[Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia andRacist Groups

[David Green]

I think the problem is that some people see left-liberals ("progressives") as 
filling the breach between "democratic capitalism" (an oxymoron, but an abiding 
faith nonetheless), and Soviet Communism (state capitalism). So libertarian 
socialism seems itself like an oxymoron rather than the sensible conception that 
it is (incorporating freedom and self-government); and moreover deprives 
themselves (liberals, progressives) a privileged place in the struggle for 
"capitalism with a human face." That's what the "vital center" was about during 
the Cold War, but at least then there were "real" Communists and the recent 
shadow of Hitler. Now all they have is Islamic terrorists and the Tea Party to 
be afraid of.

DG



________________________________
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>
Cc: Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>; Peace-discuss List 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 3:57:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia 
andRacist Groups

Uh, Laurie? What does one have to be/believe/do to be an actual socialist?  Let 
me know, and I'll see if I measure up.

Meanwhile, what I think anyone would recognize as a socialist position was set 
out in lapidary fashion by Noam Chomsky in his famous lecture "Government in the 
Future," 40 years ago. There he outlined what was called libertarian socialism 
in 20th century Europe and contrasted it with Soviet Communism and American 
corporatism.  Libertarian socialism - anarchism - is a critique of Leninism from 
the Left: Lenin wrote against people who held that view in "Left-Wing" 
Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920).

It has an honorable history through Rosa Luxembourg, the Council Communists, the 
Spanish Anarchists (see Orwell's Homage to Catalonia), on into the American New 
Left. It hasn't gone away; I heard Chomsky's lecture, was happy to sign up then, 
and have seen no reason to abandon my youthful faith in the intervening years. 
--CGE


On 10/21/10 3:41 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote: 
Actually, I will give him the benefit of the doubt about having empirical 
supporting data to back up his assertion that "There are more anti-war 
teapartiers than anti-war Democrats" ask for the exact number of tea-partiers 
there actually are as compared to the exact number of Democrat there actually 
are and the exact number and percentage of those total number of tea-partiers 
that are anti-war as compared with the same for total Democrats and anti-war 
Democrats.  If he has the empirical data (as opposed to opinion or speculation) 
to support his statement that "There are more anti-war teapartiers than anti-war 
Democrats", he surely will have no trouble supplying me with the numbers and 
percentages as well as citing the sources of that data.
>
>As for his statement, "As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that fact", I cannot 
>question the part where he says he deplores that fact ; but with respect to the 
>first part of the statement, I would suggest that he is no more an  "actual 
>socialist" philosophically, ideologically, or practically than he is a race 
>horse, a palm tree, or a rocket ship except in his own mind and his 
>self-attaching the label to himself and his beliefs.  To be sure, his believes 
>may contain some elements drawn from the socialist tradition and some of his 
>actions may have a socialist element to them; but that does not make him an 
>"actual socialist" whatever the hell that means any more than standing in a 
>garage makes one an automobile.
>
>
>
>From: Brussel 
>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:38 PM
>To: C. G. Estabrook 
>Cc: Peace-discuss List 
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia 
>andRacist Groups
>
>Karen, 
>
>
>Ask Carl where he gets his data (re. his first line below). Ask where most of 
>the funding, who are the biggest contributors, and where most of the PR for the 
>Tea party comes from. And so what conclusion may one draw?
>
>
>Don't be surprised if he switches the subject, refuses to answer, or cannot 
>answer, because he doesn't have reliable sources. 
>
>
>--mkb
>
>
>On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>Come on, Karen. There are more anti-war teapartiers than anti-war Democrats.
>>
>>Obama's co-option of the anti-war movement meant that there is no parallel among 
>>the Democrats to Ron Paul's movement of principled opposition to the war, nor to 
>>that of libertarians and paleoconservatives around the website Antiwar.com or 
>>the journal The American Conservative. 
>>
>>
>>As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that fact. 
>>
>>On 10/21/10 9:30 AM, Karen Medina wrote: 
>>I did notice that there were very few "constitutionalists" around before the 
>>scare tactic of "they are going to give health care to undocumented immigrants" 
>>became popular.  Very few of the tea-partiers are in the anti-war movement.  All 
>>I am saying is that it is easy to count the ones that are consistent.  With the 
>>ones that are inconsistent, it is harder to count them, but it is easy to tell 
>>if they have read the constitution.  -karen medina 
>>_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 
>>_______________________________________________
>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
________________________________
_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101021/694cab45/attachment-0001.html>