to cover up where the shit comes from.) I'd be interested in hearing - Just where's the "center" of DU? Please, don't try to tell me about DU being "unusual" or "exceptional" or "not representative." That's hogwash. DU is merely more well-informed. At least most of it.

http://usera.imagecave.com/TahitiNut/DUPolCom.jpg

As I said, and as TahitiNut has documented, the "DU isn't representative of Democrats" line that DLC apologists and "centrists" say to use as a club against so many of us is not only a crock, but the truth is that DU doesn't even represent DU if we go by who makes the most noise. The 2-4% of people who are "centrists" and bash everyone on the left make half of the posts on DU and claim to be "mainstream" and "practical" and "realistic" and interested in "winning," and call the other 70% fringe and try to shout them down and marginalize them whenever they can and by whatever bullying method they can use. "Hillary haters" is the latest catch-all phrase for dismissing critics of the corporate Dems.

Is it unreasonable to think that the same strong arm bullying tactics are being used off line to make the support for the corporate Dems seem bigger than it is, and to smear and dismiss and try to silence the other voices and other candidates?

If 70% of the people at DU have to fight so hard to be heard above the noise of the corporate machine, and have a handful of people working night and day to confuse and sabotage everything that the 70% try to post, of course the same thing or worse must be happening out there in the "real world."

70% - I think the 70% support for New Deal politics is still out there for the grabbing, and it is not because we "go too far to the left" that we fail to find it, it is because the corporate Dems suppress the debate and cripple efforts to educate the public.

What makes DU different than the general public? They are better informed, not "more radical" and as madfloridian is showing us, supporting democracy and the voice of the working people is not necessarily only for "far left wing" people. It is in ALL of our best interests.

All you people who have come here to preach the wisdom of the middle way, the centrist approach, the corporate sponsored Doritos Election Bowl.

You preach how those of us who eschew corporate solutions to societal ills are destroying "our" party.

It's not called "Underground" because its corporate mainstream political poll driven pap.


ON EDIT - We're not destroying YOUR party, we're rescuing OURS.

-------------

114 recs since 8pm last night = all day Sunday to rack up more. Interesting stuff, Mike.

There definitely is a rebellion going on now among the liberal leisure class and it is growing. This is an opportunity. I bet we can make more headway in the next 6 months than we did in the last 6 years - last 30 years. Many people cn be radicalized, others can be allies.

What is happening is many people are saying in effect - "wait a minute. This isn't right. Something is way off about all of this." In other words, they are re-thinking things, getting off the merry-go-round, looking for new ways to look at everything. It isn't following a left right model; that is, it is not that Kucinich supporters, or Greens or self-described socialists who are questioning things while others are not. Of course, the left right ideas people have had - taking ten issues, assigning two possible positions to each, declaring one of those positions to be "left" and the other "right" and then placing themselves and others on an imaginary scale according to which positions of those issues people take - are all f-ed up anyway.

Watch that poster over there "Cali." Something very strange about that one. She has led the charge against the left for weeks, but now claims to be a Kucinich supporter and a far leftist, while still disrupting any and all threads critical of the party. She spent a few weeks as the most outspoken Clinton supporter, then switched to Obama, and now Kucinich - without acknowledging that she changed allegiances.

Cali - working it, working it, working it (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2255918) - hundreds of posts a day, all day, every day.

And her comrade, calteacherguy, with the latest talking point to smear the left -
This board seems intent on smearing and swiftboating the two Democratic frontrunners (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3707838)

About that Political Compass thing - it is the best of the bunch - none of them are very good. I scored -10 and -10 on it, and it has been pretty useful at predicting where people are going to stand.

In any case, who cares if it is accurate? It is a great wedge. It says that 70-80% of the people are far to the left from any of the Dem candidates, all of whom it places in the upper right quadrant. It is useful for making the case that there is some hidden strong influence over the party that is driving it far to the right. It also is useful for making the case that the right wing Dems loom larger than they actually are - have a disproportionate influence, cast a big shadow. That sets the stage so that when people read or hear either the Dem candidates or their shills, they are able to see the pandering, the shrillness, the bullying, the illogical assertions, the obvious attempts at controlling the discussion.

Even moderate Dems are then willing to consider that yes, the left has been targeted and drummed out of the party, that yes there is a monkey wrench in the gears in the form of corporate corruption of the party. Just watch - many of these people are going to become socialists over the next few months. But they have to hear things from a socialist perspective.

Don't assume that everyone has heard it all - the communication is much worse than we might imagine and the board formats work against communication and are easy to hijack and steer. People are now posting "wow I had no idea that DU was so far to the left. You would never now that." Of course - there are people working their asses off to make sure that you don't know that. In fact - that is the purpose of DU and the purpose of PI, whether intentional or not.

Things are unraveling among the liberal leisure class. The good ship Democrat is listing in the water. We should help that along, and be prepared to “pick up survivors” as the ship goes down.

Obama attacking Tom Hayden and cozying up to the religious right, Clinton planting questioners at her town hall meetings, Murdock and Scaife praising and supporting Clinton, Dems in Congress fawning and groveling before the right wing - big opportunity here for us.

On being an ideologicaly pure leftist in the Democratic party
MadHound
thread here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2258456)

One of the latest memes, nay, even insults being passed around DU is that those of us on the left are ideological purists. Uncompromising, unwilling to work with others, no better than the RW fundies, looking to take over the party.

Let's step back and take a look at this in the light of reality. If you were around here during the '04 election, you will recall that those of us on the left not only held our nose to vote for Kerry, but actually got out and worked hard for him. In the '06 election campaign, we got out in force to put Democrats into majority power. In '00, if you will look at the stats, you will find that it wasn't leftist Dems who voted for Nader, but instead it was the regular Green voters, joined by first time voters or those who hadn't voted in many years that made up Nader's constituency.

In fact as you go back through the campaigns over the past forty years, time and again you will find the leftists heavily involved in the various campaigns, getting out the vote, working the street, manning the polls, giving our money, blood, sweat and tears.

Yet over the same course of time, we have seen a shift in the Democratic party. It has grown more conservative, more corporatist, and in many opinions, more spineless. We on the left have indeed compromised with this, our very support of the party, sometimes flying in the face of our best interests, testifies to this ability of the left to compromise. Yet seemingly it seems that everytime the left compromises an inch, a mile is taken instead.

Sooner or later, any group of people that has been ignored and maligned will rise up and say enough is enough, this far and no further. I think that time has now come for those of us on the left. After working our ass off to put in a Democratic Congress(with the mandate of stopping the war), we are presented with the specter of having the top of the Democratic ticket dominated by candidates who cannot promise an end to the war during their first term. The current leader, Hillary, has stated time and again that she will keep troops in a live fire zone in order to guard bases, train troops, and go on combat missions against Al Quaeda(funny how similar this mission is to Bush's current position, scarier still how close it is to our "official" rationale for our Vietnam involvement).

MikeC -

Yep-- I've been raked over the coals here for "ideological purity" and unwillingness to compromise liberal ideals, but that ignores the truth that I voted solidly Democratic for thirty years before finally throwing my hands up and deciding the party has just moved too far to the right to represent me any longer, at least in terms of national politics. Today's democratic party is largely to the right of NIXON, for crying out loud. My ideology hasn't changed that much since the 1970s-- but the democratic party has.

One thing that never seems to change is the demand that leftists support the party centrists without any reciprocation. Over and over we hear that WE must compromise for the good of the party. I cannot recall EVER hearing the party centrists-- who are now so far to the right that I can no longer recognize their politics as similar to my own-- I cannot recall EVER hearing them say "it's time to move to the left because the left has helped us out time and time again." You never see centrists spreading the love to leftist candidates-- there's always "too much at stake."

This upcoming election is the watershed event, as far as I'm concerned. Dissatisfaction with the GOP is at an all-time high. The 2008 presidential election is the democrat's to lose. The democratic party candidate is a virtual shoo-in because the GOP has screwed things up so badly that only the hard-core GOP faithful will likely support their candidate. Never has the democratic party had so little to risk, or at least not since Nixon was driven from office with Watergate biting at his heels. And yet, when it would be easy and relatively painless to compromise with the left, the democratic party puts virtually all its resources into advancing center-right candidates whose positions on many of the issues important to the left are worse than any we've seen in DECADES.

TahitiNut -

"Ideological purist" is a sneeringly condescending epithet employed by the willingly corrupt - where 'corruption' is the literal antithesis of 'purity.'

Nay -

I totally and completely agree. I also have been an active Dem for 35 years, and frankly, the Dem Party has changed so much as to be unrecognizable. The suspicious thing is that all the polls say that voters are NOT that centrist, and are sick of Pubs, and STILL the Dem Party insists on being pretty far to the right. Many of us have come to the chilling conclusion that the Dem Party has secretly been taken over by (insert villain here)just as the Pub Party was openly taken over by right-wing religious nuts. The problem for all of us regular Dems whose ideals did not shift over the years is that now we literally have no one to vote for, and we haven't had anyone for years. Sure, we always have someone to vote for in the primaries, but never in the final winner-take-all bout.

Thus, the problem -- most of us in this position simultaneously feel that the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT encouraging and supporting more left-leaning candidates when change is so obviously in the wind, blowing an easy cakewalk into the White House; along with the concomitant fear that certain Dems WILL win, and then fail to act much differently than they are acting right now! In other words, they will roll over for a minority Pub party just as they refuse to fight them now! After a certain point, most of us (not just the lefties) will realize they have rolled over for reasons other than "to keep the powder dry," "because we don't have the votes," "because it would divide the nation," and other nonsensical crap. They are rolling over because they belong to someone else, while still (barely) kissing up to us.

I ask: What finally happens to the husband who screws every woman in the neighborhood (and intends to keep on doing so ad infinitum) when his wife finds out and tells him the bouquet of flowers just doesn't cut it anymore? There comes a time when you throw the bastard's shirts onto the lawn and change the door locks. In my opinion, the Dem Party is perilously close to being that cheating husband.

I personally considered Bill Clinton to be the best prez the Pubs ever had, and I regularly tell them so. That does not mean I think he was a good Dem prez. All us true lefties were appalled at NAFTA, the Telecom Bill, etc. I have NEVER considered his wife to be any kind of Dem candidate for a lot of reasons (all have been documented on DU forever), and the thought of her as president creeps me out because I don't see her doing any of the stuff necessary to save this nation economically, politically, etc. And you know what? If she doesn't get the job done, the Pub's mighty Wurlitzer will gleefully burst our eardrums with a barrage of noise about how the Dems ruined the country. The same Wurlitzer, which COULD have been played by the Dems LO THESE LAST 7 YEARS, has been totally silent, lying unplayed by the media, our reps and senators, pundits (except for a few notable exceptions). OUr greatest fear is not that the Dems won't win, it is that they will -- and proceed to blow the (slim) chance they have to pull the nation out of the hole by acting like scared schoolgirls when some Pub stands up and says something nasty. All this time they should have been up in everyone's faces, screaming right back at them!

You're right, I've noticed some old-timers definately swinging left, with great exasperation. Some of the folks you've quoted have been on the edge for a while, the analogy of cumulative spousal abuse is hard to avoid. Maybe this time they won't go back.

The place has such hugh traffic that it's hard to beat for disseminating a message.

There's a lot of people just floating around over there, opposed to the current regime and not terribly impressed by the Democratic response since they've taken legislative lead. But it's the loss of faith(that again) among stalwart party folks which signals a disturbance in the Force :roll: , shit has gotten beyond 101 level crowd control. The emperor indeed has no clothes.

I suspect that the Penn piece, distribuited by folks here and our friends, had some effect, at least that is my impression.

I wonder how long The History of Libertarianism would last at FR?

I wonder how long The History of Libertarianism would last at FR?

I wonder how long the history of the Democratic party would last at FR?

People like Capn Sunshine, TahitiNut, madfloridian and H2OMan - voices of reason and moderation for years, and once seemingly aligned with the centrists but not stupid and not reactionary, were the people who were influenced by the Penn info I think. It pulled the rug out from a lot of the reactionary people when they turned on congressional Dems and on the Clinton campaign.

Wow. This one surprises me. There has been no more outspoken and consistent defender of the party leadership over the years - ABB and STFU you Lefties and the whole nine yards. Cracks starting to show here and there ion the edifice...

What If We're Wrong? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3708562)
DemocratSinceBirth

I support Hillary Clinton because I believe she offers the best opportunity to beat the Rethuglicans...I supported Ted Kennedy in 1980 for slightly different reasons...He was the brother of my political idols and when they were assassinated my devotion went to him... In the 1984 election I supported Gary Hart, in 1988 I supported Al Gore, in 1992 I supported Bob Kerrey , in 00 I supported Al Gore, and in 04 I supported Wes Clark...I supported those gentleman because I thought they would be the best candidate... I arrived at that decision by looking at polling, political history, the political environment and my gut or intuition... That being said, maybe I was wrong... I think it's good to challenge your own assumptions...

Another one slipping and about to fall off of the Democratic party leadership and DLC wagon?

Is there a viable political left in America? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3708362)
SteppingRazor

I'm sure a lot of folks here have checked out Politicalcompass.org in the past to see where they sit on its x-y axis. If not, please do so! It's often enlightening. I personally sit way the hell out there in the bottom left-hand corner, the furthest reaches of the left-libertarian wasteland occupied by few politicians (but hey, according to political compass, Gandhi and the Dali Lama are in my quadrant, so what the hey).

But on a recent revisiting of the site -- something I'm inclined to do every now and again out of morbid curiosity and self-examination -- I noticed that they've plotted all of the 2007 presidential primary candidates. Check it out, please, before reading on:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

Kinda startling, no? There's a massive swath of political thought that is wholly unrepresented in American politics (thankfully, in the case of that scary upper-left quadrant, but the upper-right is little better). Let me say that, in other threads across DU, despite my predilections for bomb-throwing leftist politics, I'm often one of the DUers who is advocating prudence over purity == for example, while she's far from my first choice, you can bet I'm checking "Hillary" in the general if she wins the primary. But, this really does say something about what passes for political discussion in our country.

CNN will invite, say, Pat Robertson on to give an opinion from the perspective of people whose politics run just barely to the left of Goebbels. But when they get the response, what "leftists" do they go to? Hillary? Obama?

When's the last time you saw, say, Noam Chomsky on CNN?

Now, mind you, I don't see this as an intentional vast right-wing conspiracy among the media. I'm a journalist myself, and I know too many journalists to take that accusation seriously. I think it simply doesn't occur to them that the opposite of Robertson is someone like Chomsky, not someone like, say, Bill Clinton.

That Politicalcompass.org graph may be slightly off, but its point is spot on -- the war we fight in American politics is over a small amount of territory in the upper-right quadrant. So, here's my question: How did left and libertarian thought get so thoroughly dismissed in America, and what can be done to resuscitate it?

I can understand the more civil libertarian aspects of my political philosophy not being addressed by the government -- government is inherently somewhat authoritarian, and libertarianism is the opposite. But how did we get to the point where we're just fighting over a minuscule space of the political spectrum?

Yes, there is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. But it could certainly be much bigger. What happened to the left in this country? Is it simply a 50-year cold war with authoritarian leftists that destroyed any hope of a viable left in this country? Is it the failure of the New Left in the 1960s? Something else? Something more? What are your thoughts on the issue?

Now our gal Nadin is taking on young people, in response to Obama's disparaging remarks about Hayden and 60's activists.


On this generational conflict that is being manufactured to order (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2263035)

Here is the problem... many of us don't see the young protesting... perhaps they believe they have a new way and would love for the old foggies to go away. And for anybody conscious of the history of this country this generational conflict is very familiar

Back in '68 the adage was... don't trust anybody over thirty.

It is back.

But in the midst of ipods and computers and all this new technology the youth is missing certain constants of US History and I must say... we failed you... since nobody teaches history any more.

The politics of direct action that was part of the sixties (and the draft was a big component of it) was not exclusive to the sixties.

Direct action, petitioning the government and marching is as old as the country. It didn't start in 1968 or with the Boomers.

The Suffragists did it as well. Heck it took over two generations for women who believed in the Seneca declaration to get the vote. The Suffragists didn't give up though, and they marched until they got it.

Labor organizers risked prison and death in the 1920s, either by being shot during the demonstrations, or faced jail time for organizing... the forty hour week was bought with the blood and tears of the labor movement who again didn't stay home, but got in the faces of those who didn't want them to organize. And when I hear, but you don't get it... I work... these workers pulled 12 and 14 hour shifts... of the most grueling type of work... so you will have to forgive me if I understand, but think this partly an excuse for a country... not only you, that has grown fast and lazy and apathetic.

The civil rights movement also saw direct action... and massive civil strife... as well as hoses, billy clubs and dogs and people were killed.

There are those, including a presidential candidate, that are telling us... we need to abandon the sixties... what they are telling you is that you need to abandon the politics of direct action and taking to the streets that brought the labor movement, womens vote, civil rights and other social events thoughout our collective history.

That is what they are telling you...

And yes... don't trust anybody over thirty... historically we've heard it before and not just in 1968. This talk has been present in one form or another almost from the begining.

Don't put down your I-POD, but buy Howard ZInn's A People's History of the American People in audio book form, and listen to it. Don't be afraid of learning how the history of this country refutes the let's stay home attitude... and perhaps we will need to take to the streets once again and march against billy clubs and machine guns. I sure hope we can sing through the whole bloody mess once again (My apologies Mr Guthrie)

Which got this response from a younger person who was offended by the op....


I say this, as a young person myself....and maybe you should give us a bit more credit....not everyone feels the need to protest on the streets, afterall, times HAVE changed and yes this AIN'T the 1960s anymore....instead of protesting on the streets, I think we'd rather adopt a more intellectual and constructive set of ideals in dealing with situations at hand.

On the most basic level I'm not prepared to get arrested for ANYONE or ANYTHING.

With regard to "disaster capitalism"....I'm a Capitalist, as are I think a majority of people....the opposite to Capitalism simply isn't an option, either from a business perspective or an economic perspective.

Nadin right back at her...


Thanks for answering the question, now we know where you stand.

And I know that you are not willing to risk your creature comforts, fair enough... I know who NOT to count in a street brawl.

Don't worry, I am wiling to go to jail to protect your rights and your way of life... a slight difference huh?

Now you should research what the term disaster capitalism means and the Chicago school of economics... here is a short version of this chameleon... NEO CON thinking... also known in the rest of the world as neo liberalism.

So when I use the term, I am being very technical about it... just like when I use the term fascist.

Here is a recomended book:

Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein

Another crtiical one... Confessions of an Economic Hitman

By the way disaster capitalism has precious little to do with Capitalism

In gathering petitions to get Kucinich on the ballot in NYS, two things. I took a 13 year old brilliant daughter of a friend of mine along. She's been keeping tabs and loves kucinich. She was grabbing potential signers for me (child labor abuse, I know, but she loved it!! She was also my rudeness human shield!!) anyway, hope for the future there. There was also a republican, obviously to me, who we didn't approach. He heard the name Kucinich and came over to sign for him "He's alright only honest one of the bunch" seriously upset he couldn't sign for him as he really was a republican. Further hope?? not because he was for Kucinich, but that he sensed a real need for serious change.