Those "Liberals"

[chlamor]

'LIBERALISM' VERSUS SOCIALISM

By Nathan Karp

If the American working class is ever to succeed in establishing a free and democratic society in which all will enjoy peace, abundance and security, it must first have a proper understanding of its class status in capitalist society, a correct class perception of the opposing forces it must contend with on the road to its goal, and a precise knowledge of the meaning of the social, economic and political terms of the age.

Daniel De Leon, the American Marxist, stressed the importance of these factors many times. For example, he succinctly emphasized the importance of working-class knowledge and understanding in the Daily People of April 7, 1901, as follows:

"It is correct to say that the capitalist system will destroy itself. It does not follow from that with equal logic that socialism will be the successor. The higher the grade of evolution, the more essential is the aid of the human intellect in the process. The evolution of society from capitalism into socialism is a high grade in the evolutionary process. If the collective [working-class] intellect is not sufficiently educated and instructed to understand the evolutionary law that underlies the present events, the result will be a social catastrophe brought on by the political-economic quacks."

A leading element among these "political-economic quacks" are those currently designated as "liberals." Liberals and liberalism have long been forces striving for the retention of the capitalist status quo, although they have often been presented as the forces of progress, the forces that resist reaction, the forces that represent the people against the forces of entrenched wealth and ruthless economic power.

Liberals as Conservatives

<snip>

Particularly since the days of the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the reforms instituted under that administration's New Deal, the liberals have enjoyed the reputation among millions of workers and their families as the forces of social progress. But, in truth, the New Deal was a massive and concerted effort to save the capitalist system from the brink of destruction. Roosevelt himself in his oft-repeated quote, "reform if you would preserve," equated liberalism as "the protection for the far-sighted conservative." In his reelection campaign he bragged, "It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin by these same leaders who are now trying to scare you."

The "save capitalism" objective of Rooseveltian New Deal liberalism was not unique. A review of the record of liberals and liberalism reveals that even when the evils spawned by capitalism are clearly recognized, as they very often are, by the reform- minded liberals, most, if not all, fail to recognize that their cause is rooted in the capitalist system, or they see fit to ignore that fact. For example, the long-time liberal Republican senator from Oregon, Wayne Morse, writing in the New Republic of July 22, 1946, stated that, "A major objective [of liberalism] is the protection of the economically weak and doing it within the framework of a private property economy." (Emphasis added.)

<snip>

Moreover, the record of liberal "accomplishments" and the history of liberalism generally demonstrates convincingly the futility of trying to reconcile democratic principles and precepts with a social system -- capitalism -- premised on a denial of the most fundamental freedom -- economic freedom -- to the vast majority in society, the working class.

It does not require any profound insight to realize that the nation's hopes for a sane and decent society do not lie with the American plutocracy; nor with the president and his administration. Nor do they rest with men and women "of good will," or of "liberal persuasion," no matter how sincere or commendable such sentiments may be. Those hopes lie with the American working class. They lie in the latent political and industrial might of that working class, the only might that can neutralize and defeat the plutocracy and the liberals and provide the basis for a new democratic and affluent society.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=95052701

[tKl]

The higher the grade of evolution, the more essential is the aid of the human intellect in the process.

How "new age."


The evolution of society from capitalism into socialism is a high grade in the evolutionary process.

It is?


If the collective [working-class] intellect is not sufficiently educated and instructed to understand the evolutionary law that underlies the present events, the result will be a social catastrophe brought on by the political-economic quacks

I think the author is sloppily blurring "education" and "indoctrination." There is a vast difference. Indoctrination is designed to eliminate choices. With an education, people can choose for themselves.

[chlamor]

The higher the grade of evolution, the more essential is the aid of the human intellect in the process.

How "new age."


The evolution of society from capitalism into socialism is a high grade in the evolutionary process.

It is?


If the collective [working-class] intellect is not sufficiently educated and instructed to understand the evolutionary law that underlies the present events, the result will be a social catastrophe brought on by the political-economic quacks

I think the author is sloppily blurring "education" and "indoctrination." There is a vast difference. Indoctrination is designed to eliminate choices. With an education, people can choose for themselves.

Take your time and read it through. It's long but worth it. Theory is important even if difficult. Without a baseline understanding of political/economic theory one blows willy-nilly with the wind.

Here's the piece:

[url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1890/11/libvssoc.htm]Liberalism versus Socialism
A Lecture Delivered in the Conference-Room of the National Liberal Club
(November 1890)[/url]

It's educational.

[tKl]

I'll look over it. In the meanwhile, I completely agree with the following because, darn it, I've seen this behavior in realtime on the internet.

Arthur Koestler describes Marxism as a closed system, like Catholicism or orthodox Freudianism. Such systems have three peculiarities: they claim to represent a universal truth which explains everything and can cure every ill; they can automatically process and reinterpret all potentially damaging data by methods of casuistry which are emotionally appealing and beyond common logic; and they can invalidate criticisms by deducing what the subjective motivation of the critic must be, and by presenting this motivation as a counterargument. An example of the third feature might be the disregarding of such concepts as the free market or self determination as instances of false consciousness engendered by bourgeois ideology.

[Eldritch]

From an article quoted by Chlamor:

A review of the record of liberals and liberalism reveals that even when the evils spawned by capitalism are clearly recognized, as they very often are, by the reform- minded liberals, most, if not all, fail to recognize that their cause is rooted in the capitalist system, or they see fit to ignore that fact.

I actually agree with much of this.

The problem, it seems to me, is that too many leftists—who understand this important point about liberalism—also manage to make enemies among otherwise would-be allies.

This happens, in my view, partly because many leftists hold their ideals so tightly that they become functionally unable to manage the kind of compromise that real progress under a democratic system requires.

And while this is an oversimplification—because there are many, many other factors at play inside America's gross capitalist system, which have prevented real socialist change in the United States—I also think there is a very important point to be made here: one of the reasons many leftists fail in promoting their message is because they are simply not good at getting along well with those whose views differ even slightly from theirs.

There are many liberals, for example, who would agree that they are currently supporting a broken system—a system that never, ever really worked for the common man!—and who would otherwise be friendly towards the overall message Nathan Karp, for example, is trying to communicate.

But using language—like "political-economic quacks" among other things—which serves to insult people who might otherwise be potential allies is counterproductive and, I think, ill-advised.

[tKl]

It's called authoritarianism.

[Eldritch]

You know, tKl, I think that's a critically important point you've just mentioned.

Until we manage fully to excise our desire to have dominion over others and to subdue them, even a good political and economic philosophy is doomed—because, until then, more than any other single thing, the most formidable enemy is not a "system," but ourselves.

[LolaB]

Thanks for that, Eldrich. Right On!

[chlamor]

You know, tKl, I think that's a critically important point you've just mentioned.

Until we manage fully to excise our desire to have dominion over others and to subdue them, even a good political and economic philosophy is doomed—because, until then, more than any other single thing, the most formidable enemy is not a "system," but ourselves.

Disagree strongly:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

[tKl]

Behaviorism stinks just as bad by any other name.

[Eldritch]

You know, tKl, I think that's a critically important point you've just mentioned.

Until we manage fully to excise our desire to have dominion over others and to subdue them, even a good political and economic philosophy is doomed—because, until then, more than any other single thing, the most formidable enemy is not a "system," but ourselves.

Disagree strongly:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I think the human condition is a little more complicated than this single quote by Karl Marx would appear to indicate.

From what I have observed, the interplay between human consciousness and the human social condition is less "this or that," and more like a dance. If one partner is grossly out of step—no matter how good the other partner may be—the performance of the dance suffers.

If one partner seeks "to have dominion over and to subdue" the other the dance becomes a gross caricature of itself.

No matter how good one of the two partners may be, a good performance is never inevitable.

[Nordic]

I liked Chlamour's quote up until this point, when the writer goes terribly awry:

It does not require any profound insight to realize that the nation's hopes for a sane and decent society do not lie with the American plutocracy; nor with the president and his administration. Nor do they rest with men and women "of good will," or of "liberal persuasion," no matter how sincere or commendable such sentiments may be. Those hopes lie with the American working class. They lie in the latent political and industrial might of that working class, the only might that can neutralize and defeat the plutocracy and the liberals and provide the basis for a new democratic and affluent society.

The working class? What the fuck is that? Anyone here ever actually worked in a factory? I did, once, and most of the people were total dumbasses. There's no nobility in "the working class". Sure, there are a few people who are interesting and smart and iconoclastic, but for the most part the people who do menial labor are not the brightest tools in the shed and don't have any interest in being so. About all they want to discuss is cars, sports, bodily functions and the last person who pisses them off.

Ever seen "Barton Fink"?

Marx was an idealist, and he was completely, 100% bass-ackwards about human nature.

Humans are territorial by nature. They are tribal by nature. Thus the popularity of sitcoms and other shows about tribes. Name almost any successful TV show, and it's about a tribe. Friends, Cheers, MASH, whatever, all tribal. The secret to figuring out how make the world a better place is to figure out how to use the human instinct for behavior that benefits the tribe to benefit the entire planet and the entire human race.

I don't know how to do that and I don't think anyone else does. Marx sure as hell didn't.

Liberalism, as a word, and as an idea, is a dinosaur. It's become completely meaningless.

Let's face it, the distinctions between what we call "liberalism" and "conservatism" is the division between those who value property and those who value people. That's the root of all of it.

People who value property above people really don't give a flying fuck about anything we care about, or talk about. They just don't. They only care about their property and their property "rights".

[Joe Hillshoist]

You know, tKl, I think that's a critically important point you've just mentioned.

Until we manage fully to excise our desire to have dominion over others and to subdue them, even a good political and economic philosophy is doomed—because, until then, more than any other single thing, the most formidable enemy is not a "system," but ourselves.

Yeah, good call.

[kool maudit]

the chlamor posts are very eighties, very wooly and outraged.

(such is the strength of the babylonians that they made even this strident form of complant into a caricature, a picturesque element.(

[chlamor]

the chlamor posts are very eighties, very wooly and outraged.

(such is the strength of the babylonians that they made even this strident form of complant into a caricature, a picturesque element.(

Ew kool your post is just so post-modern 21st century maudlin well, like nothingness trapped inside this forbidden in-sight that is forever kept under the silken in-raged being of acceptance.

Did you mean wooly mammoth- wooly caterpillar or just a reference to wool clothing?