Sympathy for the Devils...

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 4116
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island
Contact:

Re: Sympathy for the Devils...

Post by blindpig » Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:52 am

kidoftheblackhole wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:22 pm
I'm not sure any of that rises to the level of analysis.

All "misleadership" talk (and note that it tends to be exclusively pointed at blacks in many/most cases) rings hollow when it is centered on workers picking the wrong bourgeoisie candidate (and no one should be kidding themselves about Bernie in that regard).

Malcolm X said that the system is incapable of liberating black folks and likened the idea to a chicken laying a duck egg. It won't happen because it can't happen.

We need a heavy dose of talk like that and far less race baiting that sows bitterness and division and inflames old gaping wounds. The (vastly white) establishment trotted out their worthless asshole candidates and black people -- along with everyone who participated -- chose one based on their own calculations of self preservation. Tell me how CLASS factors into it?

Trump's base is the capitalist class -- without whom he'd probably be going through more bankruptcy proceedings over his slumlord empire right about now. Biden's base is the capitalist class -- without whom he would've been laughed off the campaign trail just as he was in his previous runs. Bernie annoys them and perhaps even scares them but as an individual his fealty to the capitalist class is hardly in question. Latching on to a "movement" that is latched on to him without dissecting its class character and composition and direction is hardly materialist or scientific.
Well, I was thinking about the people around me, white, and totally ABT, my bad for not having a more expansive view of that.

Trump does have a voter base besides the basic class relationships. It is what keeps him politically alive, without the threat of being 'primaried' support from his party would be more conditional. (And they do scare the hell out of liberals, class, class, class. To me largely blowhards.) Partisan politics may be a reflection of the real power relationships but it does have a life of it's own.

Bernie is their buddy, no doubt, and it ain't no 'movement' no matter how many times he sez it. But even the most tattered, ephemeral hint of that old spectre alarms the fuck outta the bosses. Trump railing against socialism? Where the hell did that come from except the deepest existential fear of the capitalists? They expunged 'working class' from the American lexicon for decades & thought the same of 'socialism'. Whether some of these bros continue to call themselves socialist after Bernie sells them up the river again is what's interesting to me. A few might want to ask questions.
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 4116
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island
Contact:

Re: Sympathy for the Devils...

Post by blindpig » Mon May 04, 2020 1:00 pm

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR PARTY IS A SERIAL ABUSER?
Posted by MLToday | May 3, 2020 | Featured Stories

What to Do When Your Party is a Serial Abuser?
BY GREG GODELS
April 26, 2020

Image


A few weeks ago, the UK was rocked by a leaked report recounting the activities of top officials in the Labour Party. As Morning Star details (4-18-2020):


Pages upon pages of emails and texts expose in stark detail how some of the party’s most senior officials acted to sabotage the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, obstruct everything it tried to do, direct vile abuse at staff and activists perceived to be supportive of Corbyn and express contempt for the members whose fees paid their salaries.


Most shockingly of all for those who pounded the streets, knocked on doors and phone banked for Labour, the report exposes top staff working against election victory, running a secret campaign to protect rightwingers in safe seats at the expense of winnable marginals, voicing growing dismay as Labour in 2017 closed the gap with the Tories and reacting with fury when the party broke Theresa May’s majority.


The records of Labour officials expressing preference for a Tory victory to a Corbyn one show treachery to their party and its members, but loyalty to a capitalist system they are used to being part of running.


In an article in The Guardian (4-21-2020), John McDonnell, the shadow Chancellor under Corbyn’s leadership, denounced the racism found in the report and directed at some of Corbyn’s closest associates by some of Labour’s top officials:


The alleged abuse of Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler and Clive Lewis, three prominent black shadow ministers, was appalling and, as others have commented, betrayed a deeply worrying underlying strain of racism.


The leaked report, commissioned to report on alleged anti-Semitism inside the Labour Party, was unsurprisingly ignored by the US mainstream media.


Unsurprisingly, because it might conjure up memories of the Wikileaks revelations of Democratic Party leaders plotting against the Bernie Sanders primary campaign leading up to the 2016 election, the actions taken against Sanders caucus voters, the embarrassing resignation of the party leader in the wake of plotting, the leaking of debate questions to Sanders’ opponent in that primary season, and many other 2016 attempts to sabotage Sanders’ campaign.


Of course, reporting the Labour Party’s undermining of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership might also plant suspicions about Biden’s miraculous rising from the dead this year, the leaked misinformation about Sanders, the red-baiting, the slanders, and the seemingly orchestrated dog-and-pony show of a motley crew of candidates slicing and dicing the primary vote suddenly surrendering and endorsing Uncle Joe Biden.


In other words, the complicit US media doesn’t want to give any ammunition to the suspicion that there may be a significant parallel in the ways that established “center-left” parties suppress any real left movement within their orbits.


While the Labour Party has a claim to exist somewhat as a membership party, with its members or their organizations having some say in its leadership, the US Democratic Party can make no such claim; “membership” is simply a matter of registration, and party activism is largely limited to carrying out dictated electoral activity, fund raising, and voting. The days of visits from and discussions with ward or neighborhood leaders are long past. Today, the Democratic Party is more like a sports team than a political party: one can choose it, follow it, and support it, but only marginally influence it.


But like the Labour Party, the Democratic Party pretends to be democratic while its leaders do all they can to stifle any democratic stirrings. Where insurgencies energize the typically most active, progressive, and earnest members, the leadership finds a way to undercut, underfund, or even engage in dirty tricks to derail their efforts.


In the US, the McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and now Bernie Sanders campaigns are examples of serious, but failed attempts to inject left politics into a party determined to define itself through a brand of tepid social liberalism which is inoffensive to its corporate financial base. If there is a role for the Democratic Party to challenge corporate dominance, to reverse growing inequality, and to expand the social safety net, the leadership has yet to reveal it.


Much attention has been drawn to analyzing what Corbyn and Sanders did wrong, where their campaigns failed. The more important matter is how a candidate can overcome the barriers that are institutionally, systematically placed in front of her or him. How can a candidate ride a party to victory when the party’s leadership does not want the candidate to be successful?


As Roger D. Harris explained in a recent thoughtful wrap-up of the Sanders phenomena in Popular Resistance:


Sanders proved on one hand that a sizable potential constituency would support and fund a progressive agenda. On the other hand, the Democrats – who would rather risk four more years of Trump than back someone with a mild New Deal agenda – are the graveyard for such a movement. The Democratic Party is an instrument of class rule and not a democratic institution…
If your obsession in life is to defeat Trump, by all means hold your nose and vote for what you perceive as the lesser evil.


For the US left, the quadrennial question looms: do we put the Sanders campaign behind us and, paraphrasing Harris, hold our nose and vote for the candidate anointed by the Democratic Party and its corporate backers?


For some, it comes easy. They argue that Trump is such a repugnant figure that, should the Democrats offer a veteran of every corporate-friendly, socially reactionary current surfacing in the Democratic Party, one must still vote against Trump. As in the past, the revolutionary left, the Marxist-Leninist left, the socialist left could not make much of a difference, if it so desired. The serious anti-capitalist left lacks the influence to decisively affect the outcome of the US Presidential election in spite of Democratic operatives occasionally blaming their defeats on them. For the most part, the debate among Marxists over whether to support the pathetic Democratic Party candidate is a sterile one.


But leftists can begin to show the way from such an ugly option. The left can emphatically point to the futility of a lesser-of-two-evils strategy that stretches over the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan (and before) that has only seen the political center move inexorably rightward.


They can insist that the defenders of the lesser-of-two-evils strategy explain how such a strategy could ever produce significant change.


The left can explain that demagoguery prevails precisely when the options available to people hungry for change are meager. The Trumps, Johnsons, and their ilk arise when traditional party loyalties are taken for granted and when supporters are desperate for new answers.


Leftists can stress the role of consistent, principled, and unbending independent politics and, most importantly, how that independence can be expressed broadly, electorally and otherwise. Independence can not be conditional upon the electoral fate of politicians and parties that are hostile to left politics.


For many of us, that means encouraging and supporting third-party breakaways, electoral formations where the left is welcome. Of course it is understood that not everyone will agree. Some will argue that this moment is different.


In the spirit of respecting differences, it was still disappointing to see the recent open letter addressed to the youthful supporters of Sanders — who the signatories called “the new new left.” Former leaders and members of the 1960s SDS– with a cringe-worthy, patronizing tone– warned ominously that failing to vote for Joseph Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party candidate, would be to hand the Presidency to a “protofascist.”


Most would agree that ridding the political stage of Donald Trump is a good thing. Probably many will even accept replacing him with a corrupt, corporately-compromised, and regressive substitute like Joseph Biden.


But it is disappointing that the retired SDSers make no demands on the Democrats, set no conditions for support, suggest no alternative actions in uncontested states, offer no program beyond the dismal electoral choice, and supply no vision for distraught Sanders backers.


This from the group advising the existing left movements in its founding statement in mid-1962 that: “An imperative task for these publicly disinherited groups… is to demand a Democratic Party responsible to their interests.” These then-young, idealistic radicals dared to make demands on the Democratic Party in the months before Barry Goldwater Jr. embarked on arguably the most right-wing, dangerous campaign for the US Presidency in modern history.


Then, it seemed important to challenge a Democratic Party deaf to poverty, racism, and inequality. SDS sought to force “peace, civil rights, and urban needs” onto the political agenda, even in the face of a Republican challenger who openly argued for the use of nuclear weapons.


Today’s self-described “veterans” of those long-past struggles now make a simple, unconditional demand: “we must work hard to elect [Biden].”


They ominously liken this moment to the late history of Weimar Germany immediately before Hitler’s ascension. Indeed, there are many parallels to today: a growing severe crisis of capitalism; a bankrupt political party with no answers to the crisis, yet commanding the allegiance of most workers; demagogues appealing to a disillusioned middle strata and a neglected working class.


In the Weimar Republic, many people sought a broad “democratic” coalition in 1932 to reelect the militarist conservative Paul von Hindenburg– a-lesser-of-two-evils– to defeat Hitler’s presidential candidacy. The Social Democrats, the counterpart of today’s Democratic Party, believed that their support of von Hindenburg would stop the greater-of-two-evils. Months later, von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, giving him a grasp of power that he would never relinquish.


Trump is not Hitler, but a barren opposition– an opposition ill-equipped to respond to the despair engulfing most people’s lives– opens the door wide for the Trumps to walk through. As Weimar shows, a hollow appeal to unity at all costs may be insufficient, even ill-advised in the effort to close that door.


The old SDSers and the other Democratic Party loyalists need to ask themselves if Joseph Biden’s Democratic Party has the vision to give hope to those suffering what may prove to be capitalism’s greatest crisis. With millions experiencing hardships unknown before, they want to vote for something, not just against Trump.


One would have hoped that the “old new left” would have offered something more of substance in their lecture to those who understandably felt that the Sanders program was betrayed and derailed by the Democratic Party establishment.


As the Sanders supporters consider their choices going forward, they might heed the conclusion drawn in the Morning Star article. Noting the sabotage of Corbyn’s leadership by many of the Labour Party’s officials, the author warned that “much of the left engaged in a futile effort to bury real differences and appease an irreconcilable enemy.


As long as we keep making such mistakes, we will keep losing.


-Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com

https://mltoday.com/what-to-do-when-you ... al-abuser/

It's gonna get weird in November when ya gotta vote for whatever shithead the Dems front or face serious personal social repercussions. Of course we can lie to our loved ones, or we can just vote for the shithead to 'keep the peace' knowing that it doesn't mean anything at all. Of course being in SC means it's a foregone conclusion unless things get very, very weird, damned unlikely but that percentage is creeping up.
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 4116
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island
Contact:

Re: Sympathy for the Devils...

Post by blindpig » Wed May 13, 2020 11:42 am

snip-

"We must think big, for the people, now," Pelosi said from the speaker's office at the U.S. Capitol, adding that "Not acting is the most expensive course."

The 1,815-page bill - titled the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act - would provide US$1 trillion in additional funding for states and cities, prolong unemployment benefits through January of next year, allow an additional one-time US$1,200 stimulus payments for adults earning up to US$75,000 per year, expand federal nutrition benefits, provide US$25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service, create a hazard pay fund for frontline workers, and increase Covid-19 testing efforts.

While progressives support many of the proposals included in the Act, careful observers have noted several omissions or sections they consider "unacceptable," Common Dreams reported.

Key progressive proposals as direct cash payments, a paycheck guarantee, cancelation of rent and mortgage payments, or expansion of Medicare to cover the growing number of unemployed and uninsured citizens in the U.S. were overlooked.

The legislative text, however, proposes an expansion of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) eligibility include corporate lobbying organizations - which aggressively pushed for the change - and a bailout for landlords.

"Democratic leadership has had plenty of input from progressive thinkers over the past couple of months. They just care more about the input from corporate lobbyists," tweeted HuffPost senior reporter Zach Carter. "There is just no excuse for this."

Instead of expanding Medicare, the HEROES Act "funds approximately nine months of full premium subsidies for the existing health insurance program COBRA, which allows laid-off or furloughed employees to stay on their health insurance plans," Vox's Ella Nilsen and Li Zhou said.

The COBRA proposal is a mere subsidy to the insurance industry that would not be nearly as beneficial or cost-effective as the emergency Medicare expansion proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal; progressives have been saying.

Jayapal urged for the inclusion of her Paycheck Guarantee Act, which would have provided companies with direct payroll grants to keep workers employed, but Pelosi rebuffed her.

As an alternative to her ambitious proposal, the new legislation offers an expansion of the Employee Retention Tax Credit.

The House is expected to vote Friday on the package. But the bill is likely to head straight into a Senate rejection.

Republicans are wary of another round of aid, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described the Democratic proposal as a grab bag of "pet priorities."

Even as the HEROES Act does not meet demands that progressives say are essential steps toward economic security and public health, the House Democratic leadership announced they're willing to negotiate down even further.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/US- ... -0019.html
Can there be anything in all of politics more pathetic than these whipped curs called 'progressives'? Beaten, kicked, ignored, they always come back for more. We might call them 'suckeres for punishment', we can speculate on their neuroses, or we might just chalk it up to class interest. Nothing but crumbs and treachery from that crowd.
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 4116
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island
Contact:

Re: Sympathy for the Devils...

Post by blindpig » Mon May 18, 2020 11:40 am

Matt Taibbi is confused and butt hurt:
I’ve written a lot about the Democrats’ record on civil liberties issues in the past. Working on I Can’t Breathe, a book about the Eric Garner case, I was stunned to learn the central role Mario Cuomo played in the mass incarceration problem, while Democrats also often embraced hyper-intrusive “stop and frisk” or “broken windows” enforcement strategies, usually by touting terms like “community policing” that sounded nice to white voters. Democrats strongly supported the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and Barack Obama continued or expanded Bush-Cheney programs like drone assassination, rendition, and warrantless surveillance, while also using the Espionage Act to bully reporters and whistleblowers.

snip

Has the Trump era really damaged our thinking to this degree?

snip

If this disease is going to be in our lives for the foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not less — yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats ... -liberties
Taibbi has been a Democratic suckfish since I don't know when, following them closely, and yet all he's got is 'it's Trump fault'. It's as though JFK, RFK, HH and other Cold Warriors never existed, the thousands of lives were never destroyed. But I guess it's different when it comes to commies...If Matt had been conversant with our previous incarnations he would know:"The Democratic Party is the piss which sets the Republican dye in the national fabric".
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 4116
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island
Contact:

Re: Sympathy for the Devils...

Post by blindpig » Mon May 25, 2020 1:13 pm

blindpig wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:26 pm
anaxarchos
08-19-2008, 05:00 PM
I am so naive, in 1980 I didn't believe it possible that Reagan could be elected, he was a doddering fool then and it was all downhill from there. In 2000 I didn't think it possible that junior could get elected, he was such a cypher. They were just so fucking lame, pretty much supports your 'hypothesis'.

Keep me away from the bookies.

That picture is the stuff, but I think it would give Mike conniptions.

When you think about the episodic but somehow well timed buffoonery, maybe start with the 'Eagleton Affair', the entire Dukakis campaign, Gore and Kerry's runs, and plenty else, the temptation to don the tin foil is great. But this one word creeps into my mind which might do as well, flaccid.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Electable....
"“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump then you ain’t black!”

https://newsone.com/3946059/joe-biden-q ... edium=push
Deplorable.

Ya see? They're gonna do it again.
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

Post Reply