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

Thu Oct 21 23:27:21 CDT 2010

First, it was you who made the point of claiming to be an "actual" socialist as contrasted to merely a socialist, a quasi socialist, a pseudo socialist, a fake socialist, a false socialist, etc.  It was not me that made or suggested the distinction between "actual" and "non-actual." Since I do not have the slightest idea what an "actual" socialist is as opposed to some other type of socialist nor do I know the criteria which distinguishes an actual socialist from any other type of socialist (after all it is your distinction), it is not up to me to specify - nor can I specify -  what one has to be/believe/do to be  an actual socialist as opposed to any other type of socialist needs to use as a measure to make said determination.

Second, socialism for me is a philosophical and political tradition composed of a widely diverse variety of different renditions, versions, and/or implementations of the tradition that have some common elements that are shared among them to varying degrees with no single set of features being shared in common by each and every different version of that tradition. Fabian Socialism is not identical to utopian socialism which is not identical to anarcho-syndicalism varieties of socialism which is not identical to guild socialism which is not identical to revisionist socialism which is not identical to what you are calling libertarian socialism or other forms of socialism.  Believers or followers of  any of these could be called a socialist and even an "actual" socialist; so the  notion as far as I can tell of an "actual" socialist has little or no meaning since almost anyone who shares one or more philosophical, ideological, or practical tenets of any of theses variations of socialism could consider and call themselves an "actual" socialist.  In short the notion and label of "actual socialist" is nothing more than a name similar to that designated by the term "racer horse," "palm tree," and/or "rocket ship."  If you believed in total in all the tenets of libertarian socialism as set forth by Chomsky or anyone else, you might and probably should call yourself a follower of libertarian socialism or Chomsky defined socialism rather than an "actual socialist."  If you believe in a selection of tenets drawn from a variety of different versions of socialism within the tradition rather than all the tenets from a single version, then you might call yourself a follower or believer in the socialist tradition as a general philosophical, ideological, and/or practical position rather than being identified with any given sect of socialism, which you stipulate to be the true authentic actual socialism.

From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:57 PM
To: Laurie Solomon 
Cc: Brussel ; Peace-discuss List 
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/20101021/725933cf/attachment-0001.html>