Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Why liberals need radicals
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 10:45:19 AM5/25/13
to
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9
The Nation has an interesting cover story this week by a young radical
named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a founder of
Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for more
fundamental change:
At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every key
liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
One might add that the very existence of a worldwide socialist movement
through much of the Twentieth Century deeply alarmed U.S. and other
Western elites who embraced liberal welfare policies as a way to take the
wind out of radical sails and "manage the poor." Norman Thomas received
nearly a million votes when he ran for president in 1932. At the same
time, he and other advocates of socialism could point to the industrial
successes of the Soviet Union as a plausible alernative to capitalism.
Overall, a vibrant radicalism made liberalism seem inherently more
moderate -- the lesser of two evils on the left.
The demise of socialism globally and of American radicalism meant that
liberals came to represent the far left end of the political spectrum,
and helps explain the rightward shift in American politics over the past
20 years.
Without radicals pushing deeper and bolder critiques—as Occupy Wall
Street did—liberalism will struggle to achieve real change and easily
devolve into a technocratic project, which is pretty much where it is
today, as Sunkara suggests.
Less clear, though, is just how far radicalism can get in America given
this country's deeply embedded political culture. Richard Hofstadter
famously said that "It has been our fate as a nation not to have
ideologies but to be one." Seymour Martin Lipset once summed up that
ideology with five words: "antistatism, laissez-faire, individualism,
populism, and egalitarianism."
To be sure, that's a pretty conservative read of American political
culture, but there is no question that class consciousness has always
been very weak in America. In her extensive work on the American Dream,
Jennifer Hochschild has shown how strongly Americans tend to embrace the
idea that their fates are decided largely by their own individual effort
as opposed to structural factors. When Americans fail or suffer
economically they tend to blame themselves as opposed to blaming
capitalism. The American Dream, Hochschild argues, is the dominant
ideology in the United States and effectively creates a false
consciousness that limits radicalism's reach here.
It is worth noting, also, that unlike nearly every other industrialized
country, the United States didn't come into the modern age following
hundreds of years of feudalism—which in Europe laid the basis for strong
class consciousness and an us-versus-them political culture.
Yes, the socialist movement and radicalism once did have a lot of sway in
the United States. But consider the circumstances of a century ago: A
huge influx of European immigrants brought with them a strong class
consciousness that helped greatly boost the indigenous U.S. labor
movement. For instance, one of the most prominent radicals of the era,
Emma Goldman, was Russian-born. Many of the leading Marxist intellectuals
were Jewish children of European immigrants.
The American left remained strong into the mid-20th century amid historic
conditions that were quite unique: the huge crises of the Great
Depression and World War II, along with the apparent success of socialist
experiments abroad. In turn, the radicalism of the 1960s reached a zenith
amid some of the greatest internal conflict in America since the Civil
War and the least popular foreign intervention in U.S. history.
Things may be pretty bad today, but the turbulence of the current era is
nothing compared to the past. And absent far greater economic suffering
or deeper instability, it's hard to see how a radical movement will
overcome the American Dream ethos enough to gain anything like the power
it had in previous eras. Depressingly, the financial crisis and Great
Recession produced a far more powerful social movement on the right than
the left.
Bhaskar Sunkara doesn't offer a plausible road to a radical revival, at
least in this article. For example, he points to the Chicago Teacher's
Union strike as a hopeful example and says that public sector labor
unions will be crucial to future battles against austerity to preserve
social goods.
In my mind, though, the centrality of public sector unions in progressive
politics illustrates the problem the left faces, not the solution. Yes,
these unions are important allies in various battles, but their
overriding goal is—and should be—to advance the interests of their
members, particularly job and pension security. As many commentators have
noted, a core weakness of the left is that it has been more a collection
of self-interested constituencies than a powerful social movement.
As for Sunkara's other ideas—such as centralizing more welfare functions
at the federal level or defending Social Security or attacking student
debt—that all sounds like the stuff we at Demos do every day.
What I want to see from thinkers like Sunkara is first, an articulation
of a radical politics that is truly indigenous to American political
culture and leverages core American values, such as individualism and
antistatism, to its advantage—rather than running up against them as the
left so often has. And second, some truly out-of-box big radical ideas
that seriously challenge how liberals think about economics, culture, and
politics.
Maybe all that will be in Sunkara's next Nation cover story.
© 2013 Demos
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
The Nation has an interesting cover story this week by a young radical
named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a founder of
Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for more
fundamental change:
At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every key
liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
One might add that the very existence of a worldwide socialist movement
through much of the Twentieth Century deeply alarmed U.S. and other
Western elites who embraced liberal welfare policies as a way to take the
wind out of radical sails and "manage the poor." Norman Thomas received
nearly a million votes when he ran for president in 1932. At the same
time, he and other advocates of socialism could point to the industrial
successes of the Soviet Union as a plausible alernative to capitalism.
Overall, a vibrant radicalism made liberalism seem inherently more
moderate -- the lesser of two evils on the left.
The demise of socialism globally and of American radicalism meant that
liberals came to represent the far left end of the political spectrum,
and helps explain the rightward shift in American politics over the past
20 years.
Without radicals pushing deeper and bolder critiques—as Occupy Wall
Street did—liberalism will struggle to achieve real change and easily
devolve into a technocratic project, which is pretty much where it is
today, as Sunkara suggests.
Less clear, though, is just how far radicalism can get in America given
this country's deeply embedded political culture. Richard Hofstadter
famously said that "It has been our fate as a nation not to have
ideologies but to be one." Seymour Martin Lipset once summed up that
ideology with five words: "antistatism, laissez-faire, individualism,
populism, and egalitarianism."
To be sure, that's a pretty conservative read of American political
culture, but there is no question that class consciousness has always
been very weak in America. In her extensive work on the American Dream,
Jennifer Hochschild has shown how strongly Americans tend to embrace the
idea that their fates are decided largely by their own individual effort
as opposed to structural factors. When Americans fail or suffer
economically they tend to blame themselves as opposed to blaming
capitalism. The American Dream, Hochschild argues, is the dominant
ideology in the United States and effectively creates a false
consciousness that limits radicalism's reach here.
It is worth noting, also, that unlike nearly every other industrialized
country, the United States didn't come into the modern age following
hundreds of years of feudalism—which in Europe laid the basis for strong
class consciousness and an us-versus-them political culture.
Yes, the socialist movement and radicalism once did have a lot of sway in
the United States. But consider the circumstances of a century ago: A
huge influx of European immigrants brought with them a strong class
consciousness that helped greatly boost the indigenous U.S. labor
movement. For instance, one of the most prominent radicals of the era,
Emma Goldman, was Russian-born. Many of the leading Marxist intellectuals
were Jewish children of European immigrants.
The American left remained strong into the mid-20th century amid historic
conditions that were quite unique: the huge crises of the Great
Depression and World War II, along with the apparent success of socialist
experiments abroad. In turn, the radicalism of the 1960s reached a zenith
amid some of the greatest internal conflict in America since the Civil
War and the least popular foreign intervention in U.S. history.
Things may be pretty bad today, but the turbulence of the current era is
nothing compared to the past. And absent far greater economic suffering
or deeper instability, it's hard to see how a radical movement will
overcome the American Dream ethos enough to gain anything like the power
it had in previous eras. Depressingly, the financial crisis and Great
Recession produced a far more powerful social movement on the right than
the left.
Bhaskar Sunkara doesn't offer a plausible road to a radical revival, at
least in this article. For example, he points to the Chicago Teacher's
Union strike as a hopeful example and says that public sector labor
unions will be crucial to future battles against austerity to preserve
social goods.
In my mind, though, the centrality of public sector unions in progressive
politics illustrates the problem the left faces, not the solution. Yes,
these unions are important allies in various battles, but their
overriding goal is—and should be—to advance the interests of their
members, particularly job and pension security. As many commentators have
noted, a core weakness of the left is that it has been more a collection
of self-interested constituencies than a powerful social movement.
As for Sunkara's other ideas—such as centralizing more welfare functions
at the federal level or defending Social Security or attacking student
debt—that all sounds like the stuff we at Demos do every day.
What I want to see from thinkers like Sunkara is first, an articulation
of a radical politics that is truly indigenous to American political
culture and leverages core American values, such as individualism and
antistatism, to its advantage—rather than running up against them as the
left so often has. And second, some truly out-of-box big radical ideas
that seriously challenge how liberals think about economics, culture, and
politics.
Maybe all that will be in Sunkara's next Nation cover story.
© 2013 Demos
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Message has been deleted
Steve
May 25, 2013, 1:32:22 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9
>
>The
<LOL> @ Leftist propaganda
>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9
>
>The
<LOL> @ Leftist propaganda
good progressive
May 25, 2013, 1:59:16 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:45:19 +0000, Zepp wrote:
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9
>
> The Nation has an interesting cover story this week by a young radical
> named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a founder of
> Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
>
> Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
> liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for
> more fundamental change:
>
> At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
> victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every
> key liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
> beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
>
<snip>
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9
>
> The Nation has an interesting cover story this week by a young radical
> named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a founder of
> Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
>
> Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
> liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for
> more fundamental change:
>
> At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
> victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every
> key liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
> beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
>
My own feeling is that without us radicals (and yes, I do consider
myself one..) the Demonrat Party wouldn't have proper access to what
reporters are planning and talking about amongst themselves; we
wouldn't be able to suppress the Tea Party types so well; dead people
would be disenfranchised voters..
I personally am proud of the work we do..
--
Progress!
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 2:29:11 PM5/25/13
to
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 2:30:59 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:21:51 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp (a crazy radical) posted:
>>
>> The Nation (rag) has an interesting cover story this week by a young
>
> =======================================
> Joseph Stalin or Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was the de facto leader of
> the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953.
>
> One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was
> the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His
> regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions.
>
> He studied at a theological seminary where he began to read Marxist
> literature. He never graduated, instead devoting his time to the
> revolutionary movement against the Russian monarchy. He spent the next
> 15 years as an activist and on a number of occasions was arrested and
> exiled to Siberia.
>
> His forced collectivisation of agriculture cost millions of lives, while
> his program of rapid industrialisation achieved huge increases in Soviet
> productivity and economic growth but at great cost. Moreover, the
> population suffered immensely during the Great Terror of the 1930s,
> during which Stalin purged the party of 'enemies of the people',
> resulting in the execution of thousands and the exile of millions to the
> Gulag system of slave labor camps. These purges severely depleted the
> Red Army, and despite repeated warnings, Stalin was ill prepared for
> Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941.
>
> Increasingly paranoid, Stalin died of a stroke on 5 March 1953.
>
> =======================================
> =======================================
>
> Mao Tse-tung instituted sweeping land reform, sometimes through
> persuasion and other times through coercion, using violence and terror
> when he deemed it necessary. Mao received a harsh rebuke and was shaken
> by the intense rejection by the urban intelligentsia. Fearing a loss of
> control, he ruthlessly crushed any further dissent. Hundreds of
> thousands of Chinese were labeled "rightists," and thousands were
> imprisoned.
>
> In January 1958, Mao Tse-tung launched the "Great Leap Forward,"
> attempting to increase agricultural and industrial production. The
> program established large agricultural communes with as many as 75,000
> people working the fields. Each family received a share of the profits
> and a small plot of land. Mao had set idealistic, some would say
> improbable, expectations for both agriculture and industrial production,
> believing the country could make a century's worth of advancement in a
> few decades.
>
> At first, reports were promising, with accounts of overwhelming
> advancement. However, three years of floods and bad harvests told a
> different story. Agricultural production had not come close to
> expectations, and reports of massive steel production proved to be
> false. Within a year, an appalling famine set in and entire villages
> died of starvation. In the worst manmade famine in human history, an
> estimated 40 million people died of hunger between 1959 and 1961. It
> became clear that Mao knew how to organize a revolution, but was totally
> inept at running a country. The scale of the disaster was hidden from
> the nation and the world. Only high-level Communist Party leaders knew,
> and Mao's protective inner circle kept many of the famine's details from
> him.
>
> Mao had been in poor health for several years and had declined visibly
> for at least six months prior to his death. There are unconfirmed
> reports that he possibly had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Mao's last
> public appearance was on May 27, 1976, where he met the visiting
> Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto during the latter's one-day
> visit to Beijing.
>
> At around 5:00 pm on September 2, 1976, Mao suffered a heart attack, far
> more severe than his previous two and affecting a much larger area of
> his heart. X-rays indicated that his current lung infection had
> worsened. Three days later, on September 5, Mao's condition was
> critical, and Hua Guofeng called his wife, Jiang Qing, back from her
> trip. She visited him before returning to her own residence in the
> Spring Lotus Chamber.
> He was taken off life support and was pronounced dead at 12:10 am on
> September 9, 1976.
>
> =======================================
>
> Both Stalin & Mao suffered very painful deaths.
>
> I say GOOD FOR THEM.
My goodness. It doesn't take much to reduce you to a paranoid, foaming,
red-baiting rage, does it?
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp (a crazy radical) posted:
>>
>> The Nation (rag) has an interesting cover story this week by a young
>> radical named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a
>> founder of Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
>
> (Marxism worked out so well for Russia, don't you know.)
>> founder of Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
>
>
>> Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
>> liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for
>> more fundamental change:
>>
>> At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
>> victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every
>> key liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
>> beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
>>
>> One might add that the very existence of a worldwide socialist movement
>> through much of the Twentieth Century deeply alarmed U.S. and other
>> Western elites who embraced liberal welfare policies as a way to take
>> the wind out of radical sails and "manage the poor." Norman Thomas
>> received nearly a million votes when he ran for president in 1932. At
>> the same time, he and other advocates of socialism could point to the
>> industrial successes of the Soviet Union as a plausible alernative to
>> capitalism. Overall, a vibrant radicalism made liberalism seem
>> inherently more moderate -- the lesser of two evils on the left.
>
> <*More Revionist Historical Bullshit Snipped (by Stalin & Mao)*>
>> Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this:
>> liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for
>> more fundamental change:
>>
>> At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal
>> victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every
>> key liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually
>> beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
>>
>> One might add that the very existence of a worldwide socialist movement
>> through much of the Twentieth Century deeply alarmed U.S. and other
>> Western elites who embraced liberal welfare policies as a way to take
>> the wind out of radical sails and "manage the poor." Norman Thomas
>> received nearly a million votes when he ran for president in 1932. At
>> the same time, he and other advocates of socialism could point to the
>> industrial successes of the Soviet Union as a plausible alernative to
>> capitalism. Overall, a vibrant radicalism made liberalism seem
>> inherently more moderate -- the lesser of two evils on the left.
>
>
> =======================================
> Joseph Stalin or Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was the de facto leader of
> the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953.
>
> One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was
> the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His
> regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions.
>
> He studied at a theological seminary where he began to read Marxist
> literature. He never graduated, instead devoting his time to the
> revolutionary movement against the Russian monarchy. He spent the next
> 15 years as an activist and on a number of occasions was arrested and
> exiled to Siberia.
>
> His forced collectivisation of agriculture cost millions of lives, while
> his program of rapid industrialisation achieved huge increases in Soviet
> productivity and economic growth but at great cost. Moreover, the
> population suffered immensely during the Great Terror of the 1930s,
> during which Stalin purged the party of 'enemies of the people',
> resulting in the execution of thousands and the exile of millions to the
> Gulag system of slave labor camps. These purges severely depleted the
> Red Army, and despite repeated warnings, Stalin was ill prepared for
> Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941.
>
> Increasingly paranoid, Stalin died of a stroke on 5 March 1953.
>
> =======================================
> =======================================
>
> Mao Tse-tung instituted sweeping land reform, sometimes through
> persuasion and other times through coercion, using violence and terror
> when he deemed it necessary. Mao received a harsh rebuke and was shaken
> by the intense rejection by the urban intelligentsia. Fearing a loss of
> control, he ruthlessly crushed any further dissent. Hundreds of
> thousands of Chinese were labeled "rightists," and thousands were
> imprisoned.
>
> In January 1958, Mao Tse-tung launched the "Great Leap Forward,"
> attempting to increase agricultural and industrial production. The
> program established large agricultural communes with as many as 75,000
> people working the fields. Each family received a share of the profits
> and a small plot of land. Mao had set idealistic, some would say
> improbable, expectations for both agriculture and industrial production,
> believing the country could make a century's worth of advancement in a
> few decades.
>
> At first, reports were promising, with accounts of overwhelming
> advancement. However, three years of floods and bad harvests told a
> different story. Agricultural production had not come close to
> expectations, and reports of massive steel production proved to be
> false. Within a year, an appalling famine set in and entire villages
> died of starvation. In the worst manmade famine in human history, an
> estimated 40 million people died of hunger between 1959 and 1961. It
> became clear that Mao knew how to organize a revolution, but was totally
> inept at running a country. The scale of the disaster was hidden from
> the nation and the world. Only high-level Communist Party leaders knew,
> and Mao's protective inner circle kept many of the famine's details from
> him.
>
> Mao had been in poor health for several years and had declined visibly
> for at least six months prior to his death. There are unconfirmed
> reports that he possibly had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Mao's last
> public appearance was on May 27, 1976, where he met the visiting
> Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto during the latter's one-day
> visit to Beijing.
>
> At around 5:00 pm on September 2, 1976, Mao suffered a heart attack, far
> more severe than his previous two and affecting a much larger area of
> his heart. X-rays indicated that his current lung infection had
> worsened. Three days later, on September 5, Mao's condition was
> critical, and Hua Guofeng called his wife, Jiang Qing, back from her
> trip. She visited him before returning to her own residence in the
> Spring Lotus Chamber.
> He was taken off life support and was pronounced dead at 12:10 am on
> September 9, 1976.
>
> =======================================
>
> Both Stalin & Mao suffered very painful deaths.
>
> I say GOOD FOR THEM.
My goodness. It doesn't take much to reduce you to a paranoid, foaming,
red-baiting rage, does it?
Message has been deleted
Steve
May 25, 2013, 3:42:10 PM5/25/13
to
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 3:46:48 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:06:04 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> Is there anything (of a factual nature) that I re-posted about Mao or
> Stalin that IS NOT TRUE? Put up or shup up, David.
It's true. It just has nothing at all to do with the topic. Neither Mao
nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists, either. But even
mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage, and you begin barking
about Mao and Stalin.
>
> _______________________
> "Paranoid" - this is too funny. There is no chance (not a snowball's
> chance in Hell) that an amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster's
> mentality (like Mao or Stalin) would ever be elected dog-catcher in
> America, much less mayor or governor or POTUS.
>
And yet here you are, screaming your head off in fear over the notion
that a leftist movement can even be mentioned. I mention 'socialism' and
I think of France, or Sweden, or Canada's NDP party. You immediately
jump under the skirts of...Stalin and Mao. I'm surprised you didn't
mention Hitler, since right wing morons like you usually like to pretend
he was a leftist.
> _______________________
> "Foaming" - equally funny. Is the following NOT TRUE?
Foam away, bubbles!
>
> "Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power
> including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard
> for the sanctity of human life. In February 1989, two years before the
> fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy
> Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i
> Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s
> rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20
> million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World
> War), for a total tally of 40 million."
>
> Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy Western
> radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only when he was
> brutal, like Hitler).
Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
mindlessly stupid!
>
> ________________________
> "Red-baiting" - this is also funny, as it is very sick. There is nothing
> (not one thing) left to "bait" regarding "red". You monsters lost. The
> only thing fools like you, David, need to jump to is "radical" Islam
> extremism. And you have dove head-first into this latest madness.
>
> _______________________
> "Rage" - I ain't madatcha, dumbass. We won, you lost. Live with the pain
> that's in your brain.
> _______________________
>
> This is you, David - a crazy radical, who is not too smart. Thank God
> for America.
> Stalin that IS NOT TRUE? Put up or shup up, David.
It's true. It just has nothing at all to do with the topic. Neither Mao
nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists, either. But even
mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage, and you begin barking
about Mao and Stalin.
>
> _______________________
> "Paranoid" - this is too funny. There is no chance (not a snowball's
> chance in Hell) that an amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster's
> mentality (like Mao or Stalin) would ever be elected dog-catcher in
> America, much less mayor or governor or POTUS.
>
And yet here you are, screaming your head off in fear over the notion
that a leftist movement can even be mentioned. I mention 'socialism' and
I think of France, or Sweden, or Canada's NDP party. You immediately
jump under the skirts of...Stalin and Mao. I'm surprised you didn't
mention Hitler, since right wing morons like you usually like to pretend
he was a leftist.
> _______________________
> "Foaming" - equally funny. Is the following NOT TRUE?
Foam away, bubbles!
>
> "Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power
> including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard
> for the sanctity of human life. In February 1989, two years before the
> fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy
> Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i
> Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s
> rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20
> million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World
> War), for a total tally of 40 million."
>
> Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy Western
> radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only when he was
> brutal, like Hitler).
Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
mindlessly stupid!
>
> ________________________
> "Red-baiting" - this is also funny, as it is very sick. There is nothing
> (not one thing) left to "bait" regarding "red". You monsters lost. The
> only thing fools like you, David, need to jump to is "radical" Islam
> extremism. And you have dove head-first into this latest madness.
>
> _______________________
> "Rage" - I ain't madatcha, dumbass. We won, you lost. Live with the pain
> that's in your brain.
> _______________________
>
> This is you, David - a crazy radical, who is not too smart. Thank God
> for America.
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 8:03:43 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:11:53 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp (a crazy radical) continues to lie:
> Are you saying that neither Mao nor Stalin was a Marxist "radical",
> David?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Neither of them were Marxists. As for
'radical' that's pretty fluid. I would say you were a radical.
>
> Are you so lost, so deranged in your damaged mind that you don't even
> understand your own pathology? Mao & Stalin are your "gods". Don't you
> know that?
>
> Mao - in China - WAS a radical.
> Stalin - in Russia - WAS a radical.
Jesus was a radical. Gandhi was a radical. Tom Paine was a radical.
>
> That was the topic, moron.
> That IS my approach. Yours obviously are "delusions".
This from a clown who has absolutely no idea what Marx stood for, has
absolutely no idea what 'socialism' might be (it covers a range of
definitions, including the demented American right wing one which
considers insurance and volunteer fire departments to be socialism).
>
> "Communism and Socialism are political and economic systems developed
> from the theories of Marxism".
Sounds like Ann Coulter 101. Where did you get that one: Townhall.com?
>
> Uhhh... China - "The Peoples Republic of China". - MARXIST Uhhh...
> Russia - "The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics". - MARXIST
No, Socialist isn't Marxist. Go read Marx for details. You should at
least know what Marxism is before you rave about it, and maybe, just
maybe, you'll look a bit less foolish.
>
> You're either mentally deranged, David - or a pathological liar - or
> both. I say you're both.
> (by another moron) and posted FACTS regarding "radicals". I know it
> hurts your brain to associate yourself with two of the biggest murderers
> in history. Such is your fate.
> Nazi = "National Socialist German Workers' Party,"
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazi
Ah, yes, you're one of THOSE idiots.
So you must be one of Saddam's running dogs, because he was head of the
REPUBLICAN Army.
>
> Did I see "Socialist" in that definition? Of course I did.
>
> Time for your medication(s), David. Make sure the water is cold.
> David (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) Zepp (a crazy radical) continues to lie:
> David?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Neither of them were Marxists. As for
'radical' that's pretty fluid. I would say you were a radical.
>
> Are you so lost, so deranged in your damaged mind that you don't even
> understand your own pathology? Mao & Stalin are your "gods". Don't you
> know that?
>
> Mao - in China - WAS a radical.
> Stalin - in Russia - WAS a radical.
Jesus was a radical. Gandhi was a radical. Tom Paine was a radical.
>
> That was the topic, moron.
> That IS my approach. Yours obviously are "delusions".
This from a clown who has absolutely no idea what Marx stood for, has
absolutely no idea what 'socialism' might be (it covers a range of
definitions, including the demented American right wing one which
considers insurance and volunteer fire departments to be socialism).
>
>> Neither Mao nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists, either.
>> But even mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage, and you
>> begin barking about Mao and Stalin.
>
> You are a liar, David - read and re-acquaint yourself to reality:
>> Neither Mao nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists, either.
>> But even mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage, and you
>> begin barking about Mao and Stalin.
>
>
> "Communism and Socialism are political and economic systems developed
> from the theories of Marxism".
Sounds like Ann Coulter 101. Where did you get that one: Townhall.com?
>
> Uhhh... China - "The Peoples Republic of China". - MARXIST Uhhh...
> Russia - "The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics". - MARXIST
No, Socialist isn't Marxist. Go read Marx for details. You should at
least know what Marxism is before you rave about it, and maybe, just
maybe, you'll look a bit less foolish.
>
> You're either mentally deranged, David - or a pathological liar - or
> both. I say you're both.
>
>> > _______________________
>> > "Paranoid" - this is too funny. There is no chance (not a snowball's
>> > chance in Hell) that an amoral psychopath and paranoid with a
>> > gangster's mentality (like Mao or Stalin) would ever be elected
>> > dog-catcher in America, much less mayor or governor or POTUS.
>> >
>> And yet here you are, screaming your head off in fear over the notion
>> that a leftist movement can even be mentioned. I mention 'socialism'
>> and I think of France, or Sweden, or Canada's NDP party. You
>> immediately jump under the skirts of...Stalin and Mao. I'm surprised
>> you didn't mention Hitler, since right wing morons like you usually
>> like to pretend he was a leftist.
>> > _______________________
>
> I didn't scream at all, dimwit. I simply re-post the nonsense you posted
>> > _______________________
>> > "Paranoid" - this is too funny. There is no chance (not a snowball's
>> > chance in Hell) that an amoral psychopath and paranoid with a
>> > gangster's mentality (like Mao or Stalin) would ever be elected
>> > dog-catcher in America, much less mayor or governor or POTUS.
>> >
>> And yet here you are, screaming your head off in fear over the notion
>> that a leftist movement can even be mentioned. I mention 'socialism'
>> and I think of France, or Sweden, or Canada's NDP party. You
>> immediately jump under the skirts of...Stalin and Mao. I'm surprised
>> you didn't mention Hitler, since right wing morons like you usually
>> like to pretend he was a leftist.
>> > _______________________
>
> (by another moron) and posted FACTS regarding "radicals". I know it
> hurts your brain to associate yourself with two of the biggest murderers
> in history. Such is your fate.
>
>> > _______________________
>> > "Foaming" - equally funny. Is the following NOT TRUE?
>>
>> Foam away, bubbles!
>
> No need, dumbass, the FACTS & HISTORY are readily on my side. lol
>> > _______________________
>> > "Foaming" - equally funny. Is the following NOT TRUE?
>>
>> Foam away, bubbles!
>
>
>> > "Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power
>> > including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard
>> > for the sanctity of human life. In February 1989, two years before
>> > the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian
>> > Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti
>> > i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to
>> > Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20
>> > "Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power
>> > including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard
>> > for the sanctity of human life. In February 1989, two years before
>> > the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian
>> > Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti
>> > i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to
> million
>> > lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians
>> > who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40
>> > million."
>> >
>> > Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy Western
>> > radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only when he was
>> > brutal, like Hitler).
>>
>> Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
>> mindlessly stupid!
>
> Aha! - Hitler was a Nazi.
>> > lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians
>> > who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40
>> > million."
>> >
>> > Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy Western
>> > radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only when he was
>> > brutal, like Hitler).
>>
>> Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
>> mindlessly stupid!
>
> Nazi = "National Socialist German Workers' Party,"
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazi
Ah, yes, you're one of THOSE idiots.
So you must be one of Saddam's running dogs, because he was head of the
REPUBLICAN Army.
>
> Did I see "Socialist" in that definition? Of course I did.
>
> Time for your medication(s), David. Make sure the water is cold.
Message has been deleted
Mr. B1ack
May 25, 2013, 10:01:49 PM5/25/13
to
The function of 'radicals' is to make previously unacceptable
political/religious/ideological factions and positions SEEM
acceptable because, relatively, they're much saner and safer
than the radicals.
Once their job is done, you dispose of the radicals.
political/religious/ideological factions and positions SEEM
acceptable because, relatively, they're much saner and safer
than the radicals.
Once their job is done, you dispose of the radicals.
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 10:02:12 PM5/25/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:54:48 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> David (JoKar) Zepp (a crazy radical) is a fool:
> You are a brain dead fool, JoKar. But I knew as much.
>
> LOL
Hundreds of millions dead in his name.
>> Gandhi was a radical. (FOR GOOD)
The English didn't think so.
>> Tom Paine was a radical. (FOR GOOD)
The English didn't think so. Even the French thought he was a dip.
>
> Mao & Stalin (both of whom have 60-90 million murders on their hands),
> were not "radicals" for good. They were both evil.
>
Millions of Russians mourned when Stalin died. One of the most amazing
passages in "Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn is about the reaction of
his fellow prisoners when word came down that "Uncle Joe" was dead. They
were besides themselves with grief.
As for Mao, his first decade he brought China to self-sufficiency as far
as food went, and ended the appalling conditions women were kept in.
Gosh, nobody disputes that they did bad things, and in Stalin's case, he
was probably as nasty/crazy as you, but even the two worst examples you
can think of had good points.
Stalin really wasn't much worse than George W. Bush, when you get right
down to it. Smarter than Bush, but probably crazier. It's a trade off.
> I would say that you are evil, David (aka JoKar).
Well, you would. You don't handle opposing views very well.
Emotionally, you're barely out of the crib.
> liberal campus). Karl Marx was on the menu and I had to consume (for a
> semester). I got a solid "B".
>
No you're not.
> Secondly, I don't know a Conservative (not one) who's against insurance
> (home, car, life, flood, etc) or "volunteer fire departments". Indeed,
> even though Moore, OK is a very Conservative town, most of the folks who
> pulled up their sleeves to help save people vote Republican.
>
OK, and Obamacare just makes insurance more affordable and available to
much more people. What's your problem with that?
> This conversation, you're having it all in your sick head, David. That's
> what the meds are for.
>
> Put down your comic books and pick up a REAL book, JoKar. lol
> the bunch. You may think that I look foolish, but what about the poor
> folks in Venezuela? They surely bought a pig in a poke.
>
> Thank God, I live in the USA.
>> Stalin's rule amounted to some 20 million
> There isn't a post, not one, where I say "I am a Republican". I'm just
> not "Zepp-BatShitCrazy" - I'm not a member of that party. lol
>
> OBTW, Saddam is dead - just so if you didn't get newspapers at the
> institution.
> David (JoKar) Zepp (a crazy radical) is a fool:
>
>> Neither of them were Marxists.
>
> Poor David (JoKar) Jamieson, no wonder you cannot make it.
>> Neither of them were Marxists.
>
>
>> As for 'radical' that's pretty fluid.
>
> What in the world does that mean? Are you "taking it back", JoKar?
>> As for 'radical' that's pretty fluid.
>
>
> LOL
>
>> I would say you were a radical.
>
> I know, you're a moron who's off his meds. I forgive your ignorance.
>> I would say you were a radical.
>
>
>> > Are you so lost, so deranged in your damaged mind that you don't even
>> > understand your own pathology? Mao & Stalin are your "gods". Don't
>> > you know that?
>> >
>> > Mao - in China - WAS a radical.
>> > Stalin - in Russia - WAS a radical.
>>
>> Jesus was a radical. (FOR GOOD)
>> > Are you so lost, so deranged in your damaged mind that you don't even
>> > understand your own pathology? Mao & Stalin are your "gods". Don't
>> > you know that?
>> >
>> > Mao - in China - WAS a radical.
>> > Stalin - in Russia - WAS a radical.
>>
Hundreds of millions dead in his name.
>> Gandhi was a radical. (FOR GOOD)
The English didn't think so.
>> Tom Paine was a radical. (FOR GOOD)
The English didn't think so. Even the French thought he was a dip.
>
> Mao & Stalin (both of whom have 60-90 million murders on their hands),
> were not "radicals" for good. They were both evil.
>
Millions of Russians mourned when Stalin died. One of the most amazing
passages in "Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn is about the reaction of
his fellow prisoners when word came down that "Uncle Joe" was dead. They
were besides themselves with grief.
As for Mao, his first decade he brought China to self-sufficiency as far
as food went, and ended the appalling conditions women were kept in.
Gosh, nobody disputes that they did bad things, and in Stalin's case, he
was probably as nasty/crazy as you, but even the two worst examples you
can think of had good points.
Stalin really wasn't much worse than George W. Bush, when you get right
down to it. Smarter than Bush, but probably crazier. It's a trade off.
> I would say that you are evil, David (aka JoKar).
Well, you would. You don't handle opposing views very well.
Emotionally, you're barely out of the crib.
>
>> > That was the topic, moron.
>> > That IS my approach. Yours obviously are "delusions".
>>
>> This from a clown who has absolutely no idea what Marx stood for, has
>> absolutely no idea what 'socialism' might be (it covers a range of
>> definitions, including the demented American right wing one which
>> considers insurance and volunteer fire departments to be socialism).
>
> Again, off your meds. Just so you know, I'm a college graduate (from a
>> > That was the topic, moron.
>> > That IS my approach. Yours obviously are "delusions".
>>
>> This from a clown who has absolutely no idea what Marx stood for, has
>> absolutely no idea what 'socialism' might be (it covers a range of
>> definitions, including the demented American right wing one which
>> considers insurance and volunteer fire departments to be socialism).
>
> liberal campus). Karl Marx was on the menu and I had to consume (for a
> semester). I got a solid "B".
>
No you're not.
> Secondly, I don't know a Conservative (not one) who's against insurance
> (home, car, life, flood, etc) or "volunteer fire departments". Indeed,
> even though Moore, OK is a very Conservative town, most of the folks who
> pulled up their sleeves to help save people vote Republican.
>
OK, and Obamacare just makes insurance more affordable and available to
much more people. What's your problem with that?
> This conversation, you're having it all in your sick head, David. That's
> what the meds are for.
>
>> >> Neither Mao nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists,
>> either. >> But even mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage,
>> and you >> begin barking about Mao and Stalin.
>> >
>> > You are a liar, David - read and re-acquaint yourself to reality:
>> >
>> > "Communism and Socialism are political and economic systems developed
>> > from the theories of Marxism".
>>
>> Sounds like Ann Coulter 101. Where did you get that one: Townhall.com?
>
> "The History of the 20th Century" by Sane People.
>> >> Neither Mao nor Stalin were Marxists, Neither were socialists,
>> either. >> But even mentioning either throws you into a panicked rage,
>> and you >> begin barking about Mao and Stalin.
>> >
>> > You are a liar, David - read and re-acquaint yourself to reality:
>> >
>> > "Communism and Socialism are political and economic systems developed
>> > from the theories of Marxism".
>>
>> Sounds like Ann Coulter 101. Where did you get that one: Townhall.com?
>
>
> Put down your comic books and pick up a REAL book, JoKar. lol
>
>> > Uhhh... China - "The Peoples Republic of China". - MARXIST Uhhh...
>> > Russia - "The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics". - MARXIST
>>
>> No, Socialist isn't Marxist.
>
> It's developed from Marxism, dummy.
>> > Uhhh... China - "The Peoples Republic of China". - MARXIST Uhhh...
>> > Russia - "The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics". - MARXIST
>>
>> No, Socialist isn't Marxist.
>
>
>> Go read Marx for details.
>
> Been there, done that.
>> Go read Marx for details.
>
>
>> You should at least know what Marxism is before you rave about it, and
>> maybe, just maybe, you'll look a bit less foolish.
>
> Marxism has been tried (USSR, PRC, East Germany, Cuba) - not a winner in
>> You should at least know what Marxism is before you rave about it, and
>> maybe, just maybe, you'll look a bit less foolish.
>
> the bunch. You may think that I look foolish, but what about the poor
> folks in Venezuela? They surely bought a pig in a poke.
>
> Thank God, I live in the USA.
>> >> > lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and
>> civilians >> > who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally
>> of 40 >> > million."
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy
>> Western >> > radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only
>> when he was >> > brutal, like Hitler).
>> >>
>> >> Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
>> >> mindlessly stupid!
>> >
>> > Aha! - Hitler was a Nazi.
>> > Nazi = "National Socialist German Workers' Party,"
>> > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazi
>> >
>> civilians >> > who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally
>> of 40 >> > million."
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it is, everyone knows this is true, except to crazy
>> Western >> > radicals. To these nutjobs, Stalin is their hero (only
>> when he was >> > brutal, like Hitler).
>> >>
>> >> Ah. There's the Hitler allusion. I knew I could count on you to be
>> >> mindlessly stupid!
>> >
>> > Aha! - Hitler was a Nazi.
>> > Nazi = "National Socialist German Workers' Party,"
>> > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazi
>> >
>> > Did I see "Socialist" in that definition? Of course I did.
>>
>>
>> Ah, yes, you're one of THOSE idiots.
>
> You mean someone who understands words & their meanings? YEPPERS.
>
>
>> So you must be one of Saddam's running dogs, because he was head of the
>> REPUBLICAN Army.
>
> Again, the voices in your head are betraying you w/o your meds, David.
>> So you must be one of Saddam's running dogs, because he was head of the
>> REPUBLICAN Army.
>
> There isn't a post, not one, where I say "I am a Republican". I'm just
> not "Zepp-BatShitCrazy" - I'm not a member of that party. lol
>
> OBTW, Saddam is dead - just so if you didn't get newspapers at the
> institution.
Message has been deleted
Liberal Here
May 28, 2013, 1:21:32 PM5/28/13
to
more acceptable when a fascist like you argues its "inevitability"
instead of more extreme wackos like gun nuts declaring the eminent
start of hostilities.
Salty Stan
May 28, 2013, 1:53:08 PM5/28/13
to
On May 25, 10:02 pm, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:54:48 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
ss
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:54:48 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
> > Mao & Stalin (both of whom have 60-90 million murders on their hands),
> > were not "radicals" for good. They were both evil.
>
> Millions of Russians mourned when Stalin died. One of the most amazing
> passages in "Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn is about the reaction of
> his fellow prisoners when word came down that "Uncle Joe" was dead. They
> were besides themselves with grief.
>
> As for Mao, his first decade he brought China to self-sufficiency as far
> as food went, and ended the appalling conditions women were kept in.
>
I wish I could say that I am surprised that Zepp counts Stalin and Mao
> > Mao & Stalin (both of whom have 60-90 million murders on their hands),
> > were not "radicals" for good. They were both evil.
>
> Millions of Russians mourned when Stalin died. One of the most amazing
> passages in "Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn is about the reaction of
> his fellow prisoners when word came down that "Uncle Joe" was dead. They
> were besides themselves with grief.
>
> As for Mao, his first decade he brought China to self-sufficiency as far
> as food went, and ended the appalling conditions women were kept in.
>
among his heroes. (Along with Hitler, no doubt)
But nothing he says or does surprises me anymore.
0 new messages