My attack from the left on Sanders, Taibbi, and Swanson

Michael Ray FitzGerald I’m a fan of Dr. Stein’s, but Sanders is saying all the right things. Of course, that’s what politicians do–figure out what we want to hear and then recite it back to us. I dunno; he could be sincere. However, I am disturbed by his stance–or lack of one–vis-a-vis Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.
18 mins · Edited · Unlike · 2

Eric Schechter In my view, Stein and Sanders are both quite sincere, but neither of them is saying enough of the right things — either because their vision is not far-reaching enough, or because they’re pulling their punches in an effort to reach more voters. More likely the former, because I really think they are very sincere people.
11 hrs · Unlike · 3

Thomas Baldwin For the record, and for future purposes, I suggest Eric you think about your titles. Describing this as an “attack from the left” is not exactly the way to win friends and influence people who consider themselves on the left and still admire Sanders, Taibbi, and Swanson who I consider on the “left”. I also consider myself on the left but disagree with aspects of your statement and your strategy to persuade others. It is absurd to expect everyone to suddenly feel they have to attack capitalism or they have no credibility. That’s especially true of Sanders, who is no political fool.
10 hrs · Like

Eric Schechter Thomas, I’ll admit that I was exaggerating a little when I called it an “attack.” I do believe that Sanders, Taibbi, and Swanson are well-intentioned and hard-working, and deserve credit and credibility for that much.

However, I also believe that anyone who does not explicitly attack capitalism is making a mistake. And although I still see many of those mistaken people as allies, I feel it is useful for me to point out that mistake. I feel that it is useful for me to be constantly nagging people, telling them to think about the question of whether to explicitly attack capitalism. Because I am convinced that most of them have not attacked it explicitly just because they haven’t thought about it enough. It’s a little bit like when you want your friend or relative to give up smoking, and so you nag them about it. Hmm, on second thought, maybe it’s not a good idea, I’ve been nagging both my children about that and neither of them has given up smoking as a result. I should reconsider this.
10 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Ray FitzGerald As far as I am concerned, this depends on what you mean by “capitalism.” There are many definitions, and there are many forms. If you mean private ownership of business, I do not agree that this is inherently wrong, as I feel owner-operated businesses such as mom-and-pops and co-ops are wonderful. But if you mean absentee ownership by way of investment of outside capital looking for short-term gains, I can certainly agree that this is a bad system, one that eats everything in its path, for the simple reason that it is based on continuous growth in a finite world. Tt also eats itself, because it tends to reduce costs by laying off workers, thereby destroying its own economic base–how can consumer capitalism work if hardly anyone has any money? Plus, morally speaking, it puts profits over people, so it is inhumane.
10 hrs · Edited · Like

Eric Schechter Michael, Chomsky clarifies what he means by “capitalism” when he says “really existing capitalism,” to distinguish it from any fancy theories. You can get get to those theoretical good capitalisms, because they always turn into the bad capitalism that we really have.

And yes, I’m opposed to mom-and-pops. They legitimize the big corporations that you’re opposed to. If you ask mom and pop, they’ll tell you that they don’t really care about getting rich, they just want to be useful to the community and get some security for themselves, and so they’d be just fine with changing their “store” to a “distribution center.”
10 hrs · Like

Kathleen Bushman I am more generally opposed to capitalism because it encourages the elevation of elites and thus tends to degenerate into oligarchy – so I would prefer to see the majority of business as worker owned co-ops and all business taxed and strictly regulated.
10 hrs · Unlike · 4

Michael Ray FitzGerald What do you mean “they legitimize the big corporations”?
10 hrs · Edited · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald I think mom-and-pops ought to be encouraged as well as worker-owned co-ops. A mom-and-pop IS a worker-owned co-op. We could kill predatory capitalism simply by getting rid of stocks and securities–no outside investments. Of course, in a country dominated by Wall Street, that could never happen. But that would do it.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Eric Schechter Michael, it is not possible to separate the small companies from the big ones. The goal of small capitalist companies is to grow into big ones. Some theorists say that a capitalist enterprise must grow at least 3% per year or it will die. By legitimize I mean just what you did one comment earlier: you said capitalism isn’t all bad, just look at the mom-and-pops, see that separate ownership and competition can be a good thing. No, it’s not. You can do those good things — the things mom and pop are doing — much better without the separate ownership or the competition.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Kathleen Bushman OTOH – I also oppose mom and pops because they fill their shelves from the warehouses of big transnational monopoly corporations – not only encouraging the most predatory of the big corporations but also adding to climate change because of the need to transport goods over long distances. I would prefer that we localize our economy: production and distribution centers IMO should be as close to the consumer as possible.
10 hrs · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald Yes, it is–you would just abolish corporations and not allow absentee ownership. Plus no companies can own shares of other companies. If you leave the business, the remaining partners buy you out–or you forgo your payout. Very simple.
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Ray FitzGerald According to your logic, Eric, even worker co-ops would not exist. A mom-and-pop IS a worker co-op as is ANY owner-operated business. So are you saying the public (i.e., the government) should own and control ALL businesses? But worker-controlled businesses are what Marx advocated. So yours is not a Marxian position; not sure whose it is. Lenin’s I think.
9 hrs · Edited · Like

Eric Schechter Michael, your proposed economic system doesn’t deal with any of the three evils listed in this extremely short essay (the video is 2¾ minutes).

https://leftymathprof.wordpress.com/3evils-leaflet/
Three Evils of Capitalism (leaflet)
(Read the essay, or watch the 2¾ minute video version here in this little box, or on its Youtube page, or…
LEFTYMATHPROF.WORDPRESS.COM
10 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

Eric Schechter And cooperatives might be helpful as a transitional step, but yes, I’d like to get rid of them in the long run. Cooperatives are internally socialist but externally capitalist, and so they do not address the largest problems of capitalism.
10 hrs · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald Eric, please respond to my assertion that your position is hardly Marxian. Marx advocated worker-owned and -controlled industries, did he not?
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Eric Schechter But, Michael, I wouldn’t “abolish” or “not allow” any particular behavior. I’m an anarchist. I would like to persuade people to avoid certain behaviors; I hope to persuade people that those behaviors are destructive and just not very nice. I’m advocating a cultural change, not a change of laws imposed by force.
10 hrs · Like

Eric Schechter Anarcho-communism means “share and don’t hit,” the first two things we all learned in kindergarten.
10 hrs · Unlike · 1

Michael Ray FitzGerald You still haven’t answered my question: who WOULD own the corner stores? The government? I can see nationalizing the big industries like oil, healthcare, radio & TV, transportation, education, railroads, airlines and the like. And you still have not addressed the issue of worker-owned co-ops being what Marx actually had in mind.
9 hrs · Edited · Like

Eric Schechter “Own”?

Who owns the sky?
10 hrs · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald How can I have a discusssion with someone who keeps moving the goalposts? And won’t answer simple questions?
10 hrs · Edited · Like

Thomas Baldwin Now get this and he keeps saying it. Eric says we should get rid of all capitalism and convince people they should all be anarcho–communists. I’d like to see him sell that in Peoria, or maybe even where he lives–Nashville! Holy shit; what a strategy. Will the anarcho-communists keep writing my social security checks or how does that work for about 50 million people?
9 hrs · Edited · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald In my view, we should get rid of CORPORATE capitalism and leave small businesses alone–and make sure they STAY relatively small by not allowing them to buy each other.
10 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1

Eric Schechter Thomas, I don’t think it will happen this week.
10 hrs · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald As I said, there are different types of capitalism. You can’t paint them all with the same broad brush. Thailand has zillions of small businesses, and it is a marvelous thing. There are some “big-box” operations there, but not nearly as many as there are here. Small businesses create a lot of jobs. Jobs are more important than efficiency. In fact, jobs are probably the number-one thing that keeps a society from going to shit–like ours is.
9 hrs · Like

Christopher Alan Driscoll You might be interested to know that David Swanson was Press Secretary for Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign, essentially the same job I did for Ralph Nader in 2008. He seems to be coming–slowly–to the conclusion that working on some election campaigns is useless. I’ve come to the conclusion that working on ALL election campaigns is not only useless, but actually greatly harmful to the cause of socialism. Of course, I don’t actually ever remember Swanson saying that his cause is socialism. I think it is capitalism of the Kucinich sort. Still, in the realm of anti-war work, he’s a useful ally.
2 hrs · Unlike · 3

Christopher Alan Driscoll Eric, I like the use of “attack” in your title. I think the left needs to adop0t explicitly militant language. This is a war, a war the billionaire class started against us. Military language, especially when dealing with class enemies like Sanders is appropriate.

I’ve got to say that I spent most of the last half century adapting my language to the polite words prescribed by liberals as the only appropriate language for public discourse in America. It was a big mistake, a mistake that not just I, but all the left has made over that time. Adopting liberal words, weasel words, has not served the left well, in fact, it’s served as part of our road to ruin, a complete disaster.

Attack, Eric, early, late and often! That’s the way the working class will win.
1 hr · Edited · Unlike · 2

Thomas Baldwin So again, Mr. Driscoll, we disagree! Yes, it’s a war but we’re not at war with Taibbi and Swanson. Some would question whether Bernie is an enemy, too! For God’s sake, with some of you guys, you’re quick to apply “friendly fire”. Some people who accuse the “left” as only knowing how to form circular firing squads are absolutely right ! I’m not turning my back on you!
2 hrs · Edited · Like

Kathleen Bushman I worked for the Kucinich candidacy in 08 – until he dropped out of the race and then voted for Cynthia McKinney; I have since come to the conclusion that the federal election system is a total farce and a waste of my time and energy. I remain active in the Progressive Party of Oregon because its members include so many activists – at some point I think Oregonians will be ready for facilitating progressive action by reorganizing the political system.
2 hrs · Like · 2

Kathleen Bushman I think that Christopher Alan Driscoll has a point – people may be shocked at first to have their cherished illusions under attack – but the truth will never gain ascendancy if we don’t speak it clearly.
2 hrs · Unlike · 3

Thomas Baldwin Kathleen, it’s a question of WHO we are “attacking”. If we do that indiscriminately that does NOT communicate a clear message. For example, what the hell is Eric DOING to oppose our war mongering insanity? Swanson is a seriously dedicated individual and has accompished a great deal at a very young age. And frankly, it pisses me off to see someone of the “left” attack him.
1 hr · Like · 1

Kathleen Bushman I see Swanson as someone that is on our side – he certainly sees that the military budget is in direct opposition to the kind of change we need. My attacks are reserved for the likes of Sanders because he has yet to vote no on military funding.
1 hr · Unlike · 2

Christopher Alan Driscoll The weaselly liberals, of course, always advise us to speak with calm weasel words, while they themselves terrorize the world’s working class with drones, bombs and wars of imperialist plunder. Hypocrites!
1 hr · Edited · Like

Thomas Baldwin I’m not a weaselly liberal and I’m not talking about weaselly liberals here. You’re changing this subject. I’m talking specifically about David Swanson and could also add Matt Taibbi to the discussion. The latter has been an outstanding journalist in exposing the Big Bank crimes.
1 hr · Like

Christopher Alan Driscoll Well, of course Tom, you will not find anything I’ve said to be an attack on Swanson or Taibbi, yet you say to me, “we’re not aat (sic) war with Taibbi and Swanson.”

Can you explain?

And, of course, Sanders is quite another question. He is a prominent member of the ruling class, a Zionist, a supporter of the Fascist coup government in Ukraine, he voted for the vile criminal “Clinton Crime Bill.” He is simply put, a class enemy, a supporter of fascism, although he himself is a liberal. Like the liberal president, he is not above funding and arming and directing fascists in Israel and Ukraine.
1 hr · Like

Thomas Baldwin Read what I said in the beginning about Eric’s title!!!!!
1 hr · Like

Christopher Alan Driscoll BTW Tom, just as with Roland, I invite you always to call me Chris, as you always have in the past.
1 hr · Like

Eric Schechter Matt Taibbi has his heart in the right place. But attacking some of the corruption in the banks, without attacking capitalism itself, is like criticizing some guy who collects protection money for the mafia because he has been taking more money than the godfather authorized and pocketing the difference, and not criticizing the whole institution of protection money. (By the way, I finally paid my back taxes, because the IRS started sending me threatening letters.)
1 hr · Unlike · 2

Christopher Alan Driscoll Yes, Kathleen Bushman, I agree about David. I too have always seen him–as I said above–as an ally in the anti-war movement. While of course I don’t agree with his liberal capitalist politics, I am willing to work with anyone who sincerely opposes imperialism and criminal wars of plunder and destruction. David has done a great job helping to lead the movement and when almost every liberals-to the last man and woman–abandoned the anti-war movement after Obama’s election in 2008, David stuck. I think it is appropriate to criticize where he should be criticized–as in his generally liberal politics–and praise where he should be praised, as in his consistently anti-war work.
1 hr · Unlike · 3

Christopher Alan Driscoll Yes, Eric, I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Your criticisms are totally appropriate in all three cases. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
1 hr · Unlike · 2

Kathleen Bushman Eric Schechter and Christopher Alan Driscoll – while I try not to mince words too much sometimes I do temper my language (believe it or not :-)) because I realize that people aren’t ready to gulp down large portions of the truth all at once. I wonder if we shouldn’t accept that as people awaken to the rampant corruption of our political process they may also begin to question the economic system too. I came from being a Democrat – to becoming a third party member – and I went further to the left as I began to see more clearly that this country’s political corruption, inequality, war mongering and imperialism were all inter-connected. I covered quite a lot of terrority in a relatively short period of time – from center left to a much more radically left position, and I had an advantage of family lore which predisposed me to being critical of capitalism.
1 hr · Unlike · 2

Christopher Alan Driscoll Kathleen, perhaps we are simply concerned about different audiences? I’m not much concerned about moving liberals to the left. In fact, I don’t really think there are many liberals left in America and those who are tend to be the true die-in-the-wools. Spending a lot of our time on them is a waste of effort because they are the opposite of low hanging fruit, in IMHO. I’m not trying to tell others what to do, just speaking for myself. But in my opinion, after the experience with Obama, those few liberals who are still supporting him and his liberal form of capitalist-imperialism are easy write-offs on my ledger.

Meanwhile, 80 percent of the working class, tens and tens of millions of people, are turned off to liberal and conservative politics and to the phony fixed elections of liberals and conservatives totally controlled by billionaires.

At a time when it makes more sense than ever for the left and for socialists to turn 100 percent of our attention to this segment of the working class, that we still have people focused solely on the liberal wing of the middle class is, to my mind, a sad waste of people power and resources.

Polls say that half of all youth under 30 are leaning socialist these days and 36 percent of the entire adult population. It is to those people, not to those leaning liberal or conservative or libertarian we must turn now. And again, as with the nonvoters, a great majority of those turning to socialist ideas are working class, not middle class, not the typical liberals. Even among the working class in America, it is the highest paid, the most pampered part of the working class, those Engels and Lenin called the “Aristocracy of Labor” who are liberals, those least likely, in other words, to be socialist or to lean socialist or to care about learning about socialism.

It’s the working class, especially the female, Black and Brown working class, who make up the great majority of the working class, who are important, who are most likely to be socialist and least likely to be attracted to the twin-evil-capitalist-imperialist ideologies of liberalism and conservatism.
58 mins · Like

Eric Schechter Christopher, I always get confused when you start talking about “liberals.” That word means so many different things to different people, and your meaning for the word seems to be different from the meaning that many other people attach to that word. I know, you’ve told me in the past that your meaning for the word is the correct meaning, but I still have trouble remembering which meaning it is.

Anyway, I think we need to be reaching out to everyone. We need to reach out to the people who already agree with us, to strengthen and clarify their views and encourage them to speak louder. And we need to reach out to the people who don’t already agree with us, to try to show them the light.

But we don’t ALL need to reach out to everyone. Different people can reach out to different audiences, according to what feels right to you. Personally, I’m trying to reach out mainly to people whose background is similar to what mine used to be: middle class people who are, or used to be, unthinking Democrats.
44 mins · Like

Christopher Alan Driscoll Eric, liberal is as liberal does. For whom did 95 percent of self-professed liberals vote in 2008 and 2012? Obama. What did Obama do for the last 6 and a half years? I’m sorry, but I never just listen to what people claim they believe if what they do is different, even opposite.
22 mins · Like

Eric Schechter Christopher, when I tell you that I don’t know what you mean by “liberal,” your reply of “liberal is as liberal does” does not make the matter any clearer. And when you say that 95 percent of self-professed liberals voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and then say that people are doing something different than what they claim, evidently you are saying that the self-professed liberals are not in fact liberals, which has the faults that (a) your meaning of the word “liberal” is different from the way that most people are using the word, which makes communication difficult, and (b) you have told me what you consider to be NOT the meaning of the word “liberal,” but that still doesn’t clarify for me what you feel IS the meaning of “liberal.” Oh, yes, “liberal is as liberal does,” that explains things as clearly as mud, a liberal is someone who is a liberal, good definition. We seem to agree on some things, Christopher, but I’m tired of trying to understand what you mean by “liberal.” Hereafter I’ll simply ignore all comments you make which use that word.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
40 mins · Edited · Like

Michael Ray FitzGerald “Liberal is as liberal does” is a circular argument–sorta like “It is what it is.” Ugh.

Kathleen Bushman My awareness of all that’s wrong in this country and with capitalism grew with every bit of information about political and corporate corruption – so in a way anyone who isn’t against us is with us.
22 mins · Like · 1

Christopher Alan Driscoll Kathleen, I have great admiration of your political journey and how you’ve grown over the years I’ve known you online and on Facebook. A truly great adventure you’ve been on. One that we can all admire.
20 mins · Like · 1

THE EDITORS WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. KATHLEEN IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.

Christopher Alan Driscoll And of course, Eric, that 95 percent voted for Kerry in 2004 and for Gore in 2000. What is Kerry doing? And Gore? I swear that I’ve heard 3,000 liberals claim that Gore would have been different than W. Bush, yet in 2002, leading up to Bush’s war, Gore endorsed the war in a speech in the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier think tank for U.S. imperialism. His only criticism of Bush was that Gore said he would be attacking Iran too!

As for Kerry, we know what evil he’s been up to. Regardless of what self-identified liberals claim, what they vote for, support, fund, is Gore, Kerry, Obama, and in another year, Hill the Wall Street Shrill Clinton.
16 mins · Like

Kathleen Bushman I am still inclined to see Sanders as the enemy – since I think I tended to be further left when I began my journey than he is now. Same goes for Gore and Kerry.
11 mins · Edited · Like · 1

Christopher Alan Driscoll Having lived in Baltimore in a decade ago, three blocks from much of the action on Monday night, I have lots of experience with Black and Brown working class youth. They are not impressed with liberal weasel words. They are impressed with a commitment to justice, to punishment of criminals in the police and government, to “red meat” language against their oppressors, and they all know that the billionaires and other top economic bosses are their oppressors.