"Open Letter" to social democrats

No easy answers. (0.00 / 0)

What level of commitment will it take to achieve it?

One possibility to look at.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 14:19:15 PM UTC

No (0.00 / 0)

Making a difference in one person's life is neither pathetic nor absurd.  What's pathetic and absurd is running around calling names while doing absolutely nothing to improve even one person's life.  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 14:28:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm confused (0.00 / 0)

Who exactly are you responding to here, Charley?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:40:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing in Yours. Sorry for Any Confusion. (0.00 / 0)

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 00:40:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Sounds a Little Harsher Than Intended (0.00 / 0)

OK, let's look a little more practically.  No true radical can win a single seat in the Montana legislature from any district, much less a majority.  No true radical can win a single seat in the US Congress, much less a majority.  The power of the state is therefore unavailable to true radicals to do anything with regard to inequality, war, poverty.  All you've got is moral suasion.  And song: you can sing songs.  And you've got insults and threats.

So what's the threat: lean more radical, or I'll help put actual conservatives in office.  Now that's a principled stand!

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 14:57:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dick Cheney thinks that Obama (0.00 / 0)

is a radical. So it is all a matter of perspective, as to whom the true radicals are. Radicals can, and have won political seats--the larger the population base they represent, the harder it has been to do so.

But a truly subversive radical would get elected without his constituents knowing that he is a radical. That is, if the purpose of radicalism is to gain political power. To understand radicals and politics, is to need to understand anarchists. Most far left radicals are anarchists in our political system because they feel that it is not possible to reform it to a degree that is meaningful. That their activism is best expressed outside the normal confines.

So radical activism often works to destabilize the current status quo hoping that it will implode, and a better system will take its place. Bringing the suffering images of people and the planet to the masses: "see, this is what you have wrought!" Of course, this is a similar strategy of tea baggers (who suffer exactly because the same system they live in abuses them, though they cry out for political power with their Palinistic and Rushbo megaphones, at the same time that they hypocritically decry political power), so we have equal, but opposite competing forces at work here that actually could augment each other in common purpose. Of course, if things fall apart, then it would be a battle between the opposing factions to put it all back together again. Teabagger, meet rainbow hippy or earth first! warrior.

So back to the notion of left wing radical as anarchists. They are not the purveyors of big government socialism that the right and center would paint them. That is an illusion that is politically popular to those who would use that myth to further their own political, capitalist aims.

Many anarchist movements coalesce exactly because they have no political power, and no hopes or desire of ever gaining any in any traditional fashion. So they create their own world, subsisting outside of normal social paradigms. Participating minimally or peripherally in work-a-day society only to the degree necessary to survive. Creating alternative social and subsistence structures to live their lives in. And when the occasion to arise together in protest presents itself, then it is an occasion of joy, community and celebration as fullfilling as the democratic national convention is to the politician and his minions. It is their true "I am Spartacus" moment.

What people don't understand is that most radicals believe that they can live their anarchistic utopia as a collective within a nation. That it doesn't matter what the politicians and government, and their agents and agencies do. Because it is never intended to improve the lives of those who are living a lifestyle of self-subsistence, and small communitarian, collectivist values.

True radicalism in amerika has evolved into a form of tribalism that exists both within, and without the normal confines of the status quo. And most of the people who find themselves swimming against the democratic/republican, liberal/conservative currents for the duration of their lives will never see, nor understand what it is that is occurring, because it is outside of their comprehension. Nor will they recognize that maybe their neighbor, or co-worker is a radical. But they will recognize the calmness that pervades the radicals' lives when current events conspire to make most others fear for the normality, comfort and security of their politically and capitalistically-regulated and defined existence, and wonder how it can be that the other does not despair.

---

by: JC @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 18:45:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

one mans freedom fighter (0.00 / 0)

  is another mans' terrorist; IE Geronimo for instance. Good reply to a myopic and obtuse letter. Hopefully your schooling of the author 'Troutsky' will enable him/her to do a lot more research on means and methods of enacting change. Another Radical was Thomas Paine, without his 'radicalism' Gen Washington would have been wasting his time and efforts.

 

---

by: Darwin26 @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:09:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

for starters... (0.00 / 0)

...it seems to me you're presenting a false dichotomy between the status quo and...Big Rock Candy Mountain? There's no evidence that radical lefty social revolutionaries would do any better than the gang of half-bought, skittish politicians in office today. In fact, given the track record and the hostile rhetoric of many of those here that espouse lefty purity, I'd say the opposite.

Going back to your example of the Popular Front coalitions in prewar Europe, the lefty alternative was Stalinism, was it not? Give me the Popular Front governments any day.

As for your claims that progress has been "pathetic," our society "grotesque," etc & co, I don't think you'll find many that agree. Liberal/progressive politics has produced environmental, labor, and workplace regulation, universal suffrage and education, a robust middle class, racial civil rights, religious freedom, etc & co, a record far better than any type of government preceding it.

Likewise, I don't think you'll find many -- including myself -- that want to overthrow the basic economic and social structures of our society. We've got it pretty good. And we can make it better.

I don't know you, Troutsky, I don't personally know many of the other radical leftys that visit the site, so I don't know how you came to your beliefs or politics. But it seems to me a lot of this talk is just an intellectual exercise divorced from the beliefs and desires of the people whose interests you purport to have at heart. When Mark T ran for office, voters galvanized in opposition to him.

Frankly, when it comes down to it, you're talking about imposing a set of theoretical principles on an unwilling populace, which strikes me as a disaster waiting to happen.

As for the issues at hand...should the progressive movement as a whole gotten behind, say, single-payer health care at the start of the process of health care reform? Probably. It still would have failed, and we'd probably still have the same insurance reform package we have today, but we would have at least laid the proper groundwork for the 20-year battle getting a single-payer system will take.

But, tell me? How would you do things differently? I hear a lot of criticism from certain corners about how LiTW bloggers did things wrong -- how would the nay-sayers done anything differently? Really, there's absolutely no concrete or practical plan at work -- outside the active single-payer activists who did a great job nudging the debate six months ago...

So...what's your plan? How do you propose to go from here to Big Rock Candy Mountain? Frankly, until I hear something good and workable there's not much reason to listen to you, is there?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 14:40:17 PM UTC

someone needs to get out more (0.00 / 0)

This 'letter' is ludicrous to say the least. Grounding something in 1920 Germany, why not go back to Aug 1914? At any rate the author is really lost in his/her own closet reality.

 i would say that if you're referring to the so called 'New Democrats' as 'Progs' then you really are blind to reality. The 'New Democrats' and all similar titles are shingles of the DLC Neo-Liberals who feint a 'progressive' position but are really corporate terrorists and predatory capitalists IE Rahm Emanuel, Geithner, Summers, K Sebelius, etc. i sent the link look up Democratic Leadership Council,~ Wake up! Of course they're gonna Cave IN that's the strategy.

 And to Jay - The best possible solution to the debacle of Health Care Insurance Reform was and is Medicare for All/Single Payer. The Public Option was set up by the DLC knowing full well it would not wash. However if the PO puppets would have measured their energy for the best possible solution then we would not be stuck in this Insurance Cartel swamp/windfall profits.

  You see, the problem was and is the Insurance Cartel. Crushing it to the bottom of the ocean forever, was and is the ONLY solution. But no you PO wimps wah wah we can't have the best for the people so we'll cry for a bone got it shoved where the sun doesn't shine. Never compromise on principals Jay, you'll lose every time - any you may lose anyway but at least you will have fought a valiant effort not a staged retreat! Which is all that the PO was. Now to bury that stupid political sideshow deep in the earth where it will not pollute the real principled Medicare for All.

     

---

by: Darwin26 @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 19:59:10 PM UTC

Thanks for everyones input (0.00 / 0)

Wolfgar: interesting link. I'm terrified of an un-organized pitchfork wielding mob with no theoretical grounding.Not the way to go although people should be angrier.

Charlie: the question of power divides the left-Left. Some (Zapatistas, anarcho-syndicalists) want to change the world without taking power.But they see power not in the legislative sense you do.Because it is a capitalist state doing the bidding of capital we go to the root (radical) of the problem.You put Clinton in office.You have no idea of what I have done to improve the lives of others so chill.Just a discussion.

JC:    I have been exploring this idea that left and right might in some way "augment" each other but while our critiques are similar, our proposals are wildly divergent.As for imploding the status quo, again this is hardest on the most marginalized. I won't vote for Sarah hoping she will force a disaster but I don't need to . The disaster is coming.Liberals can't vote against over-production,over-accumulation.
Your idea of creating a better world within the shell of the old is one I think is gaining traction. Models can inspire folks but outside activism must go along with it.In my opinion tribalism needs to be balanced with an internationalist perspective.

Darwin: "schooling"?Why are you so competitive? Oh yeah.

Jay: You are right I have no "evidence" in the scientific sense. This is purely theoretical and I admit it is easy to be a critic.We all know the sad history of movements that called themselves Marxist. That said, we know the sad history of capitalism beyond your Western "middle classes".Should we think capitalism is the end of history?

As to liberal/progressive success on the environment, c'mon, your obviously an intelligent guy.The degradation caused by capitalist development is killing tens of thousands yearly.Need a link? Labor; wages stagnant for thirty years, mountains of debt, unions all busted. Workplace regulations?  What work places? they have all been exported
to places without rules. think maquiladore. education? try California. Student debt. Civil rights? One in four black men will serve time.

I have no intention to "impose a set of principles" on anyone but I would like folks to look carefully at their media and culture and education and ask "what set of principles" has been imposed on me? Where did this notion of "Ive got it pretty good" come from?

As for practical suggestions; Stop being "practical" if it means waiting 20 years for single payer. You can walk and chew gum at the same time, that is, work for tangible goals but be out front with your structural analysis: real change means overhauling the economic system away from markets towards democracy.If every progressive stopped settling and abandoned Baucus you might not get Martz, you might get Kucinich. Thats what a popular front means. Thanks again.

 

---

by: troutsky @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 21:41:27 PM UTC

In truth (0.00 / 0)

I think a mob uprising is almost necessary; not in the sense of desired, but rather inevitable.  Humans have never learned to deal with frustration well, and conserve what energy they have until the pain of frustration grows too great.  Then we lash out.  Being a student of complexity theory, I agree with the wingnuts that things are not going to get simpler until there is an "event", a fundamental shift that changes the direction of the action-reaction pendulum.  They seem to think that screaming at people will be that change.  Foolishness.  But there will come a point when people, as you have asked, have really had enough.  I don't see that happening without violence.

Don't mistake me; those thoughts terrify me, especially since I see it as inevitable.  I have no desire to be a martyr to any cause.  But many of the ones who do come from the authoritarian camp, and it is those who end up shaping the revolution when it arrives. Mark, for all his delusions, is again correct.  Politics invites psychopaths.  So, I see us as trading one form of yoke for another, and this I don't like at all.

If you think me a cynic, I'll just say, "no shit".  I would rather embrace the weak structure that is over the one I think will get people killed for nothing more than a power mad dictator, or theocracy, or oligarchy.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 22:06:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trout (0.00 / 0)

If you're improving people's lives, then good for you.  My comment isn't referring to you then.  (I certainly wouldn't and didn't make the assumption that you aren't).

I don't see how you expect to address inequality without harnessing the power of the state.  Look forward to seeing how that goes.  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 00:39:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You think that equality is only (0.00 / 0)

achievable through state action?

Your statism seems to be quite the opposite of the libertarian streak that runs through many Montana radicals and leftists. Maybe even a little fascist, if you support things like mandates for the uninsured to purchase health insurance only from private insurance corporations.

While some forms of state-designated equality are to be applauded--women's, minority and disability rights come immediately to mind--I fail to see, i.e., how a state-designed health care system that does not follow a single payer framework to be "equal."

It seems that our country's notions of exceptionalism, crony capitalism, and free-market economics can never truly address the issue of inequality.

Otherwise we would treat things like health care as a right, and devise a system based on equality--which is not what we currently have, and which is not being offered by our current elected "representatives."

Even a libertarian on the left can decide that there are certain goods and services that only the government can adequately and equitably provide. And health care insurance would be one of those in my (and many others') book.

And lastly, where the state fails to address inequality, then it is paramount that we address it directly within our own communities. Which is why we see the swelling of use of things like homeless shelters, public health clinics and food banks. These institutions, while essential, are an indicator of the failure of the state to addresses issues of inequality, lack of opportunity, and rights.

---

by: JC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 01:07:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incoherent (0.00 / 0)

You want single payer independent of government?  I'm not sure I understand the use of the word "right" independent of the state -- a right doesn't mean much if you can't enforce it.  And you can't enforce a right without the state.

I agree that some private institutions take on the role of mitigating harms caused by the system.  I don't see how you fix those harms without using the power of the state.  You call me a fascist, and then, what?  How is the underlying inequality addressed without the power of the state?

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 13:20:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I specifically said (0.00 / 0)

that single payer insurance need be government-based.

I see what you're doing, here. You're taking an absolutist stance, "oh, if you are a lefty radical anarchist, you don't believe in any government, therefore, you can't postulate anything that may require a government."

And I didn't call you a fascist for your support of a private solution-only mandate, just your and others' ideas about mandating a private-only insurance. Ignorance does not a fascist make. I just happen to believe that a mandate that forces people to buy insurance from private corporations, without an alternative that is public, is fascist. It is the government colluding with a private corporation to force the populace into purchasing only from the corporation, with the penalty of fines and prison for failing to do so that is the root of the fascism.

Anybody who has listened to me rail for the last year about a mandate without some sort of choice other than a private one knows that I have labeled that as fascist: a collusion between our state and representatives and the corporations that fund them. Pro quid pro corruption.  The death of the public option and survival of the mandate--and no, lowering medicare to a 55+ buy-in does not alleviate my criticism--will be the single most regressive piece of legislation in the 21st century, once we see the state begin to jail people for failing to turn over their money to the health insurance industry. And I'll most likely be one of those people.

So, in this most basic instance of health care reform, the state has taken the opportunity to define a basic right--health care--and provide access and services--equality--but instead we get a regressive mandate that moves reform in the wrong direction, and is fascist.

So, no, I don't believe that our current government is capable of addressing inequality in any meaningful way. In fact, it is, and has chipped away at what equality we did have through crony capitalism and right-wing ideological politics.

I heard a talking head on cable news the other night ask Rep. Grayson if he was a progressive--believing that progressives are all about taking a step in the right direction--as opposed to being a radical, who want immediate and sweeping change. I thought that was an interesting definition of a progressive. And reminded me that I still am a radical and not a progressive.

But when I apply that notion to current reform efforts, where you have a few steps forward, but some huge ones backwards, I can only conclude that proposed reform is not overall progressive--the fascist nature of the mandate precludes that.

So if the power of the state is incapable of addressing inequality, and we approach a point at which our nation is deemed to be ungovernable--where the big issues can never be resolved due to corruption and politics--then the only resort is for us to retreat into our own communities where hopefully we have established strong enough institutions and bonds to survive.

What is it that an insurance industry exec was overheard saying yesterday? Oh, yeah: "We Won!"

And if the industry won, then the people lost. And fascism is alive and well in the halls of Congress, the White House and Wall Street.

---

by: JC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 18:51:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very poetic (0.00 / 0)

* rolls eyes *

For extra fun:  Read the original post in the voice of the goth kids from South Park, super poetic AND dramatic!

And we "live in" a representative republic, not a democracy...carry on, my wayward son...

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 00:42:31 AM UTC

I just read your comment in that voice... (0.00 / 0)

and laughed my ass off!

Especially the sound effects of two walnuts rolling around in a tin can for the "* rolls eyes"

---

by: JC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 00:46:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"capitalism" (0.00 / 0)

Should "capitalism" be the end of history?

What's "capitalism"? Do you lump lemonade stands in with multinational corporations?

No, I don't think "capitalism" is the end of history, mainly because I don't see history as a kind of progression towards perfect, nor do I see "capitalism" as a homogeneous system that's inherently bad. It's a crazy quilt of thousands of different kinds of systems, each with their own characteristics. In that way, I think, again, there's a false dichotomy held by many between "capitalism" and "un-capitalism," or a socialist/Marxist state.

I should add I lived in East Germany before unification, as well as Russia during the Yeltsin presidency. All the negative aspects you ascribe solely to capitalism -- labor conditions, environmental destruction, political corruption -- were much, much worse there under a state-run economy, than here. I don't even think that's disputable.

Now, you might argue that those places didn't have a "real" socialist government, but they weren't "capitalist" economies, not the way we think about them. Whatever its faults our capitalist system responds better to the health and safety of citizens than any citizen I've seen before.

To me, what afflicted those countries is similar to what's wrong with our system. Unchecked agglomeration of capital and power in the hands of the few. Short-term profit -- or power -- prevailing every time over the long-term interests of the many. The difference, I think, is that in the Soviet Union, China, and East Germany, there was no check to authority. Here, at least, our political and economic system is set up to be at least somewhat responsive to the masses.

I don't know what you'd call that kind of oligarchical agglomeration of capital that happens even in countries without a capitalist system. But there are "capitalist" entities that actively work against this kind of social structure. An independently-owned store that sells books written by local authors. A privately-owned farm that sells "shares" of its crops to their neighbors and community members. Co-ops. An independent contractor making houses energy efficient. And I agree with JC that a lot of change needs to be organic or anarchistic...

...more later...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 20:59:53 PM UTC