Leftist Fascists Strike Again

[Shady]

Soros has made sure that Moveon.org doesn't talk about the wars and military budgets since Obama was elected).

Spot on.

Soros is barely talked about. And the anti-war movement has completely disappeared. Obama's escalated in Afghanistan, and started a new war in Libya. And yet there's been nary a peep from Code Pink et al. That's because they're a bunch of blind ideologues.

[bloodyminded]

Spot on.

Soros is barely talked about. And the anti-war movement has completely disappeared. Obama's escalated in Afghanistan, and started a new war in Libya. And yet there's been nary a peep from Code Pink et al. That's because they're a bunch of blind ideologues.

Well of course partisan Democrats, and Obama-logues beyond that, are going to expose their hypocrisy. This was perfectly and explicitly predicted by the non-partisan left (Glenn Greenwald, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and scores of others) before Obama's term even began.

And so, many who openly despised Bush's policies grew to accept them (the same policies!), once the Correct person achieved office and, presumably, "had no choice," whereas Bush, I'm to understand, had every choice.

Why the disconnect? Well, it's common. It has nothing to do with "the left," but rather displays a pretty fundamental sycophancy, arguably anti-democratic by its nature, in which Establishment Power and Authority are wonderful, trustworthy, good. There is an entity called "the West" which is by definition noble and fine, though it sometimes veers off its fine and chosen course depending on who is in power.

So, Canada has entered a dark era, now that Harper has a majority; or the NDP success bodes ill for the "real" Canada, which evidently could fly off of its "natural" (and of course Good) path by the crazy socialists.

Or the United States, destined to fight for Liberty and Freedom everywhere, is occasionally thrown off its proper course, as when Bush is elected, or as when the "socialist" Obama tries to destroy it from within.

If you think this merely some lefty phenomenon, then you don't understand the phenomenon at all. Surely you're aware that the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al were opposed to the "liberal, humanitarian" war in Kosovo...even claiming (wait for it) that it was "all about oil"!

Until the Iraq War, under a Republican President, when suddenly disagreeing with the war was "anti-American" or whatever other angry and indoctrinated nonsense in which some people like to indulge.

So, you're certainly right about the hypocrisy, the disconnect. Yet you are party to it at the same time.

This takes serious ideological discipline.

Edited May 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

Spot on!

It's also istructive to know that in every one of those European Fascist states,evry person or organization with a scintilla of left leaning thought was brutally repressed...That goes from social democrats to Marxists...

Thanks. I noticed awhile back, when I came across an article comparing the growing concentration of wealth at the top with the age of the robber-barons, that the post-war period of trade unions, high taxes on the wealthiest citizens, and a large middleclass turns out to be an anomaly. Today, the modern day robber-barons are returning to past practices. The only explanation I can see, is that the fall of Communism removed the only incentive they had to win over the majority of working people.

[WIP]

Spot on.

Soros is barely talked about. And the anti-war movement has completely disappeared. Obama's escalated in Afghanistan, and started a new war in Libya. And yet there's been nary a peep from Code Pink et al. That's because they're a bunch of blind ideologues.

Go back and look at the Daily Beast article on Cindy Sheehan I referenced yesterday! It clearly points out that, whatever you think of her, Sheehan has not changed her beliefs or her approach in the interests of political advantage. The difference is, as the article clearly demonstrates - that the Democratic Party has tried to muzzle their antiwar voices since Obama became President, and took ownership of the wars and the military policies.

It's been noted by Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, and Glenn Greenwald, that halfway in to the Obama Administration, they have done little or nothing to make major course changes, and in some areas, especially civil rights issues, they are actually performing worse than the Bush Admin. - the recent New Yorker article on Thomas Drake, informs us that he is facing a 35 year sentence, after his release of documents was retroactively declared espionage, while the people guilty of wrongdoing that he made public, are going to get away scott-free. The takeaway is that most civil freedoms are not going to be protected by either Republican or Democrat governments, and the only prosecutions will be against whistleblowers who inform the public of how their rights are violated by the state.

[Shady]

Go back and look at the Daily Beast article on Cindy Sheehan I referenced yesterday! It clearly points out that, whatever you think of her, Sheehan has not changed her beliefs or her approach

She has changed her approach. Where is she? She used to camp out beside George Bush's ranch. Why isn't she camped outside of the White House, or where Obama goes to Hawaii for vacation?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Shady

[WIP]

So, Canada has entered a dark era, now that Harper has a majority; or the NDP success bodes ill for the "real" Canada, which evidently could fly off of its "natural" (and of course Good) path by the crazy socialists.

This is why I don't see the rise of the NDP to Official Opposition as the good news story that a lot of the left have taken from the election. When Liberal support started to weaken, it appeared that Layton's strategy was to target the Liberals more than keep the focus on the Harper Government, and the bad job they have done in office. The vacuum left by the collapsing Liberals helped Harper get his majority with less than 40% of the votes cast, and the new NDP looks to be positioning itself as the left-of-center alternative to the Conservatives. Our politics will end up looking more like the American two party duopoly as the years go by.

[Jack Weber]

Thanks. I noticed awhile back, when I came across an article comparing the growing concentration of wealth at the top with the age of the robber-barons, that the post-war period of trade unions, high taxes on the wealthiest citizens, and a large middleclass turns out to be an anomaly. Today, the modern day robber-barons are returning to past practices. The only explanation I can see, is that the fall of Communism removed the only incentive they had to win over the majority of working people.

The post war period was an anomaly for the middle class (working class)...

I suspect there was more than one reason,however,the counterveiling balance of the two superpowers probably had something to do with the growth of wealth in the West.Another reason was that soldiers who came back from the war had seen enough carnage and injustice that they were simply not going to put up with it here once they got home.

The problem now is that the robber barons have conned people with the "free markets means personal freedom" arguement.Over time,this has allowed them to take their con game global!It also gets unsuspecting people here to give up their rights in the workplace...Notice how the individual freedom canard is used to promote things like RTW...All in the name of "productivity" and "competativeness"...

[bloodyminded]

It's been noted by Chris Hedges, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, and Glenn Greenwald, that halfway in to the Obama Administration, they have done little or nothing to make major course changes, and in some areas, especially civil rights issues, they are actually performing worse than the Bush Admin.

Yup. And this vindicates those who asserted, several years ago, that one of the chief problems with some of Bush's policies was the troubling matter of precedence.

But that's not to let Obama off the hook, mind you; he's responsible for what he does. His core of true supporters will defend him no matter what, and insist that he's really different from the evil Bush...even in matters where he's the same, or worse.

The old-schoolers like Chomsky and Zinn were predicting precisely this before Obama's term started...but then, these old bastards have been paying attention since the 1940s, so I guess it seemed obvious enough to them.

- the recent New Yorker article on Thomas Drake, informs us that he is facing a 35 year sentence, after his release of documents was retroactively declared espionage, while the people guilty of wrongdoing that he made public, are going to get away scott-free. The takeaway is that most civil freedoms are not going to be protected by either Republican or Democrat governments, and the only prosecutions will be against whistleblowers who inform the public of how their rights are violated by the state.

Yeah...and where are the self-styled "libertarians" while this is going on?

(To be fair, the folks at anti-war.com, all libertarians, have been hugely critical of this sort of thing, as well as the wars, for a long time:

I've been startled to discover that the far Left has been mostly correct on matters of US foreign policy, as well as on the relatively draconian domestic policies enacted over the past ten years. This is more important than our economic disagreements.

--Andrew Bacevich

So it appears there really is a sector of sober libertarianism. They're just not the ones we much hear about, nor the ones involved in the Republican Party or the Tea Party.

[WIP]

The post war period was an anomaly for the middle class (working class)...

I suspect there was more than one reason,however,the counterveiling balance of the two superpowers probably had something to do with the growth of wealth in the West.Another reason was that soldiers who came back from the war had seen enough carnage and injustice that they were simply not going to put up with it here once they got home.

I'm sure there are more reasons for the rise of the working middle class in the post-war period; but it does seem strange that the real hardline corporate capitalists like Milton Friedman, and their acolytes like Ronald Reagan, were not able to take control of the Republican Party (let alone the Democratic Party) until after the Soviet economy started to collapse, and it only remained as a military threat in world affairs. Command economies are often very successful in creating economic growth in the early stages; but the Soviet and other communist nation attempts to centrally plan a consumer economy similar to America, was an impossible paradox right from the start.

But I still can't get past the fact that the bankers and corporate CEO's were so concerned that the working class was seeing economic improvements during the years when Soviet economic growth and technological developments were considered an equal threat to their military build-up. Also, during those years, the Religious Right signed off on keeping the teaching of evolution out of public schools, when JFK demanded a program of drastic improvements to science education in American schools. As with the money conservatives, the Religious Right started back to work at ruining science education once the foreign threat was diminishing.

The problem now is that the robber barons have conned people with the "free markets means personal freedom" arguement.Over time,this has allowed them to take their con game global!It also gets unsuspecting people here to give up their rights in the workplace...Notice how the individual freedom canard is used to promote things like RTW...All in the name of "productivity" and "competativeness"...

This fraud that equates "market democracy" with real democracy is not only wrong, it is the complete opposite of what has happened with real life examples. For example, the creator or modern rightwing economic theory - Frederich Von Hayek predicted that the election of the Labour Party in England, after WWI would inevitably lead to England becoming a Soviet-style communist nation....and he was wrong! Just like his later followers were wrong about the social democratic parties in Europe, and they were even more wrong about "free markets" promoting democracy. Milton Friedman's laboratory in Pinochet's Chilean dictatorship, demonstrated conclusively that rightwing capitalists would prefer to destroy a democratic society and could abolish import regulations, and internal regulatory agencies in the interest of promoting the rightwing business agenda. Bush 1 was also equally wrong that the capitalist revolution going on in Communist China would promote democracy after the Tien an Mien Square Massacre. The Communist Party is more firmly entrenched in China than it has ever been.

It should be a simple concept to grasp that at its core, capitalism promotes income stratification and inequality in a society, so removing taxation and regulatory oversight, frees those who control the majority of the wealth to keep building and building a greater advantage over the majority of people. The present situation of 1% of the wealthiest controlling 40% of the wealth comes as no surprise in that light.

[WIP]

Yup. And this vindicates those who asserted, several years ago, that one of the chief problems with some of Bush's policies was the troubling matter of precedence.

But that's not to let Obama off the hook, mind you; he's responsible for what he does. His core of true supporters will defend him no matter what, and insist that he's really different from the evil Bush...even in matters where he's the same, or worse.

The old-schoolers like Chomsky and Zinn were predicting precisely this before Obama's term started...but then, these old bastards have been paying attention since the 1940s, so I guess it seemed obvious enough to them.

I noticed recently that the dispute between the O-bots and ideological progressives has opened up in public since an interview Chris Hedges did with Cornell West. Previous criticisms of Obama by West have gone without comment; but now that the Obama Administration is gearing up for the election marathon, Obama loyalists are coming out of the woodwork to mostly attack Cornel West's character, since old standby's like "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" aren't working anymore. The Nation tossed up Melissa Harris-Perry to attack West, but checking through the comments on that Nation piece, I couldn't help notice that they are running at least 3 or 4 to one against Perry and in support of West's criticisms of the Obama Administration. When the Tea Party phenomena started up after the 2008 elections, many progressive commentators started taking notice of how the Republicans are scared of their rightwing crazies, while the Democrats take them for granted, even attacking them as standing in the way of bipartisan compromise. Well, now it looks like the Dems have a problem on the left, and it's their own stupid fault for not understanding their base of support, and just trying to use them for their own political and personal advantages.

Yeah...and where are the self-styled "libertarians" while this is going on?

That's why these so-called tea party libertarians are liars from the start! The number of Republicans and prominent tea party activists who have even commented on domestic spying and other attacks on civil liberties can be counted on one hand...after Ron Paul and Bob Barr - who was pretty much banished from rightwingland for criticizing the Patriot Act, it's a very short list indeed.

(To be fair, the folks at anti-war.com, all libertarians, have been hugely critical of this sort of thing, as well as the wars, for a long time:

--Andrew Bacevich

So it appears there really is a sector of sober libertarianism. They're just not the ones we much hear about, nor the ones involved in the Republican Party or the Tea Party.

The problem is the ideological libertarians are only antiwar because they are isolationists, not because they care all that much about the waste and human misery created by war industries.

[Shady]

capitalism promotes income stratification and inequality in a society

Nope. Capitalism promotes freedom, and property rights. If you believe in the concept of private property, you're a capitalist.

[Jack Weber]

Nope. Capitalism promotes freedom, and property rights. If you believe in the concept of private property, you're a capitalist.

Erm..Ok,Professor Von Hayek...