The Problem with Liberalism

[connor]

Q: Which political party in 1920s-30s United States supported the abolition of Jim Crow and spearheaded grassroots efforts to confront it head on?

A: Communist Party USA

By working within the system, not tearing it down. That's the difference.

Dude. You just said:

Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.

Which was foolish. You'll always, always lose if you take that route. Which is why you're now trying to act like you didn't just say:

Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.

Lemme give you a tip: by all means, have your beef with Papa Karl & His Magic Books. Seriously. I'm fine with that:

Foucault is not wrong to ask what in the works of Marx “could have made the Gulag possible” — or, to put it in more materialist terms, what in those texts could have been used to justify the Gulag.

But to dismiss the "real world" influence, analysis, and accomplishments of avowed Marxists--which would include a shit-ton of turn-of-the-century labor unions--is just goddamn foolish.

[connor]

(Uh oh...)

[connor]

One more quote before the coming onslaught:

Whether in Harlem or East Los Angeles, the Community Party was the era's only predominantly white organization to make fighting racism a top priority. "The communists," declared Charles H. Houston, chief legal strategist of the NAACP, "have made it impossible for any aspirant Negro leadership to advocate less than full economic, political and social equality."

[Gramsci]

What progress have the Marxists actually accomplished over the last 100 years or so?

Giving people incredible theoretical tools to examine their world with. That's worth an amazing amount.

Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.

Well, surely a liberal could see that it was Marxists who founded the European Social Democratic parties that ended up getting r'awesome things like labor rights, corporate stakeholder legislation, the welfare state, and other stuff passed into law?

Q: Which political party in 1920s-30s United States supported the abolition of Jim Crow and spearheaded grassroots efforts to confront it head on?

A: Communist Party USA

I own this t-shirt

[Cranius]

I agree, the Communist Party USA (founded in Chicago and coming out of the IWW and Socialist parties) was massively successful in helping unite the trade union movement across the country. They were a very impressive organisation, making breakthroughs that others couldn't achieve, mostly through the dedication of their members. This is sadly forgotten.

[warmowski]

I don't see how it's a controversial reading of history to say that the social priorities that contemporary liberals (rightly!) cling to were more or less borrowed, from socialists, in a time of crisis.

And now, when the wealthy in the majority happily vote and identify as liberal, and those very things liberalism once borrowed are being steadily thrown away, it's time to re-evaluate what liberalism means and has meant.

-r

[connor]

I agree, the Communist Party USA (founded in Chicago and coming out of the IWW and Socialist parties) was massively successful in helping unite the trade union movement across the country. They were a very impressive organisation, making breakthroughs that others couldn't achieve, mostly through the dedication of their members. This is sadly forgotten.

I hear Vivian Gornick's The Romance of American Communism is great. Corey Robin's recommended it a few times on his blog.

[Andrew.]

Well, surely a liberal could see that it was Marxists who founded the European Social Democratic parties that ended up getting r'awesome things like labor rights, corporate stakeholder legislation, the welfare state, and other stuff passed into law?

This is what leftists / socialists are talking about. In a nutshell, that liberalism sucks not because it's too close to an ideological center or that it's too weaksauce, but because at a time when much is badly fucked up, we should notice liberalism is actually historically dominant (its classical form being more or less indistinguishable from what we call today's conservatism). Barring its dalliance with social priorities (which it borrowed from its left) I think it's fair to say liberalism is genuinely complicit in intensifying and prolonging the cruelty of economic and military exploitation.

It's funny how much energy some are willing to put into arguing against views they hold to be both marginal and inconsequential. Why does CPanic seem so threatened by something he takes to be irrelevant?

From the OWS thread:

Well I mean he's absolutely 100% accurate is the thing.

You know how there's that old saying, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist? The greatest trick capitalism ever played was convincing the world that they couldn't buy a loaf of bread without it.

I really like that.

Yup. That is well put.

A friend has been hitting the archives in Vancouver:



These smart looking gents don't seem to have any difficulty bridging the gap between thinking big system change and making specific demands.

Plain clothes policeman cracks heads after protesters are evicted from a sit down strike:



Relief camp workers' assembly (Cambie St, 1935):

The people in these pictures? Dirty Reds, Dirty fucking REDS!!! whose organizing and mass protests prefigured the establishment of unemployment insurance, public pension, socialized healthcare and all the other reforms that have made Canada the envy of so many Americans.

Dirty fucking REDS!!!

Like any hegemonic ideology, liberalism has swallowed all the radical struggles that have been the source of its own "dalliance" with social priorities, to quote Rob. Commies were also thick in the civil rights movement, among blacks and whites.

Gay Socialist (mentor to MLK Jr) Bayard Rustin:



Should I dredge up the MLK Jr quotes, where he says white moderates are the major impediment to justice, where he critiques charity as the symptom of an economic system of exploitation and inequality, where he condemns the liberal imperialism of the Vietnam War, and where he fears that integration is a matter of blacks entering "a burning house"? All that stuff: not liberalism.

Here's an idea: read a fucking book.

[connor]

Kind of wondering if anyone's gonna try and dispute anything in Andrew's post just now.

Probably not.

I'm guessing it'll either be ignored or someone will jump on him for being "condescending" or something.

By the way, that's an awesome Antero quote up there. Too bad he hates me!

[Cranius]

Q: Which political party in 1920s-30s United States supported the abolition of Jim Crow and spearheaded grassroots efforts to confront it head on?

A: Communist Party USA

By working within the system, not tearing it down. That's the difference.

There are dozens of examples in American history where important figures go outside the rules to make a significant change. Look at a liberal individualist like Thoreau, who petitioned people not pay their taxes if they opposed slavery. He was saying, break the law if it's unjust. He thought it was the duty of honest men and women to rebel against the political framework. This is where Gandhi got inspiration from to resist the British.

Sometimes change means going outside the rules and stealing a march on your adversaries.

[connor]

Here's an idea: read a fucking book.

Or don't. That's cool with me. Everyone has different interests and passions.

But if you're not gonna put in the work to know-what-the-fuck-you're-talking-about, don't come in here and shit on those who have put in the work. Or don't expect them to pretend as if everything here is little more than a matter of "opinion" and that all "opinions" are equally valid and correct.

Because people who have put-in-the-work are going to stick to their guns on shit they have studied and read all about, as they should. And that might, apparently, make some of you feel threatened or condescended to.

[Andrew.]

I'm guessing it'll either be ignored or someone will jump on him for being "condescending" or something.

Tough love, brothers and sisters. Dirty, Red, and Tough, but love.

By the way, that's an awesome Antero quote up there. Too bad he hates me!

It *is* a great quote.

[frelnamp]

Sometimes you just want to talk to your buds about the interests you share and everyone else can go to hell. Nothing wrong with that.

[Wood Goblin]

One last comment, and then I'm bowing out of the discussion.

I'm glad that the CPUSA came up. The Communist Party USA played an undeniably important (and radical) role in organizing labor in the early 20th century and in supporting the nascent civil rights movement, with a passion that few others in the country shared.

It also was wracked with factional disputes, often operated as the American propaganda arm of Stalinist Russia, and held wildly inconsistent and often offensive positions re: Nazi Germany. They were, for a pretty damn long period, avid and uncritical Stalinists. For better or worse, that's part of their legacy too.

My point is this: I call myself a liberal because that term best represents my views and my approach to achieving progressive aims. I owe no fealty to the historical proponents of liberalism, no more than feeling pride in the Reds' support of labor unions obligates you to feel pride in the Reds' support for Stalin.

[Colonel Panic]

Q: Which political party in 1920s-30s United States supported the abolition of Jim Crow and spearheaded grassroots efforts to confront it head on?

A: Communist Party USA

By working within the system, not tearing it down. That's the difference.

Dude. You just said:

Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.

The Marxists might have kicked up the loudest ruckus and raised awareness of the problem, but it was the liberals who actually created the civil rights legislation.

Maybe saying "nothing of real consequence" went a bit far, because Marxism has obviously inspired people to confront some of the obvious failings of the system.

But it's really a bit like religion I guess, in that many people may find inspiration in reading that material, and go on to do some good things in the name of activism. But Marxism certainly appears to be a completely unworkable theory in real-world terms.

Besides that, if avowed Marxists expect to ever make any headway, they really ought to avoid the inflammatory anti-liberal rhetoric because it does nothing to help their case. If all your time, attention and hard work at activism is seriously intended to foment change in this country and isn't just a hobby of dick-jousting on the Internet, then it would behoove you to abstain from the conservative populist liberal-bashing party. Conservatives certainly ain't gonna be having none of that commie bullshit. That leaves the liberals as the ones most amenable to being won over to your leftist cause, so you really need them a lot more than they need you.

[Colonel Panic]

And now, when the wealthy in the majority happily vote and identify as liberal, and those very things liberalism once borrowed are being steadily thrown away, it's time to re-evaluate what liberalism means and has meant.

Or it could be that you're just making a hasty generalization. That's another possibility. Having a bank balance does not automatically make one an oppressor, nor does "self-identifying as liberal," your own quest for a new boogeyman notwithstanding.

[connor]

First, lemme just say I'm glad we've all left the "fuck you's" behind.

The Marxists might have kicked up the loudest ruckus and raised awareness of the problem, but it was the liberals who actually created the civil rights legislation.

So lemme get this straight:

40 years later, when a liberal President finally signed some legislation after nearly a half century of a campaign that often saw pinkos being beaten, maimed, terrorized or killed down in ole Dixie--you're saying liberals should get the credit because the President of the United States was not a Marxist or a member of CPUSA?

Okay.

Can't say I agree there.

Besides that, if avowed Marxists expect to ever make any headway, they really ought to avoid the inflammatory anti-liberal rhetoric because it does nothing to help their case.

Vitriol? You're saying you jumped in here because of anti-liberal vitriol? Where? Seriously. I genuinely think I missed this. "Vitriol" is a strong, strong word. I know I didn't get riled up until I was on the receiving end of direct, personal, and unambiguous "vitriol."

I'm pushing this because I really, really don't think that's why so many people here got set off--the "Red bullies" theory.

It seems more like some raw nerves got hit due to--possibly--a sense that maybe there really are some major problems with liberalism, problems that are undeniable at this point in the year 2012. Problems that are coming home to roost.

And people who identified as "liberal" felt like they personally were being attacked because of their liberalism!

And when the lefties here stood their ground, when they refused to say "oh, this shit I've read about for about a decade? Well, I'll just pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about so y'all don't feel like you're being lectured to," it pissed y'all off. Because the Reds maintained that, yes, it's okay and valid to critique liberalism from the left.

Why would anyone want to join in if they were kind of secretly expecting the Lefties to simply fold so as not to make some people feel insecure about their beliefs? That's not a discussion. What would be the point? The title of the thread alone should have been the first clue that you'd be going up against serious dudes who knew their shit.

The title is "The Problem with Liberalism." And considering that the author is a longtime PRFer and openly Red, everyone here knew it was going to be a provocative discussion critiquing liberalism from the left. Does anyone here think that's not valid? If so, they should say so outright.

If all your time, attention and hard work at activism is seriously intended to foment change in this country and isn't just a hobby of dick-jousting on the Internet, then it would behoove you to abstain from the conservative populist liberal-bashing party. Conservatives certainly ain't gonna be having none of that commie bullshit. That leaves the liberals as the ones most amenable to being won over to your leftist cause, so you really need them a lot more than they need you.

See. When you say things like this, you completely and unambiguously validate the following statement that pissed off so, so many of you:

It's censorious, an attitude I'm all too familiar with, when attempting to discuss politics or economics with liberals. Even here on PRF, I find talking with you guys about politics debilitating and exhausting, mostly because when it gets down to it you point to the 'alternative', the Republicans, by way of threat, and say it's us or them.

[warmowski]

And now, when the wealthy in the majority happily vote and identify as liberal, and those very things liberalism once borrowed are being steadily thrown away, it's time to re-evaluate what liberalism means and has meant.

Or it could be that you're just making a hasty generalization. That's another possibility. Having a bank balance does not automatically make one an oppressor, nor does "self-identifying as liberal," your own quest for a new boogeyman notwithstanding.

Let me know how it's "hasty" given the last thirty-plus years of uninterrupted or growing inequality, wage stagnation, privatization, deregulation, military projection, loss of rights etc. under the hands of liberalism and its Team Red cousin. Would we like thirty more to make sure?

And let me know how it makes any sense to put the people who actively dilute democracy in the same category as the zillions of people who "have a bank balance".

I'm not making boogeymen, I'm following the money and finding lots and lots of liberals highly, institutionally culpable in the current situation. I'm saying liberalism is, barring its brief flirting with social priorities, a modern and historic defense of capitalism.

-r

[Ernest]

Anyway, my entire argument (that you completely ignored) was that one of the hallmarks of neoconservative rhetoric was presenting their own opinions in the guise of inarguable, objective facts.

I agree, but I sincerely doubt Connor would make such an error as to imply the objectivity of a simple graph like that. It was an illustration of a point, and though you may not like his argumentation, he does give people the benefit of the doubt to not jump to such a conclusion.

Your admission of "respect" for the Republicans' effectiveness in framing the political debate around deceit was merely the icing on the cake.

I look at the right wing, much the same way I look at Neo-Nazism, far right Christians who propigate information- I can support their right to speech, without endorsement. In this case, I respect the right wing for the tenacity, and sharpness to charge ahead, even without much of an argument, because it is successful, but I don't have to like them, and I don't.

My point is, whatever is left of The left, needs to examine the right wing closely and create their own zeal, and tenacity that can rally people. Whether or not the right is moral, or even honest is beside the point. They've set a particular example, and the left needs to learn from them.

Right there, you expressed the opinion that you respect the Republicans' misleading tactics (compartmentalizing their rhetoric from moral considerations and actual facts) because they're "successful," without even acknowledging that they're blatantly dishonest. That speaks volumes about your own ethics where political matters are concerned.

It actually doesn't speak specifically to it; maybe in a roundabout way it tells you that I set aside my own beliefs to take myself out of the equation, but if one thinks this is an example of my "immorality" or ethical dishonesty, they would be mistaken. I've tried hard, and I think I've succeeded, in separating my own morality from the thing being observed, because it's ultimately not useful to insert my own emotion into the discussion. It's knee-jerk, and pointless most of the time.

Are you denying that these examples represent progress?

Yes, but I'm specifically denying the use of conceptualizing things in terms of "progress". It's not that I don't agree that these things are good, it's that the notion of progress inserts the observer's emotions into comprehending history. I hope that was clear.

...Now are you actually arguing that those advancements are simply matters of my own opinion? Are you really denying that those advancements in civil liberties represent social progress that is generally beneficial?

I'm denying these advancements represent "progress" ,not that they didn't occur. Their existence is objectively knowable- the issue of progress is one of conceptualizing them. I deny that they are progress on that very ground, that it doesn't tell me anything about the actual events, but merely tells me about the opinion of the person using the term "progress", because they believe it is so.

It looks to me like you're taking this willfully ignorant position simply for the purpose of argument.

It looks like you don't understand what I mean. Again.

Wrong. It's a progression that has constantly been "coming into fruition" throughout the course of American history.

That people have mistaken what occurs to be in some way "natural" or as a given, is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate people are willing to settle for liberalism making inroads every few decades, while people continue to live and die in misery.

Applied Marxist philosophy is in fact something that has never come to fruition. In nearly all cases (most notably those of large economies), it has inevitably become perverted into totalitarian regimes, usually resulting in a human rights catastrophe.

Right, but then the issue becomes exactly how perverted was it, and on what basis do people make the claim this perversion is necessary in it's application?

The fact that the USSR devolved into authoritarian state capitalism from Leninism, is a matter of historical record, but it's entirely different than the question of whether it is possible to institute Marxism without falling into this situation again.

One can't draw a direct line from Stalinist and say Marxism will "inevitably" end up right back there, because Stalinism was dependent on specific historical occurrences that don't exist anymore.

The point is that the changes happened, as a direct result of liberal ideals put into action. The fact that you're not satisfied with the timeline is not reality's fault.

This is one of our central differences- you think it's an appropriate situation that positive change occurs slowly, and through legislative means, because you have no issue with the underlying system. I don't share this opinion.

By "it's not an outside ideology" did you not mean that Liberalism is responsible for creating those very conditions"?

No, I mean that after the advent of liberalism as dominate ideology, they are the ones responsible for wars, continued existence of slavery, and economic impoverishment that went on. They obviously weren't responsible for situations that predate them, but they are for what came after. If we can say conditions did indeed change with the arrival of liberal thought, then they're the ones to hold responsible for this misery.

By that same rationale, Socialism is responsible for Stalin, Mao, the Gang of Four, Pol Pot, etc. [/quote]

No, in fact using that rationale that I used above, if you were to blame failures of an authoritarian socialist system on those in charge in that very system, you would be correct. In the above, I was blaming liberalism for the failures that amounted under it's control.

Oh come off it. Look at the wars and millions of dead that have resulted from misapplied Marxism in the former USSR, China, Cambodia. Except that the liberal capitalist system has actually resulted in a flexible system that has self-corrected over the past 200 years and achieved social progress. Whereas Marxism has failed horribly, in every instance mutating into appalling totalitarian states.

You said it yourself "misapplied Marxism"- there's nothing misapplied about liberalism in the case of it's millions of dead, because....it's not misapplied. Liberalism, for all of it's talent, doesn't have an economic program other than conflating economic liberalism with liberty.

Sure, 'liberal capitalism' is capable of self correcting, unlike authoritarian state capital because the latter never amounted to nearly the same economic and liberal standing as the former. You're comparing a nearly global economic system (capitalism then) to an isolated pocket of alternative economics (authoritarian state capital).

Why do you think that is?

Because other systems never reached the maturity level, nor complexity that liberal capitalism has. You'd be mistaken if you drew a value judgment from this simple fact.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe your Utopian ideal of forcing total social and economic change all at once might be a bad idea?

Of course, which is why I would never argue for instituting massive societal change at once.

How many countries founded on such idealistic principles have actually turned out to be the paradise they were intended to become?

None, but you're really using the examples set by the Russians, and Chinese in an attempt to discredit marxism? It's like using Vanilla Ice to discredit hip hop.

I invite you to prove your point. Show me a single instance where a major economy has transitioned into a Marxist paradise that has resulted in equality, freedom, and a rich cultural experience for all without war or social/economic inequity.

Why would I do that, when I never argued for a resulting paradise, nor even a "rich cultural experience". Do I have to keep you honest in this discussion?

It would incredibly tedious to answer your legitimate questions based on a correct reading of what I wrote, and answer questions to arguments I never put forward.

Lenin was a Marxist revolutionary. He attempted to institute a socialist government, and failed. Mao was also a Marxist revolutionary who attempted to institute a socialist government and failed.

Lenin didn't quite fail, his death altered the socialist foundation of the USSR, which lead to Stalin's rise in the aftermath. I'm not saying he was a cheery character, but it would be ridiculous to conflate the two.

Which of these Socialist governments can be shown as examples where Socialism successfully "occurred" and remain successful to this day?

None- another response to an argument I never posited.

It's not up to me or anyone else to come around to your line of reasoning.

No shit.

Yet you've openly admitted that you don't even bother to examine your own reasons for advocating the dismantlement of the entire American constitutional republic (a system that has for 200 years proven entirely serviceable in advancing social progress and economic mobility).

Please post this, because I'm dying to read it.

...and has in most cases resulted in catastrophic failure.

Again, arguing against y when I posted x.

So what's your workable alternative? A society where nobody labors, and all goods and services are magically pooped out of the asses of unicorns? Maybe your government can issue all citizens a complement of magical gnomes to do all their work for them.

No, a society where labor is not exploitative, and the outcome is beneficial to the laborers that created it, a different method where the owners of the means of production are the very people that produce.

Maybe you could do your impression of a man instead of a snarky bitch if you want serious responses.

I acknowledge that there's staggering inequity in the present system, sure. That needs to be addressed, but Marxism sure isn't the answer.

Good. Finally a straight answer that isn't suffocated in snark.

If all those positive achievements were doable from within the system, then what makes you think a more equitable economic structure cannot be similarly achieved?

Because it's not in the interests of the state, nor the private sector to do as such

How can you say it's not in the interest of the private sector? If it's not in the interest of the private sector, then whose interest is it in? Are we not all living within the "private sector"?

Because the private sector's interests end where profit ends. Positive social changes are in the interest of those whose lives are actually improved. Are you really arguing from the point of the market, or just by accident?

The market extends practically into the human body, but we don't exist within the private sector anymore than we "occupy" the state, "we" as in the lower classes.

I don't see the "private sector" as the problem at all. The problem as I see it, stems from an extreme imbalance of corporate power over and above that of private individuals, and even government.

Yes, I've heard the difference between "capitalism" and "crony capitalism", as well as the difference between the "private sector" who conveniently does not get blamed, but "the corporations" from liberals. They has no real basis to make such distinctions, because the acts undertaken by corporations are not based on them being corporations, but being a part of the private sector.

being rich is immaterial- what is relevant is the existence of wealth itself.

That's a complete non-sequitur. By that kind of reasoning, kitchen stoves, automobiles, wood chippers, baseball bats, and anything else that could possibly be abused or cause harm should also be abolished, regardless of its usefulness. Maybe we should abolish the Sun because some people lay out under it too long and get burned.

This is a response utterly devoid of any examination of wealth, and it's historical impact. I'll just ignore this.

Yes I realize that, and I don't object to any of those characteristics of the Republican platform on general principle. I depart from the Republicans' ideology on the basis of their opposition to equal liberties for all, their oppressive, social Darwinist leanings, and their dishonesty and lack of compromise (the very traits you professed a "respect" for).

Not the topic we were having, but thank you for telling me. We were talking about the basis of the republican party, not why you depart from them.

Wrong.

Arguing inequality is one thing. Inequality can be objectively proven. But what you're doing is alleging a conspiracy of the rich to oppress the poor, and you have no actual evidence of any such thing.

Not what we were discussing, either.

Liberalism be all up in yo gubmint, doin' thangs.

OH RLY? Hai, how'z that going?

Maybe if you're so interested in economic inequality, you should get in the ball game and start working some influence, instead of sitting around on the sidelines bitching about all the players and how much you wish they'd start up a lacrosse match instead.

Maybe you should stop taking the tone of someone who actually does these things.

Can the 19th and 20th century Marxists boast a track record compare to that?

No, because it's like comparing a ballwasher to a CEO. The marxists never had a track record because they never rose to the level of liberalism in popularity, or institutionalization.

But did you ever stop to ask yourself why? Could it be that Marxism is simply an unworkable philosophy that makes unfounded postulations in a theoretical vacuum, in complete denial of basic human nature?

Of course I have, and I have considered that, and have come to a different conclusion based on marxist works, which I took seriously and familiarized myself with, in contrast to surface level criticisms that conflate Stalin with Marx.

It's crass because it diminishes the dignity of human beings.

Unlike the system you trumpet, of course.

Amazing tools for self-delusion, according to the actual history. But nothing of real consequence beyond that.

This is similar territory of people disparaging music theory when they don't know it.

[Colonel Panic]

Let me know how it's "hasty" given the last thirty-plus years of uninterrupted or growing inequality, wage stagnation, privatization, deregulation, military projection, loss of rights etc. under the hands of liberalism and its Team Red cousin. Would we like thirty more to make sure?

None of that changes the fact that it's a hasty generalization.

And let me know how it makes any sense to put the people who actively dilute democracy in the same category as the zillions of people who "have a bank balance".

That's exactly what you're doing when you make statements like:

the wealthy in the majority happily vote and identify as liberal

I'm not making boogeymen, I'm following the money and finding lots and lots of liberals highly, institutionally culpable in the current situation.

Yeah? Care to present any of the actual evidence to back up these allegations, that you've found by "following the money"?

I'm saying liberalism is, barring its brief flirting with social priorities, a modern and historic defense of capitalism.

So? You're saying that capitalism is inherently, irredeemably evil in itself?