Reprise: In light of "The Dem Left as Bad as Far Right"

[KoKo]

Hat Tip to DU'er QC..from DU archives...

Given all the talk by our Dems about the "Far Left Dems" being as bad for our party as "Far Right" for the Republicans. Here's the truth: "The Dirty Fucking Hippies" were the canary in the coal mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

[baldguy]

1. big k&r

[wyldwolf]

2. the violent tactics and extremist rhetoric of the 60s New Left...

... alienated far more people than it seduced. And while the descendants of the New Left, today's "progressive" movement, have mostly abandoned the violent tactics, the extremist rhetoric is still common.

It was never the message - it was the vehicles used to get the message out.

[baldguy]

3. "Extremist rhetoric"? Such as?

Peace? Economic & social justice? People who work hard & play by the rules should get ahead? Those that take more should pay more? Corporations need to be regulated?

Like that "extremist rhetoric"?

And I don't hear anyone on the left advocating violence - even rhetorically. OTOH violence against their foes is a central theme of all RW thought & action.

[PassingFair]

4. Such as ..."Cut out the insurance companies".

Such as "Affordable secondary education".

Such as "Separation of church and state".

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

5. Were you paying attention?

First, reread my post.

THEN tell me with a straight face you don't think there were violent tactics and extremist rhetoric with the New Left in the 60s.

THEN explain to me how you believe the modern "progressive" movement's constant profanity-laced diatribes and conspiracy theories is SUCH a turn on to the American public. That's why so many of them get elected. :sarcasm:

[PassingFair]

6. Show me Feingold's or Schawkowsky's ....

"profanity-laced diatribes".

A couple of f-bombs on a message board
does not sum up a "movement".

There are more Congressmen in the
Progressive Caucus than in the
Blue Dogs or New Dems.

It is only by joining forces that
the dogs and the DLC stymie progressive
legislation.

[wyldwolf]

9. Feingold and Schawkowsky are hardly the left - I'm referring to the "progressive" movement

I can rattle of a whole list of examples the nut cases on the left like KOS and the bunch.

[PassingFair]

11. Is there anyone who meets YOUR definition of "left"

...in any elected position?

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

Here are the SELF DECLARED PROGRESSIVES
in the House:

Caucus Member List
Friday February 20, 2009
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)


Calling people on message boards who
don't agree with you "progressive"
as a slur doesn't fly.

On edit: Here's a link to the LOONEY "Progressive Movement" of Russ Feingold.

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/suggest-a-candidate/index.html

[wyldwolf]

12. not much, no.

being elected means compromise. The left is hardly known for their willingness to do that.

Oh, I can use "progressive" in any way I please. :) Thanks.

[PassingFair]

14. "Oh, I can use "progressive" in any way I please."

And you NEVER have to define your terms...

How LOVELY for you!

:)

[Ignis]

42. So you won't mind if we use the word "Fascist," then?

After all, this is Bizarro World, where we all get to make up our own definitions for words as we see fit! Yay!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

8. So, b/c a small handful of college dropouts did some stupid things 40 yrs ago

Means that TODAY we should ostracize & exclude millions of people of all stripes who are thoughtful & caring & see that America needs to change drastically to survive? Why? Simply because you're afraid of what the truly violent & dangerous people on the right will do.

As long as you fear them, they win. That's what they count on - your fear.

The Left has been in the wilderness for far too long - the obvious suffering we're all experiencing now is proof of that.

[PassingFair]

13. "New Dem" boogie-man....

Because I know SO many "radicals".

:crazy:

[baldguy]

15. Straw-man, you mean.

[Warpy]

16. 99% of that violence was newspaper hype

and a combination of false flag stuff with total fabrication. I can remember reading about peaceful demonstrations and wondering what part of them involved throwing bags of urine at the police because nobody I saw was doing anything but listening to the speeches and I had a damned good view of the crowd.

Yes, the Weather Underground was out there, but pretty much despised as being totally counterproductive.

The far left wasn't extremist or violent.

However, the police were.

[PassingFair]

17. We want to cut the PROFIT out of necessary human services...

...and not attack people to
steal their resources......
so we are Molotovs.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

19. You just contradicted yourself

"and not attack people to steal their resources"

[zbdent]

7. and how much of the so-called tactics of the 60s new left

were actually the actions of the 60s new left, and not the infiltrators?

[wyldwolf]

10. good example of the paranoia so prevalant in the movement

[baldguy]

18. You're kidding, I hope.

B/C if you're not it displays a vast ignorance on your part.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1049.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/090700-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[PassingFair]

20. Don't bother....

He talks about "descendants of the New Left" operating
today, but can't FIND ONE.

The closest thing I can think of are
the ladies of Code Pink.

Women who dress in pink.

:eyes:

I've never
seen one toting a gun or burning a flag....

[JHB]

22. Define your terms, or we just get these circular arguments

Not just you, wyldwolf, but everyone in this discussion.

The notion of constitutes "the left" and/or "the far left" varies from person to person, partly because of a lack of unifying organization, partly due to the rightward shift in the terms of discussion over the past three decades, and partly because many (perhaps most) people tend to regard their own views as "reasonable and moderate" and it's all those others wha are the "loonies", the "fringe", the "radicals", etc. Not to mention an entire generation growing up over the span we're talking about.

Take the time to explain your view to those who obviously are seeing thigs from a different pespective: What rhetoric and tactics? Which people?

My own observation is that the late 70's and 80's, lierals and the left lost big in places where they caricatured the opposition and fought against that caricature (rather than the more nuanced reality), alienating people that with a little more work could be allies. That's certainly what's happening to the RWingnuts now. So let's not lose the moment by caricaturing each other (especialy let's not do so accidentally).

Define your terms and be clear. It's the best defense against the circular firing squad.

[PassingFair]

23. He can't define 'em...but he knows "the descendants of the New Left" when he sees 'em...

:rofl:

[JHB]

30. Why don't you leave others to define what they're talking about...

...and how about you define what you're talking about when you think your subject line rates a "rofl", eh?

What do you think is wrong with what was said? Do you want to work together to actually get some change? or just sit back and take potshots.

Communicate!

[PassingFair]

34. Because I can't stand the CRICKETS.

He's against lefties, liberals, radicals
and the "progressive movement", but he
can't or won't cite examples or name
ANYONE who falls under his usage of the
terms.

Laughter is the rational response.

[Zodiak]

36. Personally I think the behavior is attention-seeking

Why else would someone come to a board full of progressives and spend all of their time antagonizing them?

We have a few like that. Not just this one.

[PassingFair]

37. Who knows?

smooch to you...

Haven't seen you in a while!

:hi:

[Zodiak]

44. Thanks, and back at ya

I am always around, but I do not always post. Not until I have something to say.

[EFerrari]

31. That's funny. Every phrase. LOL!

[Forkboy]

38. Oy vey.

:eyes:

Scotty, beam him up.

[dionysus]

39. come on, that ridiculous. you think the weather underground types define the left? that's hogwash.

[tomp]

48. to be fair, they were part of the "far" or "radical" or "extreme" left...

...of the sixties. so were communist/socialist groups which grew out of sds and such.

i won't defend the violent tactics of, say, the weather underground, but the declaration of independence justifies the use of violence against an oppressive govt. in fact, one could say opposition to violence at that level is unamerican.

the problem is the conflation of everything left of center with the "extreme". by order of magnitude there are so many more people promoting resaonable, leftward solutions to problems than are promoting violent revolution, and the peaceful are being tarred with the broad brush of "far" or "radical" or "extreme".

[nichomachus]

21. If you weren't involved in the '60s movements, you should keep quiet

Most of the stuff you read about the '60s is pure corporatist propaganda. I watched a piece on the History Channel a few months ago and it had me questioning my own sanity. The '60s they presented was a gross distortion of what I remember -- and I didn't do drugs.

They portrayed Charles Manson as some leader of the Hippie Movement and the inevitable result of counterculture behavior.

What was interesting was that every commentator they had on was from some right-wing think tank.

I was at numerous demonstrations involving tens of thousands of people and the dominant theme was non-violence. In fact, we policed our own people to make sure none were involved in any provocative behavior. The hardest ones to control were the infiltrators from the police who were the ones trying to incite violence. They tried to "fit in," but they just couldn't pull it off. You could spot the cops and the narcs a mile away.

[annabanana]

25. Thank you nicho..

There is so much misinformation about those years that passes for conventional wisdom. When the spirit was smushed out of the movement, the "me decade" gang started the big rewrite...

[KoKo]

35. Agree...the distortions about 60's early 70's are coporatis propaganda..

Totally designed to remake the movement into something extremist. Thanks for posting that.

[xchrom]

24. the bizarre and wyld cultural attack on the imagined

horrors of 60s radicals goes on unabated in both republick party circles and democratic party circles i see.

60s radicals -- young people who didn't want to die in a meaningless war.

people who wanted free speech

people who wanted civil rights for for people of colour, women etc.

those scary radicals.



:eyes:

[annabanana]

26. 100% correct.. so

"BOO" to you conventional wisdom warriors from an unrepentant hippie...

[xchrom]

27. everyone should go spend time at the viet nam war memorial

if they want to get at the gestault of much of the 60s.

[KoKo]

46. What a sad place that is... the names...so many names...and

I wonder when we will have to commission a memorial to Iraq/Afghanistan...and if they will be separate or combined Memorials? What Architect from Harvard or Yale will get this new commission to commerorate America's next DARK WARS....this one with TORTURE. :-( Many of us never thought we'd live to see another memorial dedicated to our Wars of Empire...ever again.

[baldguy]

33. Anyone awake & paying attention would know that "conventional wisdom" is wrong 90% of the time.

Most people prefer to be asleep.

[EFerrari]

32. My brother and I used to go with Mom to big actions and set fire to

candles.

lol

[Echo In Light]

28. K&R (Read Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 1964)

[KoKo]

45. Thanks...I'll look that one up...

interesting title...

[KoKo]

47. From Wiki.."One Dimensional Man"...a snip:

One-Dimensional Man is a work by Herbert Marcuse, first published in 1964.

One-Dimensional Man offers the reader a wide-ranging critique of both contemporary capitalism and the Soviet model of communism, documenting the parallel rise of new forms of social repression (both public and personal) in both these societies as well as the decline of revolutionary potential in the West. He argued that "advanced industrial society" created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought. This results in a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behaviour in which aptitude and ability for critical thought and oppositional behaviour wither away. Against this prevailing climate, Marcuse promotes the "great refusal" (described at length in the book) as the only adequate opposition to all-encompassing methods of control. Much of the book is a defense of "negative thinking" as a disrupting force against the prevailing positivism.

Marcuse also analyzed the integration of the industrial working class into capitalist society and new forms of capitalist stabilization, thus questioning the Marxian postulates of the revolutionary proletariat and inevitability of capitalist crisis. In contrast to orthodox Marxism, Marcuse championed non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia, attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition. He considered the trends towards bureaucracy in supposedly-Marxist countries to be as oppositional to freedom as those in the Capitalist west. Considered by some to be the most subversive book of the twentieth century, it was severely criticized by both orthodox Marxists and academic theorists of various political and theoretical commitments. Despite its pessimism, it influenced many in the New Left as it articulated their growing dissatisfaction with both capitalist societies and Soviet communist societies.

In this work Marcuse describes the idea of repressive desublimation.<1>
Consumerism as a form of social control

Herbert Marcuse strongly criticizes consumerism, arguing consumerism is a form of social control. He suggests that the system we live in may claim to be democratic, but it is actually authoritarian in that the few individuals are dictating our perceptions of freedom by only allowing us choices to buy for happiness.<2> It is in this state of “unfreedom”<3> in which consumers act irrationally by working more than they are required to fulfill actual basic needs, ignoring the psychologically destructive effects, ignoring the waste and environmental damage it causes, and also by searching for social connection through material items. <4>

It is even more irrational in the sense that the creation of new products, calling for the disposal of old products, fuels the economy and encourages the increased need to work more to buy more. An individual loses his or her humanity and becomes a tool to the industrial machine and a cog in the consumer machine. Additionally advertising sustains consumerism, which disintegrates societal demeanor, delivered in bulk and informing the masses that happiness can be bought, an idea that is psychologically damaging.

There are other alternatives to counter the consumer lifestyle. Anti-consumerism: a lifestyle that demotes any unnecessary consumption, and with that, demotes unnecessary extra work, extra waste, etc. But even this alternative is complicated with the extreme penetration of advertising and commodification because everything is a commodity even the things that are actual needs.

More at........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

[EOTE]

29. Damn that's good. K&R.

The only way the far left could be as bad as the far right would be if being left is a bad thing. This country has been taken to the far right time and again and it's always proved to be disastrous. Nothing but good can come from moving this country to the left, and the more far left people who are out there, the easier that will be.

[G_j]

43. right on!

:applause: