The sensible centrists have a point, of sorts

[blindpig]

That portion of the electorate which identifies itself as 'leftist' or 'progressive' is not happy with the Obama administration and the Democratic House and Senate. All of their hopes for this Administration have been shattered, disregarded and perverted. Vague rhetoric well delivered and their own projection fueled that pernicious hope. It is telling that the only voices which tried to disabuse them of their fantasies were a few lonesome tribunes on the 'hard, extreme' Left and socialists. At that time there was no one from the mainstream party telling them that it ain't gonna be that way. On the contrary, the party was fine with their votes.

It is often said by sensible centrists that it is just as well that we are still voting in their interests because, the Democratic Party is the lesser of the two evils. With the advent of the Obama Administration, that hoary lie can be put to rest. The continuation of the policies of the previous regime and the continued trend to the right, something also notable in the previous two Democratic Administrations, shows damn little evidence of 'progress'. The sensible centrists are correct in pointing out that the party ain't 'left', except in a meaningless relative way.

So the marmots of moderation were right all along. If there is a place for 'leftists' in the Democratic Party, it is to carry water for policies opposite to their interests, and to shut up because it could be worse.

The 'leftists' have a laundry list with a common theme. They are essentially anti-capitalist. Yet the Democratic Party is avowedly capitalist. So what the hell do these 'leftists' expect? Despite 30 years of trying to steer the party left, it has veered hard right instead. The "Left" is openly mocked by this administration.

So here's the deal: shut up and carry that water or do something completely different, cause you're just spinning your wheels. As for 'something completely different', you might look at history. There are plenty of lessons there. The main lesson is that only when the people organize themselves, presenting a united front in implacable opposition to the ruling class, will they get any traction. Anything less is doomed to failure or assimilation. This is an invitation to lots of work, discomfort, and mebbe worse. But the thing is, we do it on our own. We are not dependent on those whose class interests is diametrically opposed to ours.

Time is ticking folks. War is unabated, the standard of living for the working class is degrading, and the planet is dying piece by piece.

Shit or get off the pot.

[Karmadillo]

1. Stop coming around here making sense or or or you'll be sorry.

nt

[MineralMan]

2. You're right. Unless there is a real, viable choice

presented, there's nothing to discuss. We'll see if such choices appear.

[kenny blankenship]

4. You mistake the intent. The exhortation is not to scan the horizon for "something different"

but to be and to create that something different. Because supporting same old same old is what's pointless and not worth discussing. I know there's no point in discussing that with you, I'm just pointing out your error. Have a good one.

[MineralMan]

7. Oh. Well, that's what I agreed with. If there is a group that

thinks that they have a better idea, then they should get organized and field candidates who agree with them. Just complaining about the current state of things and about our currently-elected leaders isn't going to get it. The only way is to present real, viable alternatives to the way things are. In that, I agree with the OP.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. You want a dramatic change? Then start organizing and field your own candidates. We still live in a country that holds major elections every two years. That's not going to change. So, the path to what you want is obvious. You can either choose to follow that path and present new alternatives, or you won't get the dramatic changes you want.

I see no alternative. Do you?

[Smashcut]

81. "I see no alternative"

And if you and your cohorts have your way, there never will be.

[MineralMan]

101. It's not up to me. It's up to those who want to field candidates

and get them on the ballot. It's up to you. Show me a viable candidate who is progressive, and I'll be right there supporting that candidate. The key word is viable.

Someone like Al Franken, say...

[blindpig]

46. Well, there's certainly not one now..

The only choice is that posed long ago, 'Socialism or barbarism'.

[MineralMan]

51. Sorta depends on where you are, doesn't it.

Actually, there's another choice, and that's to go vote. There's always a choice. Not always the choices you'd prefer, perhaps, but always a choice. Not making a choice is doing nothing.

[blindpig]

83. Where is the choice?

To vote for a capitalists or a capitalists?

[MineralMan]

128. I can't vote for A "capitalists."

I can only vote for one person. If you want to be influential, use English properly. Otherwise, you do not make your point.

[Yavin4]

3. The Left Has Not Had One Significant Accomplishment In The Past 30 Years

Not a one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Probably because the party left them around that time.

[Yavin4]

13. Did The Civil Rights Movement Need A Political Party?

No. They went out and created change without the support of any political parties.

[Starry Messenger]

24. Not true actually

They had help from the American Communist party. That part tends to get downplayed though. I guess it's considered an embarrassing skeleton in the closet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_and_African-Americans

[Fire1]

29. And one of the main reasons Dr. King was labeled a

communist. The communist party was, indeed, instrumental in garning support from the white labor unions.

[Radical Activist]

114. Communist organizers who worked on issues were helpful.

The Communist Party as an electoral organization was politically irrelevant. It's important to note where efforts by communists bore the most fruit. It wasn't by running candidates.

[blindpig]

9. Well, duh

How could anything be accomplished when there has been no Left in any meaningful way?

When people are in the streets like in Greece then we will know that the Left has returned.

[MineralMan]

20. Better start organizing, then. You want people on the streets?

Start posting flyers and sending emails. It all begins with you, doesn't it? If you wait for someone else to start things, you may wait for a long time. If you like, I can give you some tips on getting people out and marching. I did that at my University in 1970. In a single day, we got over 4000 people out on the quad to protest the war.

So, if that's what you want, you need to get started.

[FSogol]

28. Go out in the Quad? There is no WIFI there!

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

31. LOL! We hadn't quite heard of WIFI in 1970.

There were a couple of boomboxes in the quad, though, that day. :rofl:

[asdjrocky]

47. There was no such thing as a boom box in 1970. nt

[MineralMan]

50. OK. A portable radio, then.

[asdjrocky]

52. Yeah, and if 4 people gathered around it they might be able to hear a Mets Game.

Or Sugar, Sugar by the Archies.

Details matter.

[MineralMan]

55. The details are that 4000 people showed up and raised their voices.

A small group of twelve people stirred up that 4000 in one day.

[asdjrocky]

57. That's pretty impressive.

4,000 people? Must have made some kind of news, local at least, right?

[MineralMan]

70. Only in the school's paper. There were lots of protests.

It was on the occasion of Nixon's mining of Haiphong Harbor. The twelve of us went from class to class that morning, interrupting the classes briefly to make the announcement and to tell about the planned rally.

We didn't get any grief from any of the professors, either.

But, we weren't the only protest on the planet that day, and the news sorta dominated everything, so other stuff made the real newspapers.

[asdjrocky]

72. Got it.

Big campus with 4,000 people ready to attend a rally. Must have been something.

[MineralMan]

73. I suspect that a bunch of them just took the opportunity to

skip classes in an acceptable way. Lots of anti-Vietnam war protests had a contingent in them like that. Still, numbers are good.

Frankly, we were very surprised at the turnout. Almost shocked, you could say. Happy about it, too, though.

[Fire1]

32. That's it in a nutshell. All the pissin and moanin is just

bullshit and rhetoric.:boring:

[FSogol]

44. Yup exactly. It is very easy to type "Wez needs a revolution1!!1" Very hard to

get off your Cheetos stained couch and do something.

[msanthrope]

153. Well, one must leave the Party Headquarters if one if to do something. n/t

[BeFree]

11. Eh?

Haven't we kept them from turning the Middle East into a parking lot?

That's pretty durn significant.

The problem is we spend most of our time fighting the insanity that is prevalent in our society. We had hoped that we would have a president that would take care of all that so we could spend our time making some progress, but we aren't quite there yet.

Of course, Obama is in a battle with the insane forces on a daily even hourly basis. He's pretty much preoccupied just putting out fires.

That is the reality.

[Yavin4]

14. In the Past 30 Years, The U.S. Has Had Four Major Wars in the M.E.

and countless other military interventions. That's the best that you can do?

[blindpig]

18. There ya go

The 'leftists', by attaching themselves to a party which never saw a war it didn't like work against their own avowed interests.

It makes the dog & pony show more plausible.

[BeFree]

21. Best I can do? WTF?

We've kept them from making WW3 a reality and that isn't enough for you?

You know they had their finger on the trigger a few times. Who stopped them?

Actually the knee-jerk reaction from you is a sample of the reason the left hasn't been making progress. It shows a total lack of respect for the reality presented. The lack of respect from the left is what gives the left a bad name, because it reeks with hypocrisy and utter denial.

[Forkboy]

22. The left hasn't been in power.

Two centrists and three Repubs since 80'. Apparently, this is the best any of you could do. Don't blame the left, we haven't been in power. Maybe you should try voting for the left instead of pissing on them, as your way isn't accomplishing fuck all. I mean, 4 wars in the Middle East....that's a piss poor record. :shrug:

[WonderGrunion]

100. Exactly, "The left" is neither powerful or popular enough

to get a single President elected or piece of legislation passed in three decades.

If Godzilla had that kind of record, Tokyo would break out laughing every time he popped out of the ocean.

[Forkboy]

144. I'm sorry you find the Left so pointless.

Perhaps the Right is more to your liking? After all, being right isn't important as long as you get something done....

[iowasocialist]

121. Shining Knights on White Horses

"We had hoped that we would have a president that would take care of all that..."

That is the problem.

You all expected too much from Obama in 2008.

We are the ones who need to "take care of things", and not just wait around for our Shining Knight on a White Horse. That is a major failing of the US political system.

Look folks, the "Founding Fathers" were so afraid of "tyranny", that they created a system that needs gridlock, and a SuperMan as a national leader...A recipe for disaster...

[socialist_n_TN]

134. Welcome to DU from one newcomer.........

socialist to another! :)

[Forkboy]

17. Well, with all the chances we've had in power.

Wait...what?

[zipplewrath]

25. They killed us off

The left was killed off, literally. The people that would have led us into the next decades, and created the next generation of leaders, was literally killed off. RFK was dead. MLK, was dead. Meadgar was dead. Truth is, they threw the rest of them in jail. They criminalized the left, and threw them in jail. In reality, it was only the "moderate" left that even made it into the '60s. The truly "radical" left was completely marginalized by the "red scare" activites of the '50s which drove all of the communists as well as the true "socialists" underground. What is seen as "left" today is so moderate the rest of the world can't figure out what we argue about. There are real communists in France, and they win elections. There are real socialist in England, and they win elections. Here, the "left" agitates to "not change" socials security. Anywhere else they'd be agitating to have it vastly expanded.

Elections matter, and they move societies for years. They spent the '60s killing our best.

That mattered.

[BeFree]

30. That IS the reality

They knew they couldn't win fairly so they began to covertly work to destroy democracy.

Assassinations, stolen elections, October surprises, propaganda, and otherwise cheating and stealing their way into office.

And the left gazes it's belly button and says we are useless.

The nazis are laughing their asses off at more than a few leftists who work hard to deny reality.

[Greyhound]

157. Recworthy reply.

:kick: & R

[Bluenorthwest]

36. The GLBT community would not agree with you that we

have had no accomplishments in 30 years. Such a statement is laughable, ludicrous, and absurd. The Medical Marijuana Movement would also laugh at that idea.

[EFerrari]

41. Who has been as successful as the GLBT community

in the last twenty years or so? I can't think of anyone.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. We do get it done, but no one notices that

apparently.

[EFerrari]

40. Depends what you mean by significant.

The left has been like wetlands, slowing down the assaults from the right wing. Who else tried to stand up to Bush? Resisting while being fought by our own party at the same time. What waste of energy.

[spoony]

106. More spam.

It would actually be less offensive if you were selling something, like Sarah Palin posters, than peddling this bullshit on DU of all places.

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. K&R

[SidDithers]

8. Foment all the revolution you want...

just don't do it here.

Sid

[rusty fender]

10. K & R!

That is the conclusion many have reached(even on the "other" side).:shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

12. Hey I have NO problem with people having

a viewpoint be it left, center, or even right. That's the American way. What I don't like is all views seem to be on the table EXCEPT the left view. I'm pretty firmly convinced that if the left wing view got a fair hearing (equal to the RW view) then it would prevail. Unfortunately in this administration, the left doesn't even get a HEARING, at least not in the Senate. That's what bothered me most. The left view is taken away before the negotiations even start. That's not even a good negotiating strategy, IMO.

[walldude]

15. +1 Anything that was considered "left" years ago is now considered

loony. This is why the country continues it's slide down the right. Compromise now consists of center-right people compromising with far-right people and what you get is just short of right wing lunacy all the time. The left is out and there is no opposing position to things like union busting, education reform, energy, and wars, it's all a matter of how far to the right are we going to go.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. In regards to the OP, the Left has had...................

it's MOST influence when they get out in the streets and make a LOT of noise, the 30s and the 60s to be the most specific.

I'm not advocating a third party, but a non partisan left wing MOVEMENT, separate from the Dems, who caucus with the Dems and support selected Dems and some Democratic positions might be an answer. I could see a "Solidarity" left wing movement working to get a Democratic President elected over any Republican and the same for MOST Congressional races. But it's going to be hard to get someone like me to support Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln in spite of the D behind their names, when their policies are as far to the right of me as a LOT of present day Republicans are. And that's WAY far right.

[TBF]

108. They're trying to get us off this website too -

at least some of them are. We shouldn't threaten them if we are so few, and after all when it comes to voting it's not like we're going to vote for Ron Paul, but still we are a threat. Why is that?

[sufrommich]

16. Perhaps the leftists/socialists are not a

big enough demographic in this country to be in a position to demand much from the democratic party. That, of course is the elephant in the room.

[JoseGaspar]

49. That's an interesting word, "demographics".

It implies change as much as it does stability. Looking backwards to the recent past, I think you have a point. But, those "demographics" keep changing, and very rapidly in the last few years.

To a foreclosed former IT specialist or mid-level bureaucrat, now living in a rental and working two jobs, at Home Depot and Dunkin' Donuts, I'm not sure that "competent" technocrats who share the same principles but advocate a "smarter" and gentler view of the world in comparison to their opponents... I'm not sure that they have the same appeal that they might have had a few years ago.

I don't think Tim Kaine or Diane Feinstein reflect the current "demographic" all that well.

[blindpig]

58. Most people...

are for an end to the wars, single payer health care, social security, a healthy environment, good jobs and pay for working people..........

There's your demographic, it is a matter of organization.

[socialist_n_TN]

130. The last poll I saw showed only 52% of the population

had a positive view of the word "capitalism" and somewhere in the 30s had a positive view of "socialism". And this is after 80+ years of pro capitalist propaganda and the demonizing of even the WORD "socialism". I was surprised it's even that high.

The key number though to my thinking was that only a BARE majority of people had a positive view of capitalism. It's actually just a small step from not having a positive view to actively BECOMING anticapitalist. I'd say we socialists are gaining ground.

[msanthrope]

154. Yes, this. n/t

[DevonRex]

23. Either you produce a whole LOT of viable candidates or all you're doing is whining.

And no, third parties are NOT viable. So, put them up. I'll be waiting.

[MineralMan]

33. Hell, I'll vote for them. If a blind pig can produce a good,

progressive, Democratic candidate, I'll work to get him or her elected, just as hard as I worked getting Al Franken elected. Third party? No thanks. I don't have enough time left in my life to work on getting Don Quixote elected to office. Waste of everyone's time.

[DevonRex]

38. Same here. :)

No time for tilting at windmills.

[blindpig]

45. Would the Democratic Party run a candidate with an anti-capitalists

agenda?

Anything else is inadequate. Capitalism is the crux of things.

[DevonRex]

54. Truth be told, I'm not overly fond of it. OTOH, I'm not sure how to go

about getting rid of it, either.

[blindpig]

63. That's why I referred to history.

Best teacher we got.

[DevonRex]

64. Yes, it is.

This was one of your better OPs. I did enjoy reading it. I'm just trying to translate that into something that could work.

Let me think about it a bit.

[MilesColtrane]

66. If you want nothing less than Democratic party to adopt the platform of the Communist party...

you're going to be wanting for a very long time.

[blindpig]

67. I'm not the one who is waiting n/t

[MilesColtrane]

71. Sounds like you're exhorting a dog to become a cat.

The dog can't become a cat, and wouldn't want to even if it could.

[blindpig]

79. Nope.

I'm exhorting a dog to quit acting like a cat, it is unproductive, futile and looks kinda silly.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

69. Democrats are not Communists

I'm not saying you're a bad person, blindpig, but here are the basic facts: your hatred of capitalism is overwhelmingly unpopular with the U.S. public. Your views represent an almost impossible-to-measure-because-it's-so-small fringe belief. You don't speak for the voters. Hell, even on the D.U., which represents the Kucinich wing of the center-left Democratic party, you are to the communistic left. Even in Europe, modern day members of various Socialist parties generally don't actually campaign against capitalism.

Now with that stated, please also understand that whether you like it or not, the U.S. is a democracy. Except when dealing with basic rights of the minority, the majority rules. And all your bitter screaming (or rather, typing, as you proverbially sit on your ass on the couch, munching on Cheetos - because most screamers never get off their ass to do anything constructive) isn't going to change that.

I'm sure your sanctimony feels good to you. Like right wing church-ladies, you get to feel all smug being morally better than everyone else. But your non-actions don't actually do things to make the country better.

Democrats are the people who do that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[JoseGaspar]

76. The problem with your most interesting and unique perspective...

... is that, come October, the Democratic Party will be in a complete panic, trying to get out the vote and DEFEAT those very same "right wing church-ladies" who "feel all smug" enough to have become a significant political force. More, apparently that force is dangerous enough that Leftists must now vote enthusiastically against their own interests or be traitors to (some other) cause. Which is it, irrelevant "church-ladies" or the RIGHT-WING THREAT?

Sanctimony is as sanctimony does.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

116. No, that's what you HOPE will happen...

...come November.

What likely WILL happen is that the Democratic office-holders will likely try to triangulate in order to assuage the anger of the RW church-ladies.

And seriously, why shouldn't they? The President and Democrats have repeatedly gone to the wall fighting and scratching and clawing for any means to pull this nation back to the center (from the extreme lunatic right-wing governance which Republicans embrace), and what do they get in return for all their effort?

Any thanks? Nope. Just this:

Waaaaahhhh! You don't hate capatilism! Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!!


...and a promise to defeat them for trying to grow the economy to provide living wage (capitalistic) jobs for Americans.


It'll be up to people like me to remind our Democratic office holders that racist teabaggers aren't going to be assuaged any more than communists ever will be.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blindpig]

77. No they are not.

However, the 'left' in these parts wants much of the same that the communists do and the Democratic Party doesn't. Just pointing out the futility of that.

Europeans don't campaign against capitalism, think again:

[maryf]

102. a government of, by, and for the people...

isn't that the definition of a true democracy?? do you really think that's what we have? Considering the last part especially, what are the rulers doing for the people of late?? Jobs? Healthcare? Housing?

Nothing about having a democratic government that says it has to tolerate capitalism, which could be said to be a system of making a profit from the work of the workers, by the workers, and for the benefit of the Owners...

[iowasocialist]

124. Re; "Democrats are not Communists"

So then, we should never question capitalism?

As a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America (www.dsausa.org), I am encouraged that recent polls reveal that about 30% or so of the people asked are starting to have doubts about capitalism. We have to start somewhere, and I agree, capitalism is a big part of the problem.

Meanwhile "Conservative Dems" are not truly wrestling with any of the deep problems confronting this nation and this world.

[socialist_n_TN]

131. I'm not so sure that overwhelming is the correct word......

when talking about capitalism being popular. As I said above in another post, the last poll I saw showed only a bare majority of the population who had a positive view of capitalism. And with the rapacious nature of capitalism it doesn't take much to push someone with a neutral view into active anticapitalism.

[Go2Peace]

136. So are you trying to say that left of center democrats are all socialists?

Has that "meme" become that influential? Because it is not true.

[TBF]

110. I learned in my recent thread of "left demands"

that capitalism is what they will not give up. Capitalism they will regulate, and they want their homes (which isn't as big of a concern as means of production), and bananas. I'll give them their homes and bananas if they'll agree to let capitalism go. I still don't think I'll get many takers. Too many Americans have bought into this "American Dream" which they strive for their entire lives and never reach. A good socialist tv station would help (and no MSNBC is not even close). Something to compete with FOX news might give us a chance at breaking down the myths.

[EFerrari]

42. Discussion is not whining. That's how people generate ideas.

Remember ideas? Those things you consider instead of orders?

[Fire1]

26. Your last sentence says it all. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

27. k & r

[jgraz]

34. "marmots of moderation"

:spray:

[Starry Messenger]

35. The pig is poet!

:D

[kenny blankenship]

37. The whistle pigs of patient waiting.

Oh they can see far, those whistle pigs of patience. It's always a good time for burrowing they say. "Wait, wait, wait for a more auspicious occasion for action!", and meanwhile "Is the status quo really so terrible?"

[Greyhound]

60. +01

[MineralMan]

74. Hmm...we're adopting the avatar.

Thanks for creating it for us.

[jgraz]

84. OH NOES!!! Your latest transparent attempt to defuse criticism has caught us totally unawares!!

You do realize that if all y'all had just ignored the cartoon, the whole thing would have evaporated in about 48 hours.

Seriously, a modicum of self-reflection would save you guys from a lot of pointing and laughing. Think about it.

[MineralMan]

85. Hey, as my father said once:

"You might as well laugh at yourself. If you don't, others will do it for you."

I'll change my avatar back to Fat Freddy's Cat, just as soon as the laughing dies down, you know. For now, it's another statement. You can see my signature for my statement.

[MineralMan]

93. I have nothing against criticism, as long as it comes with

some sort of productive plan. Being called an asshole doesn't fit that description. That trick never works. Truly it doesn't.

[spoony]

107. It's the "you can't fire me, I quit, and also I'm proud of my bad breath" defense. nt

[MineralMan]

125. Uh, that makes no sense at all. English is an excellent language,

full of nuance and word choices. Say what you mean to say.

[LWolf]

39. It seems hard to have a clear,

active, productive discussion of the specifics involved in "shit or get off the pot" here at DU.

I think you are correct about organizing ourselves. I believe that there are plenty of us who would jump out of our chairs and leap away from our keyboards into the fray if there was a truly organized movement to be part of. Where do we find that, or where does that start?

There are small organizations who don't get much attention, there are larger organizations with a larger voice who work for small gains.

Where do we start?

[MineralMan]

53. How about doing the organizing, instead of waiting for others

to do it? There's the method. You organize a small group, then you merge with other groups to form a larger group, which merges with other large groups. If you wait for someone to present you with a full-formed organized movement, you'll wait a long time. It's not rocket science. Here in Minnesota, the DFL is a group. It's made up of precinct-level organizations, which caucus, then convene to endorse candidates. It's really simple.

You just need to start your own organization and get people to join it, then join larger organizations. Politics 101.

[LWolf]

56. In that model, each individual is not organizing their own group.

Some are organizing, some are joining, and groups are merging.

It's probably viable. In my case, I'm probably the joiner, not the organizer. Other than a few weeks during the summer, the hours I have to invest are very few and far between, which makes me more appropriate for the supporting role.

[MineralMan]

75. Everyone makes his or her choice.

I'm just saying that if nobody organizes it, it ain't happening.

[JoseGaspar]

105. Since you seem unaware of the irony of your own statements...

...let me help.

"Here in Minnesota, the DFL is a group."

The DFL did not exist until 1944. It came from a merger of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party with the Democrats.

The MFL itself dates back to the 1920s and was primarily a creation of the Socialist and Communist Parties. For most of its life, it was a statewide third party, electing three governors, four U.S. senators and eight Representatives. It was quite a powerhouse - until it purged its Left.

After that, it was a figure of speech.

[MineralMan]

126. 1944. That was before I was born.

I was born in 1945. Much has changed since then. Much.

[WonderGrunion]

104. President Obama gave you the answer to "Where do we start?"

You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who've been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine.

Yes they can.

We are the hope of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake with doubts that tell him he cannot give his children the same opportunities that someone gave him.

Yes he can.

We are the hope of the woman who hears that her city will not be rebuilt; that she cannot reclaim the life that was swept away in a terrible storm.

Yes she can.

We are the hope of the future; the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided; that we cannot come together; that we cannot remake this world as it should be.

Because we know what we have seen and what we believe - that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored; that will not be deterred; that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest - Yes. We. Can.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/05/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_46.php

[MineralMan]

127. Thank you for that. So many weren't listening, it seems.

[LWolf]

148. We start by refusing to vote for neoliberals.

By electing people who will fight for the change we believe in.

I've understood that all along. I think others are beginning to see it, too.

[Greyhound]

151. That's not an answer at all, that's a speech.

Where you start is wherever you are, start with talking, don't back down when the morans start spouting off, other people are there that think like you, but someone has to take the first hit.

[EFerrari]

43. Well, it seems to me that shutting up or carrying water

are not the only choices. And I wouldn't put down wheel spinning. Some of the best ideas come during moments of useless and repetitive activity.

:)

[blindpig]

149. I dunno...

it seems that Mr Gibbs agrees with me.

[EFerrari]

150. Yep. You were right!

:hi:

[Barack2theFuture]

48. My guts are grumbling...

[amborin]

61. "the continued trend to the right" sums it up k and r

[felix_numinous]

62. Exclusivity is a tool of extremism.

Linear 2 dimensional thinking, in terms of left and right, is a manipulation to create false choices. This false premise is created in order to demonize the disenfranchised, and in fact this is an extremist viewpoint masquerading as moderate. There I said it.

Don't tell people to 'shit or get off the pot' when the bathroom door is locked. :) could get kinda stinky.

[blindpig]

65. Neither extreme nor moderate.

Just reality.

The capitalist system of production is inequitable, unjust, an ecological nightmare. It bars no act, however heinous, in the pursuit of profits. It's gotta go.

[felix_numinous]

80. OK I read your post again

because I must have missed something.

I agree with you on policy, but disagree in that I believe Progressives need to actually be louder. We have to discuss what needs to be done before doing it. People without representation tend to be loud and often are angry, it is natural.

Yes, we all need to work together :)

[socialist_n_TN]

135. "It bars no act, however heinous, in the pursuit of profits"

No truer words were ever spoken. These capitalist apologists can't give one example of post USSR capitalism that can refute this statement.

[L0oniX]

68. sensible centrists = oxymoron ...incoming ...dive dive dive

:hide:

:sarcasm:

[chowder66]

78. Seems to me that the right keeps gaining traction

because they have consistantly been in power. Their "loyal base" has handed them that power and given them the ability to keep building on their twisted agenda and it will keep getting even more twisted and deranged. They don't have to come in and clean anything up after the left has been in power and then...... start working on their goals. We are always at a disadvantage; therefore we need to work harder at keeping the left/dems in power so we can a) gain traction b) start pushing through our agenda and like the right keep moving forward so we can trend further left as they have ...further right.

I hate to think that the republicans will get back in power with another headstart that we have given them. It's always ready to go for the Repubs and never the other way around.

We need traction, we need to keep the power for longer periods to build on our platforms.

[MineralMan]

86. Exactly. We have to stop the Republicans as the first step.

Unless we can do that, the next step won't happen. Politics is a slow process. Expecting fast, dramatic results almost always leads to disappointment.

[chowder66]

92. I'm in full agreement

I have been thinking about the "fear" campaign that the repubs run but I feel that the dems, at times, run a "disappointment" campaign ---to use your word. If I were an independent neither would sound too appealing. I fully endorse constructive criticism but I think a lot of the time the constructive part gets left out. I have always felt that if there is criticism to be made then a solution should be offered when possible. If someone doesn't have a solution then input may need to be solicited. One thing I believe that needs to be kept in mind is that the solutions aren't always or even ever just the opposite of the problem. The solutions really should be formed in respect to the realistic constraints or parameters that exist in the first place.

[bvar22]

129. Stopping Republicans by BECOMING Republicans...

is neither Sensible, nor Pragmatic.

[MilesColtrane]

82. I get it now.

You are not trying to steer the Democratic party to the left, you are trying to peel off its left wing and poach its members.

It's straight out of this playbook:

http://www.cpusa.org/party-program/#4b

[MineralMan]

87. I think you have it.

It's not likely to work, though. It's that voting thing we have here. Folks go to the polls and decide for themselves. So far, they haven't decided that they want a big shift to the left. It's up to us to convince them, and that's not going to happen between now and November. So, for now, we've got to hold onto our majority positions. If we lose that battle, the war is lost for another decade, at least.

[blindpig]

88. Did ya know.....

that the CPUSA endorsed Obama in '08? With some caveats to be sure but nonetheless.

Nope, not those guys.

[LoZoccolo]

89. Not /those/ guys?

Which guys?

[MilesColtrane]

91. Yes, forming coalitions with like minded Democrats is part of their transitional phase...

until they can win enough hearts and minds to attain political dominance.

To them, and to you, I say, good luck with all that.

[JoseGaspar]

96. You missed, McCarthy...

I actually went down your link (I hadn't seen a CP program in decades). There is no "Peeling Off" in there. You made it up. Reproduce it if you like. Most of it is very modest stuff, which sounds more like the "sensible wing" of DU.

You guys have got to cut out the vultures/carrion act... it is unseemly.

[Radical Activist]

119. Yes, and that's why nothing Obama does will ever be good enough.

Belittling every accomplishment is part of the strategy, no matter how many people benefit from Obama's actions.

[bvar22]

90. I'm NOT "Anti-Capitalist".

I am working for a return to the balanced, regulated system we had in the 50s-60s that produced the largest and healthiest Middle Class/Working Class the World has ever seen.

Unrestrained Capital will always be able to outrun Human Rights, Labor Rights, and Environmental Protections.
In a healthy system, our government protects these basic rights by placing restraints on Capital.

Our system became corrupt when our government abandoned The People, and began protecting the "rights" of Corporations. THAT is OBSCENE.

The latest & Greatest betrayal of The People was the passing of Health Insurance Reform where the "Democratic" Party MANDATED profits for a parasitic corporation that manufactures NOTHING and produces NO value added WEALTH.
THAT is NOT Capitalism.
That is corruption.

[blindpig]

94. Then you are spinning your wheels.

Capital will not be restrained, is that not apparent? Mebbe for a moment when the heat is on, then they're right back at it. The demand for increased profits is systemic, it can do nothing else.'Restrained Capitalism' is virtually an oxymoron.

[Silent3]

98. It's the urge for personal power and personal wealth...

...that is difficult to restrain. ALL human systems of government and commerce can and will be perverted by people seeking personal gain at the expense of others.

If you imagine a world where capitalism has been banned and all of a sudden we're locked into peace and justice and prosperity for all, you're dreaming.

If you understand that constant vigilance is required to keep ANY system of government and commerce working for the majority of the people, what proof have you that capitalism is any worse when it comes to the effort required to restrain it than any other systems that have been tried in human history?

[blindpig]

99. The system endores and rewards such behavior.

Were that not the case such behavior would be easily dealt with within the normal workings of society.

Nothing happens 'all of a sudden', lots of work in the transition is to be assumed.

When has any system of commerce worked for the majority? The purpose is to end profit, to produce for use and need.

As for the proof, just look around, people and planet have never been so fucked.

[Silent3]

109. Time and technology progress...

...and much damage has been cumulative, so saying the "planet (has) never been so fucked" proves nothing. You have no parallel planet under a different systems to compare to.

Comparing between countries since we can't compare between planets, environmental record under different regimes is a very mixed bag. And whether the fruits of ambition get recorded on an accountant's ledger under "profit" or not, the corrupt and powerful under many forms of government find their ways to acquire more wealth and material comfort and better medical care than the common people.

Capitalism is at least honest about the fact that material gain is what many people want, what drives many people to pursue their dreams. I see no signs that other forms of government or economic organization change this very much, that they effectively propagandize people into ideal selfless saints all working for the Greater Good. All that happens is either a lot of people try to drift by doing as little as they can get away with (an old saying in East Germany was, "We pretend to work. They pretend to pay us."), or the ambitious people work hard to exploit positions of power and influence as best they can.

Even when people aren't out for personal gain, non-monetary metrics of success (promising electrical power for all people, eradication of a disease, production of a certain number of tractors) can lead people to cut corners, ignore danger signs and inconvenient information, and produce ecological disasters.

[bvar22]

120. Then I'm not sure WHAT you are arguing for.

Do you want to ban ALL Private Enterprise?
Would you make it illegal for me to sell my eggs to one neighbor at enough of a profit to be able to buy milk from my other neighbor?
THAT is "Capitalism".

Can you point to a time when your approach was successful?

I can point to an era when blended, restrained Capitalism was very successful.
Both here during the 50s - early 70s,
and in Europe with their blended form of Democratic Socialism.

I also believe that you overstate your case that The Left is against Capitalism.
I believe that you will find most of us are against unrestrained/unregulated Monopoly Capitalism,
but DO favor a health blend.

[Silent3]

122. But, but, but....

...when capitalism has caused wrong, it's because capitalism is inherently bad! And when regulation of capitalism breaks down, no matter how sustained a period of improved living it produces even for the common people, that proves it will always inevitably break down and can't ever be fixed well enough to not be evil, evil, EVIL!!!!

Whereas with socialism and communism... they've only ever gone wrong because of capitalism causing them to go wrong! :) :sarcasm: :)

[blindpig]

137. No, that's not Capitalism, that's trade...

which precedes capitalism by millenia. The two are not interchangeable, though supporters of Capitalism would have it so. Capitalism is a system of production where the owner class controls the means of production, factories, farm land, etc, employs workers at the barest wages possible and retains the difference between wages and sale price for themselves. That is theft.

It is not the individual working for themselves nor the mom&pop business where the owner is a worker which is the target but the large proprietor who profits mightily but works not. Not only are they thieves but with their great wealth they control society for their own benefit in a thousand ways, from buying politicians to influencing society thru media control.

As for the period 1950-1970 please see my post #118. As for Europe, damn near every country there is rolling back social support just like this country. The weakest get hit first, Greece, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland. Consider the draconian rollbacks in Britain. It's a worldwide class war.

Self proclaimed leftists may say what they wish but the Left agenda will never be achieved as long as capitalism exists.

[Greyhound]

155. If I can butt in here, you make a good point but offer no solutions.

If it is a global war, those that control capital vs. everybody else, then how is it to be replaced except through some global cooperation which makes the dominance of capital possible?

[blindpig]

158. Why should global cooperation be the preserve of Capital?

Anything they can do we can do better, after all, we do all the work anyway.

[Greyhound]

159. I don't disagree, how can it be done? n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

132. So who's going to "balance and regulate" capitalism?

The capitalists? Whether they be Dems or Republicans, I don't see the capitalists regulating and balancing themselves. They've had the chance over the last 30 years and you see what we get.

The only way to balance and regulate capitalism is with a hard left that's doesn't have scales on their eyes ABOUT capitalism. Neither capitalists nor capitalist apologists will regulate this system. The ONLY way to regulate and balance capitalism is to put your foot on it's throat and press until it can barely breathe. When it's in fear of it's life, THEN it'll agree to regulation. Otherwise, it won't. That's just the nature of the beast.

[maryf]

95. K&R!!

great piece! thanks!!

[inna]

97. K&R

[mikita]

103. k & r for truth.

[TBF]

111. Recommended. nt

[Radical Activist]

112. Actually, most liberals and progressives are happy with Obama.

Most liberals aren't gullible enough to believe every false alarm about Obama betraying them. Most understand that Obama is making progress and is pushing for more. Most have the perspective to be disappointed in compromises but still see the value in what's being done. Most understand that it makes no sense to blame Obama for the conservative obstructionists in the US Senate.

Progressives who listened during the campaign knew that it wasn't going to be easy and heard Obama say that he wasn't going to hand down change on a silver platter. Some of us heard his call for a popular movement to help. It's only a noisy minority of the netroots who prefer to stew in their miserable cynicism.

In all the years that Greens and others on the left have tried to spread cynicism about Democrats it has never been an effective argument for getting people to take action in other ways. It's only effective at making people feel discouraged until they give up.

[blindpig]

115. Did I say 'liberals or progressives'?

Nope, I said 'leftists'. The Left, by most any non-American definition, is opposed to Capitalism, and that is who I am addressing. If you are in favor of or tolerant of capitalism then you aren't left.

You see progress? Privatization is reactionary and regressive, and that seems to be a major theme of this administration.

Good of you to abandon the Che avatar, given your politics it stank of hypocrisy.

[Radical Activist]

117. Yes, you did.

You wrote: "That portion of the electorate which identifies itself as 'leftist' or 'progressive' is not happy with the Obama administration"

I understand that you would like to define "left" as only including your little club of special people more enlightened than everyone else. But when you talk to other people you'll have to accept that not everyone accepts your definitions from the land of make believe. If you mean Marxist then write Marxist.

Che understood why a Cuban-style revolution wasn't going to happen in the US. Do you?

[blindpig]

139. Well yeah...

I stand corrected.

Not from the land of make believe but rather from history. It is not a matter of what I or others might want, it is a matter of what works. We are living the failure of regulated capitalism, Mid East wars, Katrina, Detroit, East St Louis, the Gulf spill, and on and on. This is what happens, it is our recent history. Parties matter little, someone will always be found to implement the core capitalist program, it is the job of capitalist managers to make it so, it is but due diligence to do so. Which is to say our problem is systemic and cannot be dealt with on any other terms.

Che may have been correct about America at that time, post-McCarthy and in the midst of the show-piece capitalism of a bi-polar world. Things are very different now.

[sendero]

113. "Capitalism"...

... does not imply shifting every law and rule to the favor of business. In the 50s and 60s we got along fine without doing that.

"Capitalism" does not imply allowing banks to take government backstoped funds and GAMBLE with them in a heads-I-win tail-the-taxpayer-lose fashion.

"Capitalism" is not a system where a handful of businesses can WRECK THE ENTIRE ECONOMY and then be rewarded with bailouts.

We don't have capitalism here, and you should know that.

[blindpig]

118. Capitalism allows all those things.

In fact it trends towards exactly that, which is how we got here.

Your fancy of Capitalism is a anomaly of history, a time when Capital was in real world completion with Socialism, had to keep up appearances. And while things were tolerable for most, but certainly not all, folks Capital was still grinding up the Earth, fomenting war and robbing the poor of the South blind. I don't think it a coincidence that Capital began to really show it's teeth the moment that the Soviet Union fell.

[sendero]

123. I categorically..

... reject your assertion.

[socialist_n_TN]

133. If you reject this assertion, then why have we

seen the WORST elements of capitalism showing up in our society since the fall of the USSR? It's NOT a coincidence. As the other poster said, when capitalism had competition from another system it HAD to show it's most humanistic face. Without competition, this is what capitalism IS.

[Orsino]

138. Failing to regulate *anything* leads to abuses.

That doesn't make every human a murderer.

We can use capitalism for growth without worshiping it as a god.

[blindpig]

140. To whose benefit?

Capital cannot help but rob the poor. Capitalists and their enablers might do well, not so much for the rest. Do we not see that as we speak? Regulated capitalism is unrestrained capitalism waiting to happen.

[Orsino]

141. One might as well say, then...

...that any economic system is unrestrained capitalism waiting to happen.

Yet when regulated, capitalism is capable of lifting many or most boats. A solid social safety net can keep the rest afloat; it is not necessary to leap from unrestrained capitalism to pure communism.

[TBF]

142. Morning kick. nt

:kick:

[maryf]

143. Thanks for this again...

your posts are so clear and conclusive to me that capitalism has to be ended ASAP, life cannot be sustained at this profit based rate... :yourock:

[bigtree]

145. if all manage to divide equally between left and right

How does our party manage to attract the 'swing' votes needed to make the difference in close races? In recent elections, much attention has been given by our party leadership in courting rightist votes while dismissing or downplaying the concerns of our left of center voters.

[JoseGaspar]

146. How did you get Robert Gibbs to support your thread, Mr. Pig?

"shut up and carry that water or do something completely different"...

That's what I heard.

In truth, the identification of the Left with the Democratic Party is anti-historical. It happened twice: once with FDR, and once AFTER the Civil Rights and the anti-War movements. Wilson put us in prison. So did Truman.

Looks like history repeats itself, "the second time as farce".

[blindpig]

147. Wasn't that a boot in the ass?

I do appreciate the official clarification.

[BzaDem]

152. I think the problem for you is that the country is avowedly capitalist

at least as far as our economic system is concerned. (Sure, many people favor heavy regulation of such capitalism, but heavy-regulated capitalism is still capitalism.)

Every capitalist country (and by that I mean most countries) have small groups of people that do not like the country's economic system. This is nothing new.

[blindpig]

156. Is it that obvious?

;-)

What I don't get is people who don't like what capitalism does but still support it.