The Libertarians Are Coming To Get Me! WTF
I could not be bothered to answer it there but since it is being wrecked I thought I would comment upon it here
The premise so you don't have to go there:
The libertarians are coming for the frustrated and angry that the GOP can’t get. And they’re going to come after the Bernie Or Bust movement. With two ex Republican governors on the ticket they’re going to try and draw from both the Republican and Democratic party. Since the Republican party is as close to Libertarian as you can get, and some would argue that the Republican party was actually hijacked by Libertarians, how could they possibly appeal to the Bernie or Bust movement?
One the Republican Party is in no way libertarian, it is corporation hugging authoritarian.
Libertarians just want to throw people to the wolves and hope they are the ones that benefit in life's lottery.
The left wing versions of Libertarians are the Anarchists which come in a few different types, I have some interest in the prewar Italian Anarchist movement which was more Utopian in nature.
Social Democrats and socialists have absolutely zero in common with either.
What we want is good government by the people and for the people and that includes a system that picks people up when they fall and gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.
- The reason we are angry is that the Democratic Party has followed the Republican Party down the same bloody path.
- The reason that we are angry is that the Democratic Party elite decided the election was over even before it started.
- The reason we are angry is that this same elite is in the pocket of the wealthy and their Corporations.
- The reason we are angry is that the Party has paid lip service to our support for decades.
- The reason we are angry is that they do not represent us.
Some really are incapable of seeing the difference between a social democrat/socialist and a right wing group of authoritarians playing the liberty card?
We are not that fucking stupid.
The only thing the Democratic Party has going for it at this time is that they are probably not as bad as the Republican Party, however try telling that to those:
- who died in the Kunduz bombing,
- we hold without trial,
- we kill on a daily basis
- whose governments we overthrow based upon a whim.
- We also fought against the three strikes and you are out laws that created the Prison Industrial Complex
- We fought against DOMA and DADT
- We fought against the "Free Trade" fiascos that wrecked workers rights.
- We fought against Bush's wars in Afghanistan abd Iraq when many other Democrats jumped on the bandwagon.
Not because we wanted our fucking flag hugging liberties but wanted a better society.
This is why we are still fighting against a money corrupted system whilst they support one of its byproducts.
Hillary Clinton is of the elite and for the Status Quo.
We want a revolution whereby all have:
- Equal rights
- Equal opportunity
- Where money is not the be all and end all in our society
- Where success is determined by different metrics than the size of you offshore account
- Where the wealth of the nation is used for the common good and not for the exclusive benefit of the oh so few.
If the cannot see why we are angry, fuck em and their money grubbing party
Vote Libertarian?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Comments
The real elephant in the room is the Green Party
The party that wants to save elephants, not trophy hunt them and use them as their mascot.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Indeed. The basis for a real third party is already there
I am not sure the Greens are
I am not sure the Greens are the right party, not for ideological reasons but because they have little historical success and are too perceived as 'the far left'
The Bernie movement, though called that, isn't really far left at all and is very inline with current mainstream views and should a new party need to be formed I think it would have a better shot starting from a less marginalized position.
I regard Bernie as an FDR Democrat
The modern bunch are neo-liberals to the core
double post
Me too, which is why I rather
Me too, which is why I rather try taking the party back before trying to build another.
Didn't we just try to take the party back, but the machine won?
The party, with the exception of Sanders, is a bunch of corporatists that support the MIC and the Koch brothers, for the most part. Bernie came close, but I don't see it happening. I hope I am wrong, but there is just too much money from concentrated power to let that happen, IMO.
Peace out, tmp.
Yes, no and maybe
Maybe, but Bernie still has a very slight window to win.
Yes, if he loses they won this round.
No, because I think Hillary will end up being the final straw for many who support her this time, where the left wasn't quite convinced they need a major change now, she will be the tipping point I think.
I think that we can take it back if we work from the ground up
There are lots of local roles that nobody wants, and the DNC has not done a 50-state strategy. But look at the difference a seat on Flint's water board or Ferguson's police oversight board would have made. Small roles groom for larger roles; once we work our way up in the state, several Presidents were Governors first.
Maybe it will take too long, but I present it as an option.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
This!!!^^^^
The reason we have never had more than two competitive parties for more than a very brief period (and those periods were over 150 years ago) is the non-parliamentary structure of our government and our first past the post election system. So if you want to start a successful third party, you better be prepared to pass a couple of constitutional amendments for starters.
Once I figured this out for myself, I dedicated my political activity to taking over the Democratic Party. Most of my work is local, sometimes extremely so. Check this comment I made in response to a bullying, guilt-tripping diary over at you-know-where. It may not be as glamorous as national politics, and far less ego-boosting than having people rec your writing on a great big national blog, but I know I'm making a difference. I can point to the great progressive Dems I've helped elect. And if everyone who dreams about starting a third party did this kind of work instead, we'd take over the party in no time.
It takes a little more...
It takes a little more than one candidate running one time to take over a party that has lost its way on the road servicing the whims of the rich. Even if Bernie does not make it all the way to becoming the Nominee (and I'm not saying it could not still happen), that would not indicated that the Democratic Party is not ripe for a Progressive Take Over. I believe it is ripe for a take over. However, as others have stated, it will take time and even more effort to pull it off. Even if Bernie Is the Nominee it doesn't stop there. That is only the beginning. The difficult work would continue for quite some time, but not forever. We should give it a few cycles, heck many even twenty years or more, but we should not give up. The Dem Party has the infrastructure in place everywhere which could be used to catapult Progressive ambitions to the top of the heap in short order relative to the time in takes to start a party from scratch. I think we should make the effort, from the bottom up, the very bottom up (not saying we could not take many higher positions quite easily), and ride those lower positions right to the top and eventual Control. That is exactly what the Nutcases who now run the Republican Party did. I watched them get started on is in the early 70's and stick to until they own that mother. Now, if it doesn't come about it a reasonable time period, whatever anyone thinks that may be, then we and a whole new generation will have enough experience in how to run a party, and campaigns, etc., that starting a New party would not be such a biggie as it would be now. Just saying...
Okay... try this for a name
The Roosevelt Party But AFTER THIS ELECTION. It's WAY too late.
And NO WAY Sanders should hop on Libertoonie, even if they'd have hiim. Their NUMBER ONE CLAIM IS PROPERTY PROTECTION. I used to joke, along with a lot of other SF readers who red Red, Green and Blue Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson that Libertarians "want federal (central govt) protection from their slaves).
No, not the Toonies.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
I like "New Progressive Party"
I have seen "Peoples Progressive Party" bounced around but I don't like the idea of having "Peoples" in the name because it makes it too susceptible to red baiting, I.E. Peoples Republic of China, etc.
Names have a power all their own, so whichever we pick it needs to be a good one from a branding perspective.
I agree with the thought that the Democratic Party isn't salvageable at this point. There is too much negative history with too many of the voters.
Additionally, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to form a new party, as there is nothing in the constitution that dictates this.
What we need is to build the party in coalition with Brand New Congress by taking a bunch of lower level elections at the state and county level in 2018 and work towards ballot access for 2020 on the national level.
It can indeed be done, the parties are not set in stone or we would still have Whigs.
IMHO it would take substantially less time and work to build a whole new party. Sure, we may have more than enough people to do the work of taking over the Democratic Party, but what we and the planet don't have is time.
We need to stop the fracking frackers, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
The People
We want a party that represents the people. Why not call it The People?
I also like The 99%.
Peace out, tmp.
I like it.
I don't disagree on a personal level.
my concern is optics from a marketing perspective. Personally I would have no problem with it being the Peoples Progressive Party.
However, that being said, you need to make it as hard as possible for your competitor to make negative associations with your product name, and there are a lot of groups with a negative history that had "Peoples" in their name, including several "Terrorist" groups or radical revolutionary groups that then went on to lead massive human rights violations.
In an ideal world, we could use such a name, but we have already seen what a great job that has been done branding Democratic Socialism as Communism and I think our ideological opponents would have a field day with such a name unfortunately.
As I said, I am basing this only on my own personal experience in marketing and nominal historical knowledge of politics so I could be completely wrong, FSM knows, it wouldn't be the first time. (My sig line gives testament to that, lol!)
I do like the "Party of Ninety Nine" idea too.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I think leaving Progressive out is good too, though
from a marketing perspective. It can still BE a progressive platform. But really, we're talking about issues - mainly - that any of the 99% can get behind - get rid of the bad trade deals, have a living minimum wage, tax fairness so corporations pay their share.
While I like The People's Party - has negative connotations due to China.
I think it needs to be so generic it CAN'T have negative associations:
Party for a New America
Independent Americans Party
American People's Party
You know, get some feel-good "America" in there.
I'm only half-kidding. I think the less people we automatically exclude based on perceived ideology, the bigger and more powerful it could be.
You know, the types of generic names all those right-wing think tanks have that in their case mean the opposite of whatever it is their name is.
I really like American and Independent.
They are almost like motherhood and apple pie - beyond reproach.
But isn't there an American Independent Party already? Yep, "the internets" say it is a far right party.
Peace out, tmp.
Yes - unfortunately American Independent is taken...
And has led to confusion in California...
Bummer.
i've had a variation of yours rattling around in my head
Roosevelt was a progressive president in the 20th century. we are now in the 21st century to it brings to mind the need for a progressive party for a new century, the New Century Progressive Party. need to look ahead toward a new century and put old politics behind us.
They also have an organisation capable of getting a candidate on
the ballot in every State
Who is "They"
Libertarians or Greens.
The Libertarians are already on the ballot in all states. The Greens will be on the ballot in about half to two-thirds of the states.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
This is true, its just my gut
This is true, its just my gut says the Greens name has some slight baggage.
Yeah, they have baggage here,
though the bigger problem is they are not on all the state ballots.
Peace out, tmp.
Correct, at least as of April, the greens are only on the ballot
in 21 states for this cycle.
The other concern I have with merging with the greens is we may be setting ourselves up for yet another internal struggle for party control.
While we align with the Greens on a large number of issues, I think there could be possibility of conflict from greens who, with some justification, could see us as interlopers that just showed up and think we can run things. While this may not be true, we have to recognize that we are all capable of tribalism to one degree or another and we need to build coalitions not divisions.
My vision is to see the New Progressive Party form a coalition with the greens, their members can help us in states where they don't have ballot access and we can use our resources to aid them in getting on all 50 states.
I would much rather see a Green Party and a Progressive Party both being viable to counter balance the Center Right and Far Right parties that we have now.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Starting a third party is not easy.
The greens have a 20 year head start. They are not too far left. Some fundis consider them sell outs and opposed the GPUSA and ASGP merger in 2001 that created the GPUS. About half of the GPUSA joined the merged party.
In reality, there are the Democrats and the GPUS on the left. If you think the Greens are too left, you probably belong in the Dems.
Ummm I didn't say I thought
Ummm I didn't say I thought they were too left I said they are perceived as such.
Bernie showed that labels don't scare people.
A third party is a long range strategy.
Trying to hide real beliefs is counter productive.
But it's your time. Just my view. I remain a dem. If I left Dems, I would be a green.
You misunderstand Tom
Bernie actually has a lot of support from the middle and middle right, and I just believe there will be difficulty getting such people on board with the Greens because of perception. Its not about deception or hiding, but starting with a clean slate.
We need to investigate this, see what is involved with creating
from scratch. I think we may be better off to join the Greens, make their policies more comprehensive, and make "green" as much a scary term as "socialist".
Liaison with some party organizers, perhaps?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I hear what you are saying.
I think you underestimate the time, money, and energy required to create a new party. To me, you argument supports working in the Dem Party.
We're cool. Take care.
Working within the Dem Party is my first choice.
Thats why I am not Bernie or Bust, I want Hillary to beat Trump, because many in the middle and left need more evidence how bad their party has become and I think she will give it to them.
I agree 100%
We do need a clean slate, people are tired of the established parties, and many, if not most, see the Green party as crazy tree hugging hippies.
While this is absolutely not the case, perceptions are important when dealing with low info voters, of which there are entirely too many in both current parties.
I think the frustration with the establishment coupled with the momentum of the Sanders movement would be powerful recruiting tools towards increasing party enrollment.
People are pissed at the status quo, so a new party would be tremendously appealing to many. Couple this with the access to social media that we didn't have 20 years ago and a clear, concise party platform that aligns with the will of upwards of 70+% of the electorate and I think we can pull it off in time for the 2020 cycle as well as making an impact in the 2018 mid-terms.
With the notoriously low level of voter turn out in mid-term elections I think a group as motivated as the Bernie Band could really shake things up and surprise more people in 2018 than we did this cycle.
But maybe I am just an optimist. lol! (On a humorous side note, one of my old Sgt's. once said to me "Sin, you ain't a glass is half full or a glass is half empty kinda guy. You are more of a, "Who drank half my fucking glass!" kinda guy."
I miss that crusty old bastard...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
The MAIN problem the Greens have, IMO
is their complete lack of a strong central, federal organization, which was by design, back in the day, since decentralization was one of their core planks. BUT-you can't be decentralized if you want a decent federal organization, to run candidates strongly not just for POTUS, but for US Congress as well, not to mention get a good fundraising effort going. Bernie has shown them his example, and it works. They are already open to having him come on board, so they may be changing their organizational structure too (and they need to do it).
Oh, it's way beyond that.
The Greens, hm.
The party doesn't support the candidates.
They're so attached to "principles" (the Ten Key Values) that they can't seem to grow.
No databases for phonebanking.
The primaries are all beauty contests and the national conventions can be easily rigged (see e.g. Forrest Hill's report on Milwaukee 2004).
No money for anything.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Again, depends on the State (thus the localization problem)
Some states have good, strong Green parties, others, not so much. And I'm not sure being "principled" is such a drawback at a time like this-Bernie hasn't found it to be, and it sure as hell makes the Ds look like the con artists they are, since their platform isn't even good toilet paper.
The problem with the "Left" today in America
is that it really isn't a "Left" in any respectable sense. There are two groups laying claim to cultural identity as a "Left":
1) The sectarians, who claim to be "leftists" because it is essential to their self-images that they do so. Such claims make them look like vanguardists without a proletariat to lead. Very awkward. This bunch can be found in small parties and organizations, e.g. the "Socialist Alternative" or the "Peace and Freedom Party of California."
2) The sellouts, whose attachment to the Democratic Party and its supporting Veal Pen organizations (see Jane Hamsher on the "Veal Pen," e.g. https://shadowproof.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liber... ) means they can lay claim to solid resumes of "Left" work but the result of all of it is that elite neoliberal twits receiving vast fortunes from billionaires have all the power.
Neither group is really authentic in any sense, which makes the Tea Party the authentic anti-establishment alternative. The Greens as a group were at one point close to breaking out of this formation in 2000 with the Ralph Nader candidacy. Unfortunately for them a decision was made in Milwaukee in 2004 to rejoin the ranks of the sectarians, where they have been ever since. Me, personally? I'd rather be a sectarian than a sellout, though I feel obliged in that sense to stick to a credo of humility about my identity as such. I am merely one person searching for an alternative amidst a critically bad situation.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
I think there is a "New Green" influx of younger people who have
become radicalized by circumstance and politics (see Bernie, eg). I hope that increasing levels of participation and a better "ground up" movement, along with the understanding that a central, federal organizational core is a must may help invigorate the Greens.
Well, considering the Koch involvement, I don't think Tea Party
qualifies as an authentic anti-establishment alternative either, leaving aside their horrible platform - is there a platform? Or is it simply, "I don't want to pay taxes"?
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/charles_kochs_frankenstein_problem_he_cr...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_...
Oh, here's a platform - that's some platform... *eye roll*:
http://www.teapartyplatform.us/Welcome.html
Not so sure
I'm not so sure that the Green Party's limitations are because they are too far left. I think it is because their vision is not nearly comprehensive enough. I agree very much with "green" but that is not enough to make a president or a sustained national movement. Maybe you should ask Bill McKibbin about that.
The problem with the Greens
Is that they have never wanted to do the dirty job of party building at the local level. They concentrate all their efforts on higher positions and lose every time.
In NY Howie Hawkins and the Greens got lucky that the Working Families Party shot themselves in the foot by backing Cuomo in the last election instead of Zephyr Teachout. Because they sold out the left voted for Hawkins and the Greens as a protest. He managed to get enough votes to get the Greens on the ballot without needing to petition. Of course they have wasted that opportunity by not running anybody in local elections. Most local elections are uncontested in very red Upstate NY. Usually if you see a Democrat running it's really a Republican who doesn't like the other person running.
Republicans did the job of party building at the local level. It has been usurped to a certain extent by the crazies, but they do control most of the States...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Howie Hawkins got 4.86% of the vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2014
How much of that 4.86% was composed of people with the time and money to run in local races which were likely to net Green candidates something like 4.86% of the vote?
As long as people think that the Democrats count as a "lesser evil," there still isn't a sufficient reason for them to vote Green. Perhaps a second Clinton administration will change that attitude somewhat, though I'm not sure we'll see anything approaching democracy at the end of the process.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
But he got 35% of the vote
For Syracuse City Auditor in 2015 running against the Democrat Marty Masterpole. He had the support of Pat Hogan who burned a few bridges with the Democrats in Syracuse...“I’m not turning Green . . . I am more concerned about the city than the party. The auditor is supposed to be a watchdog on the city budgets and Marty isn’t doing any watching. There’s a dearth of independence in city government."
The 4.86% of the vote in 2014 (184,419) was three times the number of votes he received in 2010 (59,906), which put the Greens on the ballot (50,000 votes being the minimum).
Ursula Rozum is the future of the Greens in CNY, but she needs to do more than show up to Obama rallies to heckle the President...her one run for Congress got 8% of the vote in a three way race against a corporate Democrat and an anti-abortion extremist.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
GUSA is either
going to have to GET BEHIND CANDIDATES AND PUSH FOR THEM AND ORGANIZE FOR THEM.. EVEN IF THE GOAL isn't to throw money on the path to draw in voters.. ::sigh::.. or shut down.
Or they will NEVER EVER DO WELL IN THE NATIONAL FIELD.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
The Greens may well be the right party this election
cycle, because a Green vote registers as a resounding "No!" to rightwing Clintonism as the same time it rejects the Republicans.
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future
Totally agree. 2016 the Greens are gonna be our best choice
For the 2016 Cycle the Greens (barring a Sanders nomination) are still the best choice.
However, I would like to see us to change that by 2018 to where we have a new party already hyped and ready for the midterms at state and local level from dog catcher on up in as many races as we can.
Based on the success or failure of that attempt will determine who we should vote for in 2020 for the Presidential ticket.
Hopefully, we will have a base and a solid candidate to put forward in 2020 and can mount a successful challenge, but if that is not the case then the Green Party may be our best choice for presidential vote as well.
We have to be realistic in acknowledging that while this is going to be a really long, hard process and that there will be points where we stumble along the way, at the end it will be worth it.
Not only will we have the victory of getting our progressive agenda enacted, we will get to go to sleep every night with the knowledge that we all helped, each in our own small way, to change our nation for the better.
Not some politician, US.
And that will be a beautiful day...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I think as climate change becomes more and more in our face
And corruption from the fossil fuel industry hinders action from the 2 establishment parties, the Green Party will become more and more relevant. Climate change will affect everybody regardless of ideology and we have to act now if we want to stop it in time. As far as this election goes, I have no problem voting for Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Beware the bullshit factories.
If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm going Green
If she wins the Democratic Party Presidential nomination this year, she will be the titular head of the Democratic Party, and she will ruthlessly build it to look just like herself. I won't participate in such a self immolation.
As a Green I will join a "Yuuge" group of like minded folks to build the Greens into a real presence as a 3rd Party. I foresee the possibility of Green candidates winning elections in progressive locations all across the USA.
Being Green will mean liking my Party, liking what it stands for, and liking being able to campaign for what I think needs to be done.
Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.
Bernie hadn't ever had success running for president before
either.
This is the perfect opportunity to let Bernie's success raise the flag of the Green Party. NOW is the time to embrace the party that represents US.
I saw that post over there today on my masochism tour.
(What I call it when I go and watch Faux or listen to Rush, etc. Gotta know what they are saying to be able to counter them, but it is painful, lol)
It was so silly that the first thing that came to mind was this. (The most significant line is the last one, lol!)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQCArh_R9dY]
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I am pretty sure many of the Hillary crowd will think it is a
reasonable assessment of Bernie Supporters.
the Hillary crowd
..... are a bunch of "can't be bothered, I've got mine, fuck you" types. They moan about "privilege" every time we dare speak, yet tend to be the most actively privileged of all. And this goes into "steroids" territory over at TOP.
I would say "fuck them", but my genitals deserve more dignity than that. As do yours!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
lol, I was thinking of using a "toy"
Do you know where I can score a FemmeBot?
If so, I will take a case.
Sure it may be a man's world, but when it comes to toys you women have us beat...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
On a STICK, too.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
Quote of the day!
LOL!
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Perhaps they should consider the debate Markos led at Cato
…before they come to a final decision about who's a libertarian.
The Case for the Libertarian Democrat by Markos Moulitsas
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Yes, that was ridiculous.
So long as Kos ignored his blog, things were tolerable. His politics always have been rather silly.
"Masochism Tour" - love it!
Libertarians are getting lotsa' press, and with two (used to be Republicans) Johnson & Bill Weld, expect they'll continue to get more. They've got money, and deep roots in the Republican party.
Will be interesting to see what they take away from Trump. Can't imagine anyone we know voting for them. Had a giggle a few days ago reading Mary Mattalin has changed her registration to Libertarian.
Trump should be the one that is worried
Thanks! I was a bit proud of that one myself, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Registration changes
I have several Republican friends who have re-registered as unaffiliated/independent or Libertarian. They are even more angry than we are. If possible!
one SMALL quibble:
Not quite. Anarchosocialists do exist; I am one, and the radical labor unions are full of us as well.
Socialism and social democracy do not require the maintenance of a boss class, but rather oppose the existence of any such thing.
Check out the programs of the pre-WWII Spanish anarquistas. Their ideology and mine have much in common, and also with yours as expressed as:
As for the entire rest of your essay, that!!
Love ya, LaFem!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
We caould argue all day about Anarchy/Anarchists and their
57 different varieties. I'm a socialist with democratic [as in democracy and not the party] tendencies
I do know all of that.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
There are probably more sects of anarchists
than there are of protestant christians.
Which anarchist? Where? Etc.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Agreed. For two centuries, socialist thought was
dominated by "left-libertarianism." What we might call today "libertarian socialism." Or, anarchist-socialism.
As Chomsky notes in several venues, Lenin and the Bolsheviks (sounds like a 1950s band) were never the Marxist or socialist or communist mainstream, and were opposed by those who were. He sees them as "right-Marxists," or "right-socialists," redirecting core leftist principles and practices in a totally different direction. The original being all about local, autonomous, democratic and cooperative forms, federated to one another, with no central power. The original focus of socialism and communism being the dispersal of power into every citizen, with equal say, equal rights, equal access . . . . rather than the Leninist/Stalinist focus on the concentration of power at the top and banning democracy . . . which was just a riff on Tsarist Russia and Capitalist forms.
In short, at least in my view, socialism has much in common with libertarianism -- but not the American version. The right's version of libertarianism (propertarianism) is a perversion of the much older leftist form. Older by nearly two centuries, in fact. The leftist view is to end the concentration of power, wealth and access in any sphere. End the class system itself. The right's version is just to end public sector power and, instead, privatize everything, thus establishing massive concentration of wealth, power and access (in a few hands) in the private sector.
That's not "libertarianism." That's just shifting tyranny.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
What ever makes them feel better about supporting a terrible
candidate, I suppose. As far as candidates go, setting policies aside for a moment, Johnson and Weld are both better candidates than either Hillary or Trump.
Speaking only for myself, I would never vote for the Libertarian Party, but have heard a few here at c99 say that they might consider voting Libertarian as a protest vote. So there is a small grain of truth in that DK article. And it's that small grain of truth that gives the larger lie in the article some legs. The biggest part of the lie in the article is the hysterical style with which it is written and responded to over there. Typical TOPistic style which attempts to limit any real analysis of the actual programs and policies of the Libertarians. Goddess forbid we would actually discuss the similarities and differences with other alternative parties or with the two ruling-class parties.
"The Libertarians are coming for us, OH MY!!!" Whatever you do, don't think, just react, and get out your little HR sword and go on your purity crusade.
The main object of all of the various nonsensical memes coming from the Democratic Party Elite and their sycophants over at TOP is that we progressives have NO OTHER CHOICE but to vote for Clinton should she win the nomination.
And I am very very glad to see so many here busting free of that Paradigm. We have many other choices, of which the Libertarian Party is but one. I for one, welcome a discussion of the pros and cons of the Libertarian Party. I think that discussion would bring further clarity to what are our actual choices outside of the two-party paradigm that we have been locked into for lo these many years.
My choice, should Hillary get the nomination, will be the Green Party, but I am interested in hearing the pros and cons of the other alternative parties.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I find it hard to reconcile a Bernie Supporter with anything
Libertarian, there is no logic there, protest or otherwise, the Green Party has that more than covered.
Voting isn't always about logic, often it is about emotion.
But a complete discussion and an objective look at the policies of the Libertarian Party, can overcome that emotional reaction to screw both the Democrats and the Republicans by voting for the Libertarians.
I know such people who are drawn to both Bernie and the Libertarians, and deriding them as "illogical" will not help them to see the down side of the Libertarians. But an in-depth look at the policies of both the Greens and the Libertarians might help them to make (what I believe is) a better choice.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
No derision to me there is an absolute and fundamental
difference.
A libertarian will leave you bleeding in the middle of the road if you cant afford an ambulance.
A socialist will build a system that not only picks you up but helps you pick up the pieces afterwards.
well now you've gone from derision to character assasination.
The libertarians that I know would do anything they could to assist you if you were found in the middle of road bleeding. They are poor white trash but they would share what little they have with you in a minute.
And I've known some socialists (having been one for 47 years) who are as selfish as could be, and don't much like people either because most people don't hold the proper beliefs and don't vote as they should, so they write them off, preferring their theories to actual human beings.
You are making enemies of people that we could probably win over, and that is not helpful at all in building up a movement.
It is very possibly to oppose the platform of a political party without making enemies of those who vote for that party.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
You are talking about individuala and hell I know some good
Tea Party folk, I am talking about a system.
PS look at who you would be voting for as "Libertarians"
Gary Johnson / William Weld
Weld is a member of Council on Foreign Relations where "free trade" rules supreme
Red flag, red flag!
CFR huh? Well, that's unacceptable of course. No different than the duopoly of course but that's the real enemy there.
Certainly voting for the libertarian party is not the answer, I agree with that. Separating the people I know that might vote for them out is like separating out the Dems I know who might vote for Clinton and the Repubs I know that might vote for Trump. What a fucking mess.
That's why I say scrap the system and start all over.
On that we can agree, its imposrtant to know who runs
a party no matter what they call it
I think I made it clear that I am not a Libertarian
so why are you talking about me voting Libertarian? You are getting so carried away in your opposition to the LP now that you can no longer listen to someone who says we should thoroughly and calmly discuss the Libertarians.
When I said that Johnson and Weld were good solid candidates, I wasn't talking about their polices or political beliefs. They aren't buffoons like Trump nor corrupt and dishonest like Hillary. They were both well-respected and well-liked governors. They make good candidates for the Libertarian Party.
I am well aware of the severe short comings of the Libertarian Party. I also see where they have some strengths and understanding those strengths helps us to reach out to their voters.
But your style of denigrating those who vote for that party rather than rationally discussing the policies of that party will only alienate and will not educate the individuals who are now voting or leaning towards the Libertarian Party.
Many of these folks can be reached, but I doubt that you would be the one who could reach them.
Movements can only be built by reaching out to others and not by shoving others away. Now, I don't care about rich people who vote Libertarian, they can go and fuck themselves, but I know some poor people (family members) who lean towards the Libertarians, and I will not stop reaching out to them, and I don't appreciate them being described as people that we should fight against.
Furthermore, if they ever sign up here at c99, I expect them to be treated with respect.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
A Libertarian primer on their history
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/milton-friedman/
"It starts just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— to supplement other business lobbying groups which focused on specific policies and legislation.
The FEE is generally regarded as “the first libertarian think-tank” as Reason’s Brian Doherty calls it in his book “Radicals For Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement” (2007). As the Buchanan Committee discovered, the Foundation for Economic Education was the best-funded conservative lobbying outfit ever known up to that time, sponsored by a Who’s Who of US industry in 1946.
A partial list of FEE’s original donors in its first four years includes: The Big Three auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford; top oil majors including Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; major steel producers US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; major retailers including Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemicals majors Monsanto and DuPont; and other Fortune 500 corporations including General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich, ConEd, and more.
The FEE was set up by a longtime US Chamber of Commerce executive named Leonard Read, together with Donaldson Brown, a director in the National Association of Manufacturers lobby group and board member at DuPont and General Motors."
And how they "sold" their credo
"In other words, if you’re one of the libertarian True Believers rather than one of the Galtian players, you’re probably not going to be much help to the movement—so bugger off. The Kochs’ REASON is directly appealing here to what it hopes is a smarter, "cynical" subset of its small, cash-rich libertarian movement—Randroids, snotty heirs, and various reactionary sociopaths who understand that the key to their success is conning the sheeple, and enjoying it. What follows is a catalogue of libertarian "tricks" tailored to various marks."
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/
FEE and the hijack of a word
And thus the American hijacking of the term "libertarian" began, complete with large-scale funding.
Thank you for digging that info up, JuliaW!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
you know some Anarchists
Ah, so I'm not the only broke-ass Anarchist you hang with!
What our dear LaFem is talking about is the social policy beLIEfs of certain Americans who have hijacked the term "libertarian" in a most Orwellian way, i.e., "War is Peace" etc. Your people, JayRaye, are using the word "libertarian" in its pre-hijack sense (and the way the word is still employed in Europe, as a general rule). Hence, my description of them as Anarchists, as the term "Anarchist" has not been hijacked the way the term "libertarian" has; therefore, it gives your "libertarian" friends the honor that they deserve to have and that those who have hijacked the term definitely do not.
I respectfully submit that your libertarians would have far more in common with the Haymarket Heroes, Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Emma Goldman than they would with the hijackers' goddess Ayn Rand.
There are bad apples in every barrel. Non illegitimis carborundum!
I will confess that this is one reason I prefer anarchosocialism to Marxism. Marxists sometimes get so wrapped up in theory that they take leave of the whole of the real world; it's my understanding that even Karl Marx himself eventually said: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." source Anarchosocialism, on the other hand, has no orthodox theory, but rather a set of ideas as to where it wants humanity to end up, and it welcomes everyone who shares those basic goals. It's much easier to live with.
Not intentionally. She's merely fallen into the pitfall that Ayn Rand and her acolytes dug to catch those of us who don't buy into their hijack of the word "libertarian". Although she might have to exercise a bit more care, the fact is that is exactly what American "libertarianism" teaches these days: no societal altruism whatsoever, just like Ayn Rand preached in her books. Yuck.
Over at TOP, ZhenRen and I discussed all of this thoroughly, as I'm pretty sure you're aware. One of the things our movement definitely needs to do is un-hijack the term "libertarian" and restore it to what it still means everywhere else but here in the good ol' U.S.A. And put Ayn Rand on the course towards being forgotten. Galt really is a lie!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Thana, It doesn't matter whether one is talking about a party
or about an individual member of a party. If the discussion is done without respect for those holding that belief then they won't listen. Ridiculously broad statements such as the one quoted above won't win anyone over. If we are going to build a 3rd party for the 99% then we need to be thinking about how to win over our fellow 99%er and insulting their beliefs by over-broad and hateful statements is not the way to do that. And yes, it was a hateful statement, worthy of a post at TOP. Ironic since the post itself was written to ridicule a post at TOP.
And no, my family and friends who lean-Libertarian can in no way be compared to anarchists or to the Haymarket Martyrs. Anarchists, all that I know, including my son, have the ability to think and to analyzed. The Haymarket Martyrs were labor organizers helping the working class of Chicago to organize a fight for the 8 hour day.
My libertarian-leaning friends are not given to analysis and they aren't organizers either. They just want to be left alone and they don't want to be hassled about the cars on their lawn, their housekeeping, their pot-smoking, etc. But if you're ever down and out, they will be the ones to take you in.
They are drawn to the LP more because of emotion. They feel fucked-over (and they are fucked-over) trying to live on low wages, trying to make the rent, trying to keep the car running, etc. And they have a "come and take it" and "don't tread on me" attitude.
Long lectures on the hijacking of a word, on the origins of the party, lecture, lecture, lecture, etc etc etc, won't win them over either. But calmly listening and pointing out a few things in the Libertarian platform that will hurt them while greatly increasing the power of the property holders, does sometimes reach them. The LP platform is full of reference to private property and I have found it helpful to point out at times that they don't own any property. And will most likely never own any property to speak of.
It's impossible to reach people while you're telling them that they or the party they lean towards would leave someone dead in the middle of the road. That statement is just a mindless, analysis free, insult, that will reach nobody. When you say something like that to someone it doesn't matter whether you're talking about them or their party, they take it has an insult.
If we plan on building a new party for the 99%, then we need to think about how to reach the 99%, esp those who are at the bottom of the 99% who have a lot of anger and many daily frustrations. There are many such folks in the state of Texas.
I've actually had some success at reaching those folks and it wasn't done by insulting them or the party they lean towards.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
you obviously know them better
Well, you obviously know them better than I do.
Please at least grant me credit for attempting to find common ground between them and me. You may rest assured that it exists.
And I agree with you insofar as the whole Austrian Economics line of crap is concerned. Actual libertarianism (the European use of the term) recognizes that the freedom to actually obtain and possess property is an essential right of everyone. Austrian Economics applies Social Darwinism to property, resulting in the property non-owning classes simply having to embrace the suck and bow down to their propertied masters -- about the least libertarian situation I can imagine! (Sounds like ideology coming from that Austrian the town of Braunau produced late in the 19th Century..... good afternoon Counselor Godwin....)
Your family and friends' grievances are real. If I committed the error of minimizing these, I do apologize.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
yep you actually do have much in common with them, we all do
and I'm not talking about politics or ideology here. But about all of us in the 99% struggling to get by in a world ruled by Money and Property for Money and Property.
And I hope you know that when I talk about Money and Property, I'm talking about vast amounts of Money and vast amounts of Property. I don't begrudge anyone from having a good paying job and owning a nice home or a bit of land.
I once asked a Teabagger friend of mine if he didn't think there should be ANY limits on the amount of land that an individual could own as Private Property, and he said no there shouldn't be because Liberty and Freedom and all that. And then I asked him how about if one person came to own all the land on the entire Earth and then decided to evict the rest of us from his "Private Property." Well my friend was stumped. And he has never bothered me again with his Teabagger nonsense from that day to this.
Well rents are going up and up so we'll see if he comes to face eviction and how he will feel about Private Property at that point. The increasing rents are hurting a lot of people that I know, including me. And a few of my friends and neighbors have had to leave here because of it. So the conversation about Private Property is relevant to what's going on in people's daily lives.
Well I got off the subject here. I think if you wrote an essay about Private Property from different perspectives that would be really interesting. And I would definitely read it.
My son is an anarchist and we have come closer together in our views lately as he has become less of an anarchist and more of a socialist and I have become more of an anarchist and less of a socialist, if that makes any sense.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
anarchists, socialists, and private property
You should know me well enough by now to realize that it makes perfect sense to me!
Whether public (the State) or private (the altogether too fucking rich), bosses are bosses; and humanity needs to break its addiction to any sort of bosses if its long-term survival outlook is to have any joy at all.
Why do I call myself an anarcho-socialist? Because both are required. Without an inherently Socialist society, bosses become and remain necessary. If society's norms are Socialist and democratic -- something well within our reach! -- our need for bosses will dwindle to nothing. I maintain that this is the idea Rosa Luxemburg was working from when she quipped her famous classic "Socialism or Barbarism!" quote:
It is indeed. I always got a kick out of Jimmy McMillan's speeches on these matters. Although the speeches are funny, the issues behind them are deadly serious, and McMillan has a way of getting those issues inside of people's heads.
Considering the fact that such an essay would have to be worthy of you, JayRaye, this is a tall order. But let me see what I can do. I'll drop you a private message when it's up, to let you know it's there!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
thx, thana plz do let me know when that essay is posted
you were talking of different types of libertarianism that are new to me and got my curiosity running which is always a good thing.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Well said. I agree.
yes yes YES
A libertarian will leave you bleeding in the middle of the road if you cant afford an ambulance.
A socialist will build a system that not only picks you up but helps you pick up the pieces afterwards.
And that pretty much is every Toonie I've ever met. ::sigh::
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
I find it sad, as a socialist, that a statement like this
can pass itself off as analysis at c99. I was hoping that c99 would be better than that.
That over-broad, analysis-free statement reminds me exactly of TOP.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
:::pfblthghghtphphphphphphphpphphph!!!!!!:::
No, this isn't The Big Orange Stain and just because everyone don't carry folksy red bandanduh and because some of us have to break out in humor to keep from screaming in horror continually, there's no reason to put us/them/me down for not echoing "deeply profound" stuff alla time.
FWIW I thought when I read it that Robinson hit what a "libertarian" wants when K. S. Robinson wrote what he wrote. He sure understood how people got pushed into action based on trilogy of FICTION he wrote. What made his "alternate peopleverse" seem so real was that he DID get what a political human being was and what general flavors we come in.
I'm sorry if you either never enjoyed the books for one reason or another or did read them and hated them and disliked Robinson's "take" on politics.
It takes all kinds of people to make up this 99% and you won't ever get most of us walking in lockstep with one another, not even skipping with our arms locked and discovering that one in ever 10 of us is The Cowardly Lion.
Be well.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
Pages